‘Contradictions, improvements and inconsistencies’: Delhi High Court punches holes in prosecution case, acquits Sonu Punjaban in minor girl’s trafficking case

Highlighting that the entire prosecution case rested primarily on the testimony of the girl, the court added that her version keeps changing with every statement recorded during the course of the inquiry/investigation and trial of the case.

The entire prosecution case rests substantially on the testimony of the minor, Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha noted.

Casting question on the multiple FIR’s filed by the girl, the order noted that the girl has no such case that she is unable to recall the details because of the traumatic experience.

Discrepancy, inconsistency in prosecution’s story

• The entire prosecution case rests substantially on the testimony of the minor.
• It is a settled position of law that conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if it is found to be of sterling quality and inspires confidence in the mind of the court.
• However, where such testimony suffers from material contradictions, inconsistencies, and improvements, the court is duty-bound to seek corroboration before sustaining a conviction.
• A comparative analysis of the versions of minor and her deposition before the trial court reveals material inconsistencies that go to the root of the prosecution’s case.
• In her FIS/FIR as well as in her statement under Section 164 CrPC, the girl stated that the incident occurred in the year 2006.

• In her deposition before the court, she asserted that the incident took place in the year 2009 and sought to explain the earlier version as a mistake.
• The trial court accepted the argument of the prosecution that the same is only a minor contradiction, which has been explained by the minor in her subsequent statement.
• The discrepancy regarding the year of the incident is not a minor inconsistency but relates to the very genesis of the prosecution case.
• The deposition of the survivor also contains several material improvements, which were not part of her earlier statements, including the administration of intoxicating substances in the manner described, the circumstances leading to her loss of consciousness, and the specific acts of cruelty.
• These improvements are not minor embellishments but introduce entirely new facets to the prosecution story.
• Now, even assuming for a moment that the year referred to in the FIS/ FIR as 2006 was a genuine mistake and that the actual year was 2009, still, the same does not improve the prosecution’s case.

‘Serious doubt on her credibility’

• The conduct of the victim, as brought on record, further creates serious doubt regarding her credibility.
• A cumulative reading of the FIRs shows that  she has, at different points in time, made allegations of a similar nature against different individuals, each time asserting that she was lured, intoxicated, and sexually exploited.
• The fact that in one of the FIRs she subsequently resiled from her allegations and in another she even used a different name casts a serious doubt on the consistency and reliability of her version.
• The pattern emerging from the FIR series thus indicates repeated allegations of a similar nature against different persons, coupled with subsequent retraction in at least one case and inconsistency in identity in another.
• Such conduct casts a serious shadow on the reliability of the victim and disentitles her from being treated as a witness of sterling quality.

Case of Sonu Punjaban

• The case arose from allegations that a minor girl was kidnapped in 2009, trafficked across multiple locations, and accross multiple locations, and forced into prostitution by a network of individuals.
• The girls were eventually being sold to the petitioners.
  The trial court had convicted the accused under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, and awarded a sentence of up to 24 years’ rigorous imprisonment.
• The petitioners, Geeta Arora aka Sonu Punjaban are moved to high court against the conviction.

‘Deeply troubling case’

Arora’s counsel, senior advocate Vikas Pahwa, said that the judgment had brought to light a “deeply troubling” case of false implication built on an unreliable and inconsistent prosecution narrative.

“The case was founded on allegations made by the prosecutrix, who claimed to be a minor and levelled sweeping accusations of immoral trafficking against multiple individuals over an extended and undefined period of time. However, the prosecution failed to provide any specific or consistent timelines, dates, or particulars of the alleged offences,” he added.

According to Pahwa, the court took note of the “improbability” in the prosecution’s case, reflecting that the alleged incidents had occurred when Arora was in judicial custody.

“This alone strikes at the root of the allegations. The prosecutrix’s conduct further eroded the credibility of the case. After initially making allegations, she remained untraceable for a considerable period and later resurfaced to make multiple statements.”