Case Note & Summary
The case involves two appeals filed by Salauddin Abdul Wahid Khan and his wife Asma Salauddin Khan against their conviction under Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for human trafficking. The appellants were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, in Sessions Case No. 317 of 2014 and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, who were acquainted with the victim (Ms. X, PW2), proposed marriage to her, which was rejected by her mother. In February 2014, the appellants took the victim to Mumbai to attend a religious festival (Hajimalang Baba Urus). On 18th February 2014, appellant Salauddin was missing for the whole day, and on 19th February, he asked the victim to sit near a temple. The prosecution claimed that the appellants intended to traffic the victim for exploitation. The victim's testimony was the primary evidence. The court examined the evidence and found that the victim's testimony was inconsistent and lacked credibility. The victim did not raise an alarm or seek help despite being in public places. The court noted that the prosecution failed to prove that the victim was subjected to any form of exploitation, which is a necessary ingredient of trafficking under Section 370 IPC. The court held that the mere act of taking a person from one place to another, without evidence of exploitation, does not constitute trafficking. Consequently, the court allowed the appeals, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellants. The court directed that the appellants be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Human Trafficking - Section 370 Indian Penal Code - Ingredients of Trafficking - The court examined whether the prosecution had established the essential ingredients of trafficking, including recruitment, transportation, harbouring, or receipt of a person for the purpose of exploitation. The court held that mere taking of a person from one place to another without evidence of exploitation does not constitute trafficking. The prosecution must prove that the accused intended to exploit the victim. (Paras 1-10) B) Evidence Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Testimony of Victim - The court analyzed the testimony of the victim (PW2) and found it inconsistent and lacking in credibility. The victim's conduct of not raising an alarm or seeking help despite opportunities contradicted the allegation of trafficking. The court held that the uncorroborated testimony of the victim, which was full of contradictions, could not form the basis of conviction. (Paras 5-8) C) Criminal Law - Sentencing - Acquittal - The court, after finding the prosecution case not proved beyond reasonable doubt, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants. The appellants were acquitted of the charge under Section 370 IPC and ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction under Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code for human trafficking is sustainable when the prosecution fails to prove that the victim was subjected to exploitation.
Final Decision
Appeals allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellants acquitted of the charge under Section 370 IPC. They are to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Section 370 IPC requires proof of exploitation
- trafficking involves recruitment
- transportation
- transfer
- harbouring or receipt of persons for exploitation
- consent irrelevant if means used
- burden on prosecution to prove all ingredients
