Lack of Consistent Testimony Leads to Acquittal in Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation Charges
In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court has acquitted Sandeep Bedwal and another accused in a high-profile trafficking and sexual exploitation case, citing unreliable testimony and lack of corroborative evidence. The case, which had drawn considerable attention due to the serious nature of the allegations, was decided by Justice Ms. Chandrasekharan Sudha on March 24, 2026.
The appellants were charged with multiple offenses under the Indian Penal Code and the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, including kidnapping, human trafficking, and rape. The trial court had previously convicted them based primarily on the testimony of the prosecutrix, a minor girl who alleged she had been trafficked and subjected to sexual exploitation over several years.
The High Court's decision underscored the necessity for testimony to be of "sterling quality" when used as the sole basis for conviction. The judgment noted significant inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's accounts, which varied across her FIR, Section 164 statement, and court deposition. These discrepancies included the year of the alleged incidents and the roles of various individuals purportedly involved in the trafficking chain.
Justice Sudha emphasized that the testimony contained material contradictions and improvements that compromised its reliability. The judgment also highlighted the prosecutrix's conduct of lodging multiple FIRs with similar allegations against different individuals, further casting doubt on her credibility. The court found that the absence of independent corroboration made it unsafe to convict the appellants solely on her testimony.
The judgment also criticized the investigation for failing to trace key individuals allegedly involved in the trafficking. Additionally, procedural lapses during trial, including the incorrect application of Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, were noted.
In conclusion, the Delhi High Court set aside the conviction and sentences, acquitting the appellants and ordering their release. The decision serves as a reminder of the high evidentiary standards required in criminal cases involving serious charges such as trafficking and sexual exploitation.
Bottom Line:
Conviction based solely on testimony of prosecutrix requires the testimony to be of sterling quality and free from material contradictions, inconsistencies, and improvements. Benefit of doubt must be given in case of unreliable testimony and lack of independent corroboration.
Statutory provision(s):
- Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 363, 366, 366A, 370, 372, 376, 120B
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 154
- Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 31, 232, 235, 374, 391
Sandeep Bedwal v. State, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2871112
