The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment emphasizes the importance of reliable and corroborative evidence in establishing criminal liability.

K. Hema ,J.

1. Appellant was charge-sheeted for offence under Sections, 366, 376, 379 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. He was tried for the said offences by Additional Sessions Court. After trial, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 (Seven) years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) for the offence under Section 366 IPC and in default of payment of fine,to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 6 (Six months).,

2. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 ( Seven) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) for the offence under under Section 376 IPC and default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 6 (Six) months. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) under Section 379 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 6 (Six) months. Substantive sentence shall run concurrently. Set of was allowed under Section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. Charge was framed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge against the accused which reads as follows:

"That, the accused in furtherance of the common intention to abduct CW2 and 3 went to their house at Paleri at 18.5.1999 at about 7.30 P.M and accused Nos.3 and 4 introduced CW2 to the 1st accused and that the 1st accused informed CW2 that he is a representative of a millionaire who belongs to Bahrain and he made her to believe that the Arab man has decided to give 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.50,000/- for the marriage of poor girls and CW2 is selected as one among them. He informed her that the Arab man and his wife are at Kottakkal and he further informed her that he will arrange an employment for her on abroad and he will marry her. Accused Nos.1 and 3 took CW2 and 3 in the jeep bearing No.KLM 8618 driven by 4th accused and accused No.1 took CWs2 and 3 to Calicut. When they reached Calicut they met the 2nd accused and he informed them that the Arab man is at Palakkad and accused Nos.1 and 2 took CWs 2 and 3 to Palakkad and they resided in room No.207 of KPM Lodge situated in building No.II/757 in Palakkad Municipality. While they were sitting in the room and while CW1 was taking bath the 1st accused committed rape on CW2 against her will and consent and while CW2 and 3 were in the bathroom committed theft of gold chain weighing 10 sovereigns which were kept by them under the pillow in the room and the first accused left the place after steeling the gold ornaments. All the accused persons acted in furtherance of their common intention to commit offences and the first accused thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 366, 376 and 379 IPC and within the cognizance of this court."

4. To prove the prosecution case, PWs 1 to 14 were examined. Exts. P1 to P18 and MO1 series and MO2 series were marked. Accused did not adduce any evidence but stated that he is innocent of the allegations made against him while he was standing in a bus stand the Police arrested him and asked him whether he was any dealing in visa. Several other questions were also put to him. Rs.5000/- which was in his possession was taken by the police. Four cases were charge-sheeted and in other cases he was acquitted. He did not have any relationship with PW1. She did not have any other dealing with the accused.

5. Accused was undefended and hence Sri.Gopakumar G. (Aluva) was appointed as Stated Brief. Heard both sides. Perused the records. After analysing the evidence in detail, the trial court found that the accused committed all the offences alleged against him and prosecution proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the prosecution has not proved that offence under Section 376 IPC was committed. He pointed out that