4 Mr.R.John Sathyan, learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant/A-1 would submit that admittedly, P.Ws.2 to 5 are married women and they voluntarily consented to have physical relationship with the petitioner/appellant/A-1 and assuming for the sake of argument that the intimate moments were videographed by the petitioner/appellant/A-1, it was only for his personal use and as such, he ought not to have been prosecuted for the offences for which he was charged. It is his further submission that even according to the prosecution, the mobile phone owned by the petitioner/appellant/A-1 was said to have been given for repair to A- 2 who had downloaded the said pictures/videos from the memory card and thereafter, burnt it to files and converted into CDs and sold to P.Ws.7 and 8 and as such, the petitioner/appellant/A-1 cannot be prosecuted for the said offences. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant/A-1 that the victims, viz., P.Ws.2 to 5 has refused to undergo medical examination and except their self serving testimonies, the alleged offences said to have been committed by the petitioner/appellant/A-1 have not been proved through any tenable evidence and also not supported by scientific evidence and since the chance of success is very bright, prays for suspension of the substantive sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner/appellant/A-1.
