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 raidAccording 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 adAlso Read | Court restores girl’s custody to mother, says child’s welfare outweighs ‘marital rape’ claimThe 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.Also Read | Upholding son’s eviction from home, court says 93-year-old mother must live in peaceThe 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 adSerious offence against humanity: CourtIt 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 orderThe 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.