IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes that consent is a critical factor in cases of alleged rape, and the absence of evidence proving coercion or the victim's minority can lead to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.

Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., to set aside the judgment passed in S.C.No. 166 of 2013 dated 20.08.2015 by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track-Mahila Court, Nagapattinam and acquit the Appellant/Accused from all the charges.

1. This Criminal Appeal had been filed seeking to set aside the judgment passed in S.C.No. 166 of 2013, dated 20.08.2015 by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Nagapattinam and acquit the Appellant/Accused from all the charges.

2. The brief facts, which are necessary for proper appreciation of the case, are as follows:

2.1. The Victim/Prosecutrix/PW-1 aged about 18 years and the first Accused/Appellant herein were working in Mosquito Coil Company at Thenkudi. At that time, they developed love with each other. Two years back from 31.05.2013, when the Victim/Prosecutrix/PW-1 was in her uncle Rajamanickam's house at Paramanallur, the first Accused/Appellant herein approached her for sexual intercourse by giving false promise to marry her. Inspite of her refusal, the first Accused/Appellant herein had sexual intercourse with the Victim/Prosecutrix/PW-1.

2.2. Thereafter, the first Accused and the victim met each other near Ganapathipuram Maravadi. They had sexual intercourse and the Victim/Prosecutrix/PW-1 became pregnant. Even after that also, the first Accused/Appellant herein forced her to have sexual intercourse by giving false promise of marrying her. When she became six months pregnant, the first Accused/Appellant herein refused to marry her. However, the Victim/Prosecutrix/PW-1 repeatedly insisted the first Accused/Appellant herein to marry her.

2.3. In the meantime, one day by 08.00 p.m. the first Accused/Appellant herein with deceiving intention had taken the Victim/Prosecutrix/PW-1 to Ganapathipuram Maravadi and had sexual intercourse. On that day, when she about to return home, the second and third Accused waylaid her, stating that they had recorded the intimate scenes of PW-1 with first Accused on their mobiles. They threatened her that they will upload the close intimate videos of the Victim/Prosecutrix/PW-1 and the Accused/Appellant herein in the internet, if she did not co-operate with them for sexual intercourse. Due to that threat, she could not raise her alarm. The second and third Accused had raped her in the same spot itself. After that, the first Accused/Appellant herin did not meet her, but, refused to marry her. On 31.05.2012 at about 10.00 p.m. the Victim/Prosecutrix/PW- 1 suffered abortion. So, the first Accused/Appellant herein is charge sheeted under Section 366 and 376 of IPC and the second and third Accused are charge sheeted under Section 376 of IPC.

2.4. The case was committed to the Court of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam. The Accused were bound over to appear before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam. On receipt of the case records in P.R.C.No. 30 of 2013, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam had numbered the case as S.C.No. 116 of 2013 and made over the case to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Nagapattinam since the victim of the alleged offence is woman. The Accused were bound over to the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Nagapattinam. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the defence, the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court had framed the charges against the Accused for the offences under Sections 366 and 376 of IPC. Since the Accused denied the charges, trial was ordered by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Nagapattinam. In the trial, the Prosecution had examined 14 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-14 and marked documents as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-10. On completion of prosecution evidence, the Accused were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. On closing of the Prosecution witnesses, the Accused denied the