Why a Minor Victim’s Credible Statement Can Sustain a Conviction

Can a person accused of trafficking and sexually exploiting a minor escape criminal liability merely because the victim's statements contain minor inconsistencies? Should a child who has experienced trafficking and sexual exploitation be treated as an accomplice simply because the prosecution relies heavily on her testimony?

The Supreme Court of India has addressed these important questions in K.P. Kirankumar @ Kiran v. State by Peenya Police, SLP (Criminal) No. 11287 of 2025, decided on 19 December 2025.

In this reportable judgment, the Supreme Court upheld the convictions and sentences of the accused in a case involving the trafficking of a minor girl and her commercial sexual exploitation. The Court emphasised that the testimony of a minor victim of sex trafficking must be evaluated with sensitivity and realism, keeping in mind the victim's vulnerability and the complex manner in which trafficking networks operate.

I. Trafficked Minor Is Not an Accomplice?

One of the most important observations in the judgment concerns the legal status of a minor victim of sex trafficking.

An accomplice is generally a person who participates in the commission of an offence and whose evidence may require special caution under the law of evidence.

A trafficked child, however, is a victim of exploitation. The fact that the child has been placed in a situation involving commercial sexual activity does not make the child a participant in the criminal enterprise.

The Supreme Court clarified that a minor victim of sex trafficking is not to be treated as an accomplice. Her testimony should instead be given due consideration as that of an injured witness.

An injured witness is a person who has suffered harm in connection with the incident under investigation. Courts may attach particular importance to such testimony because the witness has personally experienced the events in question, although the reliability of the evidence must still be assessed.

This distinction matters because treating a trafficked child as an accomplice may unfairly undermine the credibility of the very person whom the criminal law seeks to protect.

II. Can a Minor Victim’s Testimony Alone Be Enough to Convict an Accused?

Yes. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that a conviction may be based solely on the testimony of a minor victim of sex trafficking if the evidence is credible, convincing and inspires confidence in the court.

Independent corroboration means additional evidence that supports a witness's account, such as testimony from another witness, documentary records or physical evidence.

Although corroborating evidence can strengthen a prosecution case, the law does not impose an inflexible requirement that every credible victim's statement must be independently corroborated in every case.

The court must examine the testimony carefully, considering the surrounding circumstances and the reliability of the account.

For example, if a minor gives a consistent and credible account of being confined and sexually exploited, the absence of another eyewitness to every incident does not automatically require the court to reject her testimony.

III. Why Should Courts Not Reject a Victim’s Testimony Because of Minor Contradictions?

Witnesses do not always remember every detail of an incident in exactly the same way. This is particularly relevant where the events involve fear, coercion, trauma or sexual exploitation.

A contradiction is a difference between two accounts of an event. Some contradictions may be significant, while others concern incidental details that do not undermine the central allegation.

The Supreme Court explained that courts must distinguish between material contradictions and minor discrepancies.

In this case, the defence pointed to differences in the victim's description of the rented premises and the details of her earlier statement concerning the sexual exploitation.

The Court found that these discrepancies were minor and did not undermine the essential parts of her account. Her testimony was substantially supported by the other evidence.

The Court also recognised that a victim of trafficking may face difficulties in accurately explaining the different stages of the exploitation, particularly where different individuals are involved in recruiting, transporting, harbouring and exploiting the child.

Several statutory provisions may apply to cases involving the trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation of children. The precise provisions depend on the nature of the alleged conduct and the date of the offence.

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860

The prosecution in this case relied on provisions including Sections 366A and 373 of the IPC, along with Section 34.

Section 366A dealt with procuration of a minor girl for specified unlawful purposes. Section 373 dealt with buying a minor for purposes of prostitution and related exploitation. Section 34 addressed acts done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention.

For offences committed under the newer criminal law framework, corresponding provisions may be found in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including provisions dealing with trafficking, exploitation and common intention. The applicable law must be determined according to the date of the offence and the relevant transitional provisions.

2. Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956

The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (ITPA), addresses commercial sexual exploitation and related activities.

In this case, the prosecution relied on Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6, concerning matters such as keeping or managing premises used as a brothel, living on the earnings of prostitution, procuring or inducing a person for prostitution, and detaining a person in premises where prostitution is carried on.

3. Juvenile justice legislation and determination of age

The victim's age was a significant issue in the case because her minority was relevant to the offences alleged.

The Court considered the school record showing her date of birth and relied on the principles laid down in Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 263, concerning determination of a child's age.

V. What Should You Do if You Suspect Child Trafficking or Sexual Exploitation?

If you suspect that a child is being trafficked, confined or sexually exploited, prompt reporting can help protect the child and enable the authorities to investigate.

The following steps may be appropriate:

  1. Contact the police or emergency services. If a child is in immediate danger, seek urgent assistance from the authorities.
  2. Report the suspected exploitation. Information may be provided to the police or appropriate child-protection authorities.
  3. Preserve available information lawfully. Relevant messages, locations, contact details or other information may assist investigators. Do not place yourself or the child at additional risk.
  4. Protect the child's identity and privacy. Avoid circulating identifying photographs, videos, personal details or allegations on social media.
  5. Seek appropriate legal assistance. A lawyer can help explain the applicable criminal provisions, reporting process and legal safeguards.

In India, the Child Helpline can be reached at 1098. In an emergency, contact 112.

The safety, dignity and privacy of the child should remain the priority throughout the process.

Need legal assistance?

If you are dealing with a criminal case involving child trafficking, sexual exploitation, unlawful confinement or related offences, obtaining case-specific legal guidance can help you understand the applicable law and available remedies.

NyayNiti provides legal assistance in criminal law and related litigation. Contact NyayNiti to discuss your legal concerns and understand the appropriate options available in your circumstances.

Disclaimer: This article is intended for general legal information and public awareness and does not constitute legal advice for a specific case. The applicable law and available remedies depend on the facts and procedural history. This article discusses the Supreme Court judgment in K.P. Kirankumar @ Kiran v. State by Peenya Police, 2025 INSC 1473, decided on 19 December 2025.