In a case involving the abduction of an actress (the victim) in a moving vehicle, outraging her modesty and committing rape, which was recorded on a mobile phone as part of the criminal conspiracy, the Kerala Sessions Court (Ernakulam Division) convicted the six accused persons for wrongful confinement, assault, abduction, and gang rape.
Aghast by the conduct of the first accused in showing the nude visuals to the prosecution witness and copying them from his mobile phone to a memory card, the Court asserted that the evidence establishes that the visuals were transmitted to the memory card at the residence of the prosecution witness. As far as the delay in lodging of the FIR is concerned, the Court upheld the FIR, but rejected the prosecution’s explanation as a ‘false story’ to cover up the gap. Based on the testimony of witnesses present, the Court held that the delay in registration did not vitiate the proceedings.
Considering that the accused persons had approached a lawyer for professional engagement and entrusted him with a plastic cover containing personal items, which secretly included the memory card with the visuals, the Court found the testimony credible, as the memory card was later produced before the court upon realizing the gravity of the case, and therefore, the Court tendered that the actions of the lawyer was protected under the proviso to Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act.
However, the fundamental failure of the prosecution in its inability to establish the charge of criminal conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt against Accused No. 8 led the Court to acquit him, observing that the entire case was built on a chain of circumstantial evidence, and the court found that every critical link in that chain was either weak, fabricated, or completely broken.
The District & Sessions Judge, Honey M. Varghese, observed that while the relationship between Accused No. 8 and the victim was not cordial, the prosecution failed to prove any specific events or a level of hatred that would motivate such a heinous crime.
As far as the direct act of abduction, assault, and gang rape by accused nos. 1-6, is concerned, the Sessions Judge relied on the victim’s testimony to convict them. However, regarding the larger conspiracy and motive involving accused no. 8, the Court found her ‘solitary evidence’ not sufficiently corroborated by other credible evidence.
Further, the Sessions Judge considered the approvers and co-inmates of accused no.1, who testified about the alleged jail-hatched conspiracy, the extra-judicial confession of accused no. 1, and the writing of a letter to extort money from accused no. 8, and found their evidence was ‘full of embellishments and exaggerations’ and had “material contradictions and omissions. Noting their significant criminal antecedents, the Court discarded their testimony as untrustworthy.
When the police constable had testified that Accused No. 1 had confessed the entire conspiracy involving Accused No. 8 to him and sought his help to collect the ‘quotation amount’, the Court found his conduct ‘highly suspicious’, noting his revelations came after his own film project with Accused No. 8 was shelved. The Court characterised him as a ‘planted witness’, whose evidence was unreliable and failed to meet the standard of a ‘sterling witness’.
After examining the cine actresses to prove the enmity and motive of Accused No. 8, the Court noted that the prosecution witness emphatically denied the prosecution’s claim that Accused No. 8 had threatened the victim, and therefore, found no reason to disbelieve their testimonies, which went against the prosecution’s case regarding the animosity of Accused No. 8 towards the victim.
The Court also found the submission that the delay in executing the conspiracy was because Accused No. 1 was absconding after being convicted in another case, a false explanation, based on documentary evidence which showed that Accused No. 1 was regularly appearing in court for another trial during this period and was not absconding.
As far as the allegation that Accused No. 1 attempted to commit the offence against the victim in Goa during the shooting of the movie ‘Honey Bee 2’, but the attempt was unsuccessful, the Court noted that even the victim had no case that Accused No. 1 made any such attempt against her. The prosecution’s contention was based on ‘assumptions and inferences’ which cannot replace proof.
Finally, the Court also considered the fact that all the accused who were convicted were below the age of 40 years, as well as their family condition and criminal antecedents, and sentenced the six convicts to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000 each for the offence punishable under Section 376(D) of IPC, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for a period of one year for the offence under Section 376(D) of IPC.
Briefly, the case pertains to the abduction and gang rape of a prominent Malayalam cine actress (x) on February 17, 2017, and the prosecution’s case is centred on a criminal conspiracy allegedly hatched by a well-known actor (accused no.8), who held a grudge against the victim x. The prosecution alleged that the motive was backed by a revenge, wherein the victim was believed as responsible for the breakdown of the first marriage of the accused no.8. Resultantly, the accused no.8 was alleged to have conspired with accused no. 1 to abduct the victim, commit sexual acts upon her in a moving vehicle, and capture naked visuals to defame and traumatize her, for which accused No. 8 also promised a payment of one and a half crores of rupees.
Appearances:
Advocates V. Ajakumar, K.B. Sunil Kumar, T.B. Mini, and Reshma Gireesh, for the Complainant
Senior Advocate B. Raman Pillai, along with Advocates V.V. Pratheeksh Kurup, Dev Nandan A, Nisha K. Peter, Alex Joseph, M.A. Vinod, TR S Kumar, A. Muhammad, TP. Abdul Hameed, K.V. Sabu, Akhil K. Sabu, Nikhil K. Sahu, Arunraj. S., Laya Theresa Antony, Hanna Rahman, K.A. Philip, Phijo Pradeesh Philip, Remya T.S., Philip T. Varghese, Thomas T. Varghese, Sujesh Menon V.B., Achu Shuba Abraham, and Sasidharan. K.K., for the Accused
