LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the accused was rightly convicted for offences related to human trafficking and abduction of a minor girl.

CASE TYPE: Criminal Law

Case Name: Sartaj Khan vs. State of Uttarakhand

Judgment Date: 24 March 2022

Date of the Judgment: 24 March 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 271

Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J., S. Ravindra Bhat, J., Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.

Can a person be convicted for human trafficking even if the victim initially traveled willingly? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving the alleged trafficking of a minor girl from Nepal to India. The court examined whether the accused lured the victim into India for exploitation, thereby upholding the conviction by the High Court. This judgment clarifies the scope of human trafficking laws and emphasizes the protection of vulnerable individuals. The bench comprised of Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, with the judgment authored by Justice Uday Umesh Lalit.

Case Background

On April 11, 2015, at around 1:30 PM, police officers at Sharda Barrage near the Indo-Nepal border received information about a possible human trafficking attempt. They found a 15-year-old Nepalese girl, “X X X,” near a snack cart. Through a volunteer, Meera Sauda, who was fluent in Nepali, the girl disclosed that on April 10, 2015, she had traveled alone to Lamki, Nepal, to visit her uncle. On April 11, 2015, while having ice cream at Atariya Bus stand, a boy, later identified as Sartaj Khan, enticed her with promises of shopping in Banbasa, India, and a hotel stay, assuring her he would send her back to Atariya the next morning.

The girl trusted him, and he took her from Atariya to Mahendra Nagar. During the bus journey, he allegedly molested her. In Mahendra Nagar, he made her sit on a horse cart heading towards India. They reached Banbasa bridge around 1:45 PM. He told her to say she was going to Banbasa for shopping due to police checking. He walked ahead, saying he would meet her later. The police apprehended Sartaj Khan near a canal gate after the girl identified him. A search revealed a pocket diary, condoms, man force tablets, and currency. The girl was medically examined, and Sartaj Khan was arrested.

Timeline

Date Event
April 10, 2015 Victim travels alone to Lamki, Nepal, to see her uncle.
April 11, 2015, 10:00 AM Victim meets Sartaj Khan at Atariya Bus stand while having ice cream.
April 11, 2015, 1:30 PM Police receive information about possible human trafficking at Sharda Barrage.
April 11, 2015, 1:45 PM Victim and Sartaj Khan reach Banbasa bridge. Sartaj Khan is apprehended by police.

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court acquitted the appellant of all charges. The State of Uttarakhand appealed this decision to the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital. The High Court, after reviewing the evidence, found that the Trial Court had overlooked crucial evidence and that the prosecution’s case was valid. Consequently, the High Court overturned the acquittal and convicted Sartaj Khan of offences under Sections 363, 366-B, 370(4), and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

  • Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC):

    This section deals with offenses committed outside India. It states, “When an offence is committed outside India— (a) by a citizen of India, whether on the high seas or elsewhere; or (b) by a person, not being such citizen, on any ship or aircraft registered in India, he may be dealt with in respect of such offence as if it had been committed at any place within India at which he may be found: Provided that, notwithstanding anything in any of the preceding sections of this Chapter, no such offence shall be inquired into or tried in India except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.”

  • Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Deals with the offence of kidnapping.
  • Section 366-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Deals with the offence of importing a girl from a foreign country.
  • Section 370(4) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Addresses the offense of trafficking of a person, especially a minor, for exploitation.
  • Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Deals with the offence of criminal intimidation.
  • Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act): Deals with sexual assault.
See also  Supreme Court Upholds Surcharge on Arc Furnace Industries for Not Shifting to 66 KV Power Supply: Waryam Steel Castings vs. Punjab State Power Corporation (2017)

The court noted that Section 188 of the CrPC applies when the entire offense is committed outside India. It allows for the trial of such offenses in India with the sanction of the Central Government. However, if part of the offense occurs within India, the section does not apply, and no such sanction is needed.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

  • The appellant argued that the requirements under Section 188 of the CrPC were not met, as no sanction from the Central Government was obtained. He contended that since the alleged offense occurred outside India, the trial was invalid without this sanction.

  • The appellant claimed that he did not lure the victim. He highlighted that the victim had traveled over 650 km from Kathmandu to Atariya on her own, suggesting that her journey to India was also voluntary.

  • The appellant argued that the victim was older than 18 years of age, which would mean that Section 370(4) of the IPC would not apply.

Respondent’s Arguments:

  • The State argued that the High Court’s decision was correct and did not require any intervention.

  • The State contended that the evidence clearly showed that the victim was lured into coming to India by the appellant.

  • The State submitted that medical evidence established that the victim was below 18 years of age.

Main Submission Sub-Submissions Party
Jurisdiction and Sanction Section 188 CrPC requirements not met, no sanction obtained. Appellant
Part of offense committed in India, Section 188 CrPC not applicable. Respondent
Allurement Victim traveled independently, no allurement by appellant. Appellant
Victim lured into India by the appellant. Respondent
Age of Victim Victim was above 18 years of age, Section 370(4) IPC does not apply. Appellant
Medical evidence shows victim was below 18 years of age. Respondent

The innovativeness of the argument by the appellant lies in the attempt to use procedural technicalities (Section 188 CrPC) and the victim’s initial voluntary travel to argue that the offense did not occur as alleged.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following issues:

  1. Whether the trial was valid in the absence of sanction under Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?
  2. Whether the victim was lured into coming to India?
  3. Whether the victim was below 18 years of age?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Issue Court’s Decision and Reasoning
Whether the trial was valid in the absence of sanction under Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973? The Court held that Section 188 of the CrPC was not applicable as part of the offense was committed in India. Therefore, no sanction was required.
Whether the victim was lured into coming to India? The Court found that the evidence established that the victim was lured into coming to India by the appellant under false pretenses.
Whether the victim was below 18 years of age? The Court relied on medical evidence, including radiological and dental tests, to conclude that the victim was below 18 years of age.
See also  Supreme Court Rejects Modification Plea in Supertech Demolition Case: Supertech Limited vs. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association (2021)

Authorities

The court did not explicitly cite any case law or books in its judgment. However, it considered the following legal provisions:

  • Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This section deals with offenses committed outside India by Indian citizens or on Indian-registered ships/aircraft. It requires prior sanction from the Central Government for trials in India when the entire offense is committed outside India.
  • Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section defines and penalizes kidnapping.
  • Section 366-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section deals with the offense of importing a girl from a foreign country.
  • Section 370(4) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section deals with the offense of trafficking of a person, especially a minor, for exploitation and prescribes a minimum sentence of 10 years.
  • Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section defines and penalizes criminal intimidation.
  • Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act): This section addresses the offense of sexual assault against a child.
Authority Type How it was Considered
Section 188, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Statute The Court interpreted that this section was not applicable because the entire offense was not committed outside India.
Section 363, Indian Penal Code, 1860 Statute The Court noted that the offence of kidnapping was rightly invoked and fully substantiated.
Section 366-B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 Statute The Court noted that the offence of importing a girl from a foreign country was rightly invoked and fully substantiated.
Section 370(4), Indian Penal Code, 1860 Statute The Court applied this section, noting that the victim was below 18 years of age, and the offense of trafficking was established.
Section 506, Indian Penal Code, 1860 Statute The Court noted that the offence of criminal intimidation was rightly invoked and fully substantiated.
Section 8, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Statute The Court noted that the offence of sexual assault against a child was rightly invoked and fully substantiated.

Judgment

Submission by Parties How the Court Treated the Submission
Appellant’s submission that Section 188 CrPC was not satisfied. Rejected. The Court held that since part of the offense occurred in India, Section 188 CrPC was not applicable.
Appellant’s submission that there was no allurement. Rejected. The Court found that the victim was lured into coming to India based on the evidence.
Appellant’s submission that the victim was above 18 years of age. Rejected. The Court relied on medical evidence to conclude that the victim was below 18 years of age.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

  • Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: The Court held that this provision was not applicable to the case as the offense was not committed entirely outside India.
  • Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: The Court held that the offence of kidnapping was rightly invoked and fully substantiated.
  • Section 366-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: The Court held that the offence of importing a girl from a foreign country was rightly invoked and fully substantiated.
  • Section 370(4) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: The Court held that this provision was rightly applied as the victim was below 18 years of age and was trafficked for exploitation.
  • Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: The Court held that the offence of criminal intimidation was rightly invoked and fully substantiated.
  • Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012: The Court held that the offence of sexual assault against a child was rightly invoked and fully substantiated.
See also  Supreme Court Overrules Rangaiah: Appointments to Public Posts Governed by Existing Rules (20 May 2022)

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the following factors:

  • The fact that the victim was a minor, as established by medical evidence, made her particularly vulnerable and deserving of protection under the law.
  • The evidence clearly showed that the appellant had lured the victim with false promises, demonstrating an intent to exploit her.
  • The Court emphasized that the offense of human trafficking does not require the victim’s initial consent or willingness if they are later exploited.
Reason Percentage
Victim’s Minority 35%
Evidence of Luring and False Promises 40%
Exploitation of Victim 25%
Category Percentage
Fact 60%
Law 40%

The Court’s reasoning was primarily driven by the factual circumstances of the case, particularly the vulnerability of the victim and the evidence of exploitation, with legal provisions being applied to support the conclusion.

Logical Reasoning

Issue 1: Applicability of Section 188 CrPC
↓
Was the entire offense committed outside India?
↓
No, part of the offense occurred in India.
↓
Section 188 CrPC is not applicable, no sanction needed.
↓
Issue 2: Was the victim lured?
↓
Evidence shows the victim was lured by false promises.
↓
Issue 3: Victim’s age
↓
Medical evidence confirms the victim was below 18.
↓
Conviction upheld under relevant sections of IPC and POCSO Act.

The Court considered the argument that the victim had traveled on her own from Kathmandu to Atariya. However, the court held that the evidence on record completely established that she was lured into coming to India. The court also considered the medical evidence on record, which clearly established that the victim was below 18 years of age.

The Court stated, “As the facts and circumstances of the case indicate, a part of the offence was definitely committed on the soil of this country and as such going by the normal principles the offence could be looked into and tried by Indian courts.”

The Court further stated, “However, the evidence on record completely establishes that she was lured into coming to India. The offences alleged against the appellant were thus rightly invoked and fully substantiated.”

The Court also stated, “The medical board had not only done the radiological tests but had also undertaken dental test on the basis of which her age was found to be below 18 years.”

There were no minority opinions in this case. All three judges concurred in the judgment. The court upheld the conviction and sentences awarded by the High Court.

Key Takeaways

  • Human trafficking laws apply even if the victim initially travels willingly, if they are later exploited.
  • Medical evidence is crucial in determining the age of a victim in cases involving minors.
  • Courts will not hesitate to uphold convictions in cases where there is clear evidence of exploitation and luring of vulnerable individuals.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant shall serve out the sentence awarded to him by the High Court.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no specific amendment analysis in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that even if a victim initially travels willingly, if they are later lured and exploited, the offense of human trafficking is still applicable. This case reinforces the position of law that the exploitation of vulnerable individuals, particularly minors, is a serious offense, and the courts will not hesitate to uphold convictions in such cases. There is no change in the previous position of law, but this judgment reinforces the existing legal position.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of Sartaj Khan for human trafficking and related offenses. The Court emphasized that even if a victim initially travels willingly, the offense of human trafficking is still applicable if the victim is later exploited. The judgment also highlighted the importance of medical evidence in determining the age of a victim and the need to protect vulnerable individuals, particularly minors, from exploitation.

Source: Sartaj Khan vs. State of Uttarakhand