MUMBAI: Calling a victim an alleged illegal immigrant does not make the offence against her any less serious, the Bombay High Court has said while upholding the two-year prison sentence of a woman convicted of running a Grant Road brothel.
Singh, whom the prosecution described as the manager and conductor of the brothel, was arrested following the raid. The case dates back to February 2011, when police, acting on information from an NGO, raided rooms in Krishna Building in Grant Road where several girls were allegedly being detained for prostitution.
Being an illegal immigrant will have its own legal consequences, no doubt. But that will not make the offence any lesser,” Justice Sathaye added. The court was responding to Singh’s lawyer’s argument that the victim, described as a Bangladeshi national and illegal immigrant, was not a reliable witness and that her evidence could not be used to convict an Indian citizen. Seeking to overturn her conviction, Singh’s lawyer argued that the prosecution had relied heavily on witnesses associated with the NGO and had not produced independent witnesses. He also pointed to inconsistencies in the victim’s statements about her age, whether she was married, her nationality and whether she had a child.
Because a victim is an illegal immigrant (assuming her to be so), the court cannot consider it as a reason for not convicting the perpetrator, “Just.
“Just because the victim is an illegal immigrant, the offence does not become any less,” a single-judge bench of Justice M M Sathaye observed on October 1, rejecting a plea by Rani Singh, who challenged her 2015 conviction under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (PITA). The court called the argument “completely misconceived” and said it reflected a cognitive bias. “The law cannot permit an immigration label to become a licence for indignity,” it said, adding that treating the victim’s alleged immigration status as a reason to undermine the case amounted to “victim shaming”. Rejecting the argument, the court said the relevant question was not whether the victim possessed valid immigration documents but whether the accused had committed an offence involving a human being.
