Human Trafiking Rights

Sl no The rights The Reference
1. Right of a female victim not to be S.160 IPC

called to the Police Station after evening
2. Right of rape victims and child victims S.24 of the POCSO Act
of sexual abuse to be interviewed at a S.157 of the CrPC
place of her choice
3. Bail of accused should be after due Guria Vs State of Uttar
verification Pradesh, 2010 (2),
Bail should be denied to offenders Cri.L.J 1433
of ITPA offences against minors
4. Video conferencing allowed in trial so Praful Desai Vs UOI, 2003
that victim need not be called to Court 4 SCC 601
5. Provision of compensation even in the Delhi Domestic Working
absence of conviction Women’s Forum Vs UOI,
1995(1) SCC 14
6. Flawed investigation is no ground to Zahira Habibullah Vs State
deny justice to victim of Gujarat 2004(4) SCC 158
7. Non examination of victim is no State of Himachal Pradesh
ground for acquittal Vs Mohan Misra, 1995
CrLJ 3845
8. Character and antecedents of victim State of Haryana Vs
has no bearing or relevance Premchand
1990 (1) SCC 249
9. Minor contradictions in evidence are AP Vs Gagula Satya Murthy
irrelevant JT 1996 (10) SCC 550
10. Sex workers also have a right to live Budhdev Karmaskar Vs
with dignity under Art 21 State of West Bengal 2011
ALL MR (Cri) 943 (SC)
11. In trafficking cases, bail is a Shaikh Jaffar Ahmaed Vs
discretionary relief to be given with State of Maharashtra
caution as perpetrators can tamper 2008 CrLJ, 2413
with evidence and influence witnesses.
12. Hotel owners who let the hotel to PK Unnikumar Vs State
the accused are liable under the 1974 CriLJ 377
category of running the hotel
83
13. A person is also guilty if he procures a Cheriyan Vs State of Kerala,

prostitute for himself (meaning that 1973 CriLJ, 839
customer is liable)
14. Failure to record warrantless search or Bai Radha Vs State of
lapses related to panchas do not Gujarat, 2002 Cri LJ, 3152
vitiate trial
15. Court will be failing in its duty is the State of Madhya Pradesh Vs
accused’s sentence is not consistent with Kashiram, 2009 CriLj 1530
the brutality they inflicted on the victim
16. The Courts are not expected to be tape Zahira Shaikh vs State of
recorders ….presiding officers to elicit Gujarat, 2004
all necessary materials by playing an SC (91) AIR 3144
active role in the evidence collecting
process.
17. Child victim of trafficking are to be Prerana Vs State of
regarded as ‘children in need of care Maharashtra, 2003(2) MhLJ
and protection’ and not ‘children in 105 (Bombay High Court)
conflict with the law’ under the Juvenile Delhi High Court Legal
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Services Committee Vs
Act, 2015 UOI, Crl/ Rev. No. 443/
2009 (Delhi high Court)
dated 12.08.2014
18. Women or girls rescued from the Apne Aap Women
searched premises must be interviewed Worldwide Trust India Vs
by a woman police officer or in the State of Bihar, 2015 (1)
presence of a lady member of a PLJR 268
recognized welfare institution/
organization.
19. Right to protection of identity of the Section 327(3), CrPC
victim of sexual offences Section 23, POCSO Act
Nipun Saxena Vs Union of
India, WP(C) no.565 of
2012, (2019) 2 SCC 703
20. Prohibition on the use of two-finger test Lillu Vs State of Haryana,
to establish rape (2013) 14 SCC 643
84
21. A prosecutrix of a sex-offence cannot be State of Maharashtra Vs
put on par with an accomplice and is a Chandra Prakash Kewal
victim of the crime. Her evidence must Chand Jain, AIR 1990 SC
receive the same weight as is attached to 658
an injured in cases of physical violence.
The same degree of care and caution
must attach in the evaluation of her
evidence as in the case of an injured
complainant or witness and no more.
22. It is legally mandatory for the union, Mahender Chawla Vs Union
all states and union territories to enforce of India, WP (Crl) 156 of
the Witness Protection Scheme, 2016 (decided on
2018 in letter and spirit in order to 5.12.2018)
ensure that a witness has the “right
to testify in courts in a free and fair
manner without any pressure and
threat whatsoever.”
5.4.1 Compensation of victims

• Section 357A CrPC was introduced in 2009 to provide for
compensation to victims of crime or their dependents. In
addition to the Central Government Victim Compensation Fund
Scheme, the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) in
the year 2018 released a compensation scheme specifically for
women victims or survivors of sexual assault or other crimes.
This scheme sets up mandatory grant of compensation to
victims with minimum amounts specified. The Supreme Court
in May of 2018 passed an order mandating all states to
implement the scheme in addition to any other reliefs available
in the state or union territory.17 An application for compensation
is to be made to the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA).
17
Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, WP(C) no.565 of 2012, Order dated 11.05.2018
85

Human Trafiking Rights

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Human Trafiking Rights

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Human Trafiking Rights

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sl no The rights The Reference

1. Right of a female victim not to be S.160 IPC

13. A person is also guilty if he procures a Cheriyan Vs State of Kerala,

5.4.1 Compensation of victims

You might also like