IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the testimony of a victim in sexual assault cases, if credible and consistent, can be sufficient for conviction, and emphasized the stringent penalties for gang rape under Section 376D of the IPC.

JUDGMENT :

Dr. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

These Criminal Appeals are filed against the judgment of the Court of the Sessions Judge, Ernakulam in S.C.No.439 of 2015 arising out of Crime No.234/2015 of Kalamassery Police Station. The appeals are preferred by A1 to A4 against their conviction and sentence under Sections 120B(1), 366, 376D, 394, 323 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code [hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC']; and by A5 and A6 against their conviction and sentence under Section 212 read with Sections 34, 411 and 414 of IPC.

2. The prosecution case is that A1 to A4 hatched a criminal conspiracy to commit abduction, rape and robbery. Accordingly, on 14.02.2015 at about 8 a.m., A1 to A4 reached Edapally Toll in an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-40/F-2019 driven by A4, where PW1 and PW2 were waiting in anticipation of work. A1 to A4 took PW1 and PW2 in the aforementioned auto, under the pretext of taking them for cutting grass near a Ladies hostel of Cochin University. En route to the location, A2 and A3 boarded the auto near Mithra Super Market, indicating that they were also workers for cutting grass. PW1 and PW2 were taken to a beaten track in the middle of a barren hill near to building No.XIV/223 of Kalamassery Municipality. At about 8.30 a.m., A1 laid PW1 on the ground, and while A2 caught her shoulders, A1 had sexual intercourse with PW1 by force and without consent. Meanwhile A2 forcibly removed her 31/2 sovereign gold chain with thali and 1/2 sovereign ring. While PW2 tried to prevent them, A3 and A4 wrongfully confined her and took Rs.150/-from her. Then A2 to A4 had sexual intercourse with PW1 against her will. Thereafter, A4, with the intention of outraging her modesty, intentionally took her nude photographs and when it was objected by PW1, A4 beat her on the face and other parts of her body and took her ¼ sovereign earrings, samsung mobile and Rs.400/-from her shirt pocket. A1 to A4 also threatened PW1 and PW2 with dire consequences if they revealed the incident to anybody and also threatened to publish the photographs taken on the internet. The prosecution also has a case that A5 and A6, with the knowledge that A1 to A4 had committed the above offence, permitted them to reside in their house and received the gold ornaments with the knowledge that they were stolen properties and assisted them in concealing and disposing the same.

3. The case was registered by CW47, S.I of Police, Kalamassery on the basis of the F.I. Statement of PW1, recorded by PW27, WCPO. The case was investigated by PW33, C.I of Police, Kalamassery. On completion of the investigation, he laid the charge sheet before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kalamassery and taken on file as C.P.No.5/15. After complying with the provisions of Section 207 of the Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Ernakulam under Section 209 of Cr.P.C and the case was taken on file as S.C.No.439/2015 and later made over for trial and disposal.

4. Accused Nos.1 to 4 were in custody and were produced in accordance with the production warrants. A5 and A6 appeared in court. After hearing the prosecution and the defence, charges were framed under Sections 120B(1), 376D, 376(2)(n), 394, 366, 342, 323, 506(2) read with Section 34 IPC and Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, against A1 to A4. A5 and A6 were charged under Sections 212, 411 and 414 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The charges were read over and explained to A1 to A6 in Malayalam, and they pleaded not guilty.

5. The Prosecution examined PW1 to PW33 and marked Exts.P1 to P45. MOs.1 to 28 were identified. After that the accused were examined under Section 313(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. They denied all the incriminating evidence brought out by the prosecution. Thereafter, the prosecution and the defence were heard under Section 232 of Cr.P.C. Finding that there was no scope for acquittal, the accused were called upon to enter on their defence. On the side