Jharkhand High Court quashed a woman’s trafficking conviction, citing lack of evidence and failure to examine victims

News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 326 | 2026:JHHC:13298

May 5, 2026 : The Jharkhand High Court has acquitted a woman convicted under Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code in an alleged human trafficking case, holding that the prosecution failed to produce credible evidence proving trafficking or forced labour.

Justice Rajesh Kumar set aside the 2019 conviction and seven-year sentence awarded to Mamta Kumari alias Bajoiya in connection with Manika Police Station Case No. 44 of 2012. The Court observed that the case was based largely on hearsay and lacked direct evidence showing that the victim girls were trafficked, exploited, or forced into labour against their will.

According to the prosecution, Mamta Kumari had allegedly taken three minor girls from Latehar district to Delhi after persuading them to accompany her. The FIR claimed that the girls did not return for nearly a year, leading villagers and family members to approach local authorities and later the Jharkhand Women Commission.

During the trial, however, key prosecution witnesses admitted that they had not personally seen the accused taking the girls away. Some witnesses also acknowledged in cross-examination that the girls had left voluntarily. One witness stated that after his daughter returned home, he no longer had any complaint against the accused.

The High Court noted significant gaps in the prosecution case, including the failure to examine the alleged victim girls and the investigating officer. The Court further observed that there was no material evidence showing where the girls had worked in Delhi, whether they were employed by any identified individuals, or whether they had been compelled to work against their wishes.

Referring to the unamended Section 370 IPC applicable at the time of the FIR in 2012, the Court said that trafficking requires proof of recruitment, transportation, harbouring, transfer, or receipt of persons for exploitation through coercion, fraud, force, abduction, or inducement. The Bench held that such essential ingredients were missing in the present case.

Calling it “a case of no evidence,” the Court quashed the conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Latehar, and allowed the criminal appeal. Since the appellant was already on bail, she was discharged from the liability of her bail bond.

Case Reference : Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 197 of 2019, Mamta Kumari @ Maamta Kumari @ Bajoiya vs. The State of Jharkhand; Counsels: For the Appellant: Mr. Prashant Kr. Rahul, Advocate; For the State: Mr. Satish Kr. Keshri, A.P.P.