The Supreme Court largely upheld a man’s conviction for serious human trafficking and exploitation of two foreign women from India and Nepal, hired for farm work. He exploited their vulnerability, financial desperation, and employer dependence, facing 11 charges, including trafficking, sexual violence, and immigration violations, before Famagusta Assizes.
The Indian woman’s claims involved grueling hours, subjugation, and forced sex acts on specific dates. The Nepali described confinement, personal item seizure, shared living, and repeated indecent assaults. He denied all, leading to a full trial with six prosecution and three defense witnesses.
Appeal arguments rejected
On appeal, he challenged guilt, sentence, unfair trial, from poor legal aid, witness credibility, and excessive penalty. The Supreme Court dismissed inadequate counsel claims, noting only a “manifestly incompetent” defense warranting overturn, absent here.
Credibility assessment stayed with the trial court, which justified accepting testimonies despite reporting delays, minor inconsistencies, considering the victims’ behavior and logical conclusions.
Rape convictions quashed
Supreme Court quashed two rape counts (3 and 4), finding insufficient proof of penile penetration despite the victim’s account of unwanted sex. “Rape” in common parlance is insufficient without an explicit description; the court cannot infer evidentiary gaps. Other convictions stood: labor exploitation, sexual exploitation, indecent assault, illegal employment – proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Sentence adjustment
Consecutive sentences for distinct acts are permissible under the totality principle. With rape acquittals, the total reduced from 10 to 8 years imprisonment. The court deemed eight years fair, proportionate, reflecting the dignity assaults on vulnerable victims.
Also read: 45K cattle vaccinated in occupied areas
For more videos and updates, check out our YouTube channel
