Court says traumatised minors ‘may not testify’, confirms brothel owner’s jail term

5 min readNew DelhiJul 6, 2026 05:00 PM IST

The Bombay High Court noted that traffickers often resort to kidnapping, abduction, confinement, threats, etc, and said trafficking is ‘more heinous’ when the victims are minors. (AI-generated image)

The Bombay High Court recently upheld the conviction of a 42-year-old woman accused of running a brothel from which two minor girls were rescued during a police raid in 1996, observing that rescued victims, especially minors, are often traumatised and may not be in a position to give clear statements. The judge also noted that fear for their own safety and that of their families often prevents them from approaching the police or testifying in court.

Justice M M Sathaye was hearing a criminal revision application filed by the woman challenging the orders of the trial court and the appellate court, which had sentenced her to two years’ imprisonment and a fine of Rs 3,000 under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (PITA).

“Often, the victims who are rescued are suffering from trauma and are not in a position to give clear statements. For obvious reasons, as the victims fear for their own lives and the lives of their near-ones, they are not willing to give statements to the police, much less stand in court for that,” the July 3 order read.

While discussing the nature of human trafficking offences, the high court noted that traffickers often resort to “kidnapping, abduction, confinement, threats and other forms of inhuman treatment” and observed that trafficking becomes even “worse and more heinous” when the victims are minors.

1996 raid

According to the prosecution, the police received information about a brothel being operated out of a building and conducted a raid. During the searches, two minor girls were allegedly found in a room with the accused woman.

Justice M M Sathaye said the guilt of the accused was proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The girls were rescued, the woman was arrested and following an investigation, a chargesheet was filed. The prosecution claimed that the building was being used for prostitution and that the minor girls found there had been subjected to cruelty.

The accused, however, pleaded not guilty and denied all the allegations levelled in the chargesheet. The juvenile board later sent the girls to their native places, and by the time the trial was underway, they were not traceable for examination before the court.

Story continues below this ad

The trial court, in its January 2003 order, only found the woman guilty of an offence punishable under section 6 (detention of person in brothel) of PITA. Subsequently, the accused filed an appeal challenging the trial court’s order. However, in April 2003, the appellate court upheld both the conviction and the sentence.

Statements ‘deliberately not recorded’

Appearing for the applicant, advocate Himanshu Indise argued that the statements of the minor girls were deliberately not recorded as it would have otherwise revealed the truth. It was claimed that the allegations levelled against his client, including that she was running a brother, were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The counsel said the prosecution had failed to explain the reason for the delay in filing the FIR.

‘Woman owns building’

Assistant public prosecutor Manisha R argued that the accused is the owner of the raided building where the girls were found. The court had rightly considered that since the minors were sent to their native places by the juvenile board, their statements could not be recorded, and they could not be examined in court, it was stated.

The counsel submitted that the offence was a very serious one and a concurrent finding of conviction and sentence requires no interference by this court.

Story continues below this ad

Serious offence against humanity: Court

It was observed by the court that the offence under PITA is a very serious one that is against humanity and society at large.

The high court held that the guilt of the accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The court clarified that such cases depend more on prosecution witnesses, such as police officers, and ‘minor contradictions’ in the evidence placed on record by prosecution witnesses cannot be held as fatal to its case.

Final order

The high court said that considering the facts and circumstances, there was no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the other courts. Finding no merit in the revision plea, it dismissed the application and cancelled the woman’s bail bonds and sureties, if any.

© IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd

Richa Sahay is a Legal Correspondent for The Indian Express, where she focuses on simplifying the complexities of the Indian judicial system. A law postgraduate, she leverages her advanced legal education to bridge the gap between technical court rulings and public understanding, ensuring that readers stay informed about the rapidly evolving legal landscape.

Expertise

Advanced Legal Education: As a law postgraduate, Richa possesses the academic depth required to interpret intricate statutes and constitutional nuances. Her background allows her to provide more than just summaries; she offers context-driven analysis of how legal changes impact the average citizen.

Specialized Beat: She operates at the intersection of law and public policy, focusing on:

Judicial Updates: Providing timely reports on orders from the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts.

Legal Simplification: Translating dense "legalese" into accessible, engaging narratives without sacrificing factual accuracy.

Legislative Changes: Monitoring new bills, amendments, and regulatory shifts that shape Indian society. ... Read More

Tags:

Bombay High Court

brothel

Immoral Trafficking