Judgment dated: 19 December 2025
Bench: Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment delivered on 19 December 2025, laid down important principles on how courts should evaluate the evidence of minor victims of child trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation. The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.
The Court emphasised that cases involving trafficked children require a sensitive and realistic judicial approach, and that justice cannot be denied by expecting “perfect” testimony from victims who have suffered severe trauma.
Background of the Case
The case arose from the rescue of a minor girl aged about 16 years and 6 months, who was found confined in a rented premises and forced into prostitution. Acting on information provided by NGO workers, the police conducted a raid, rescued the minor, and recovered incriminating material from the spot.
The prosecution relied mainly on the testimony of the minor victim, supported by NGO workers, police officials, independent witnesses, and documentary evidence. The Trial Court convicted the accused, and the High Court upheld the conviction. The accused then approached the Supreme Court.
Issue Before the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether minor inconsistencies and variations in the testimony of a trafficked child victim were sufficient to discredit her evidence and overturn the conviction.
Supreme Court’s Observations on Child Trafficking
The Supreme Court described child trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation as a deeply disturbing reality in India. The Court observed that such crimes:
Strike at the dignity and bodily integrity of children
Are often carried out by organised and layered criminal networks
Commonly target children from economically and socially vulnerable backgrounds
Because of these factors, the Court cautioned against a rigid or mechanical approach in evaluating the evidence of minor victims.
Guidelines on Evaluating Evidence of Minor Victims
The Supreme Court laid down the following guiding principles for courts dealing with evidence of minor victims of trafficking:
1. Socio-Economic Vulnerability Must Be Considered
Courts must keep in mind that minor victims often belong to marginalised or disadvantaged backgrounds, which makes them especially vulnerable to deception and exploitation.
2. Organised Nature of Trafficking Crimes
Trafficking operates through multiple layers of recruitment, transportation, harbouring, and exploitation. Because of this complex structure, a minor victim may not be able to narrate events with complete clarity or explain how different actors were connected.
Such lack of precision cannot be used to doubt the credibility of the victim.
3. Silence or Delay Is Not Unnatural
The Court clarified that a victim’s failure to immediately protest, resist, or report the offence is not unnatural. Fear, threats, intimidation, social stigma, and lack of rehabilitation often prevent victims from speaking out promptly.
4. Trauma and Secondary Victimisation
Recounting experiences of sexual exploitation is itself traumatic. This trauma is more severe for minors, who may also fear retaliation and social rejection. Courts must therefore assess such evidence with sensitivity and realism.
5. Minor Contradictions Are Not Fatal
The Supreme Court held that minor inconsistencies, such as variations in narration or description of places, do not weaken the prosecution case if the core version of the victim remains consistent and is supported by other evidence.
6. Sole Testimony Can Be Sufficient
If, after careful and sensitive evaluation, the testimony of the minor victim is found to be credible and convincing, a conviction can be sustained even on her sole testimony.
The Court clarified that a minor victim of trafficking is not an accomplice, but stands on the same footing as an injured witness, whose evidence deserves due weight.
Application of These Principles
Applying these principles to the facts of the case, the Supreme Court held that:
The testimony of the minor victim was credible and reliable
The contradictions highlighted by the defence were minor and inconsequential
The victim’s version was supported by other evidence on record
Accordingly, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the High Court and dismissed the appeal.
Significance of the Judgment
This judgment provides clear guidance to trial courts on how to approach cases involving child trafficking and sexual exploitation. It reinforces that justice in such cases requires an understanding of the real-life conditions under which trafficked children live and testify.
By emphasising sensitivity over technical rigidity, the Supreme Court has strengthened the protection available to child victims within the criminal justice system.
Source:
Supreme Court of India, K.P. Kirankumar @ Kiran v. State by Peenya Police,
Judgment dated 19 December 2025, Bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.
