Answer

Introduction

Child trafficking in India is a grave constitutional violation that thrives within a ‘layered organized crime’ network. Despite the presence of stringent laws like the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act (ITPA), the conviction rate remains abysmal (under 5% in many states) due to the systemic erosion of victim testimony during trials.

Body

Child Trafficking as a ‘Layered Organized Crime’

• Fragmented Operational Verticals: Trafficking involves independent “cells” responsible for recruitment, transportation, and harboring, which rarely communicate with one another.
• Subterfuge and Deception: Crimes are often camouflaged under the guise of legitimate activities such as education, “better employment,” or even inter-country adoptions.
• Transnational and Inter-state Linkages: The crime crosses state borders through complex transit routes, making investigation legally and logistically difficult for local police.
• Sophisticated Digital Footprint: Modern traffickers use encrypted social media and the dark web to share victim data, making traditional monitoring ineffective.
  Eg: The Supreme Court in late 2025 noted that kidnapping rackets now use advanced technology to “hoodwink” innocent victims and avoid police surveillance.

‘Injured Witness’ Status: Addressing Evidentiary Challenges

In the landmark December 2025 judgment (K.P. Kirankumar v. State), the Supreme Court directed that minor victims be treated as “injured witnesses.” This shift addresses several evidentiary hurdles:

• Refuting the ‘Accomplice’ Tag: Victims were often treated as participants in the crime (accomplices), requiring independent corroboration for their testimony to be valid
• Latitude for Minor Inconsistencies: Courts often dismissed cases due to small contradictions in a child’s story, which are natural results of trauma.
  Eg: The directive ensures that testimony cannot be rejected solely because a child fails to narrate the “layered interplay” of the crime with precision.
• Presumption of Credibility: Granting victims “injured witness” status gives their testimony equal evidentiary weight to assault victims.
• Recognizing Socio-Economic Vulnerability: The court required a realistic assessment of evidence, recognizing victims may delay protest due to fear.
  Eg: Reluctance or late reporting is no longer a ground for disbelieving a victim’s version of events.
• Mitigating Secondary Victimization: The directive discourages insensitive cross-examination that often leads victims to turn hostile during the trial.
  Eg: Lower courts are now instructed to avoid “prejudicial assumptions” based on a child’s lack of immediate outcry against the trafficker.
• Addressing Memory Erasure (Trauma): The status recognizes dissociative amnesia, allowing courts to accept fragmented narratives instead of strict timelines.
  Eg: This ensures that “subterfuge and deception” used by cartels to confuse victims do not lead to the acquittal of the accused.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s directive is a paradigm shift from “procedural rigidity” to “victim-centric realism.” By shielding child witnesses from being discredited over technicalities, the judiciary has provided the necessary “teeth” to anti-trafficking units. To truly end exploitation, this legal shield must be complemented by the passage of a comprehensive Anti-Trafficking Bill and robust rehabilitation mechanisms.

DOWNLOAD PDF