ORDER

1. The appellant was convicted by the Court of Session for offences under Sections 363, 366-A and 368 read with Section 34 IPC. The other three accused were, however, acquitted. It cannot be disputed and has not been rightly questioned by learned State counsel that the conviction could only be under the aforesaid substantive provisions and not under Section 34 IPC. The appellant was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine for offence under Section 363, IO years rigorous imprisonment and fine for offence under Section 366-A and rigorous imprisonment for 8 years and fine for offence under Section 368. The conviction on all the three counts was upheld by the High Court in the appeal. The sentence was, however, reduced for offence under Section 366-A to 6 years rigorous imprisonment and for offences under Sections 363 and 368 rigorous imprisonment to 5 years each. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The fines imposed by the Court of Session were also set aside by the High Court. The appellant, aggrieved from the impugned judgment of the High Court, has approached this Court on leave having been granted. While granting leave, notice of enhan