JUDGMENT :

R.M. Chhaya, J.

Present appeal arises out of judgment and order rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court (Second), Mehsana on 10.04.2003 in Sessions Case No.272 of 2002, convicting the appellants-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 364-A read with Section 511, 365 read with Section 511 and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short), and sentencing them in the manner stated hereinafter:

(i) u/s. 364-A read with Section 511 of the IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment ("R.I." for short) for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to further undergo R.I. for one year.

(ii) u/s. 365 read with Section 511 of the IPC to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to further undergo R.I. for one year.

(iii) u/s. 120-B of the IPC to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to further undergo R.I. for six months.

The sentences imposed upon the appellants accused were ordered to run concurrently. The benefit of set-off was given.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellants-accused and one another person were arrested by Crime Branch of Delhi Police in relation to an offence at Delhi. That during course of investigation of the said offence, it came to light that the appellants-accused, one person named 'Raja' and another unknown person had hatched a conspiracy to abduct an industrialist of Mehsana and his son, who runs an industrial group in the name and style of 'Apollo'.

It is the case of the prosecution that Commissioner of Police, Rajkot received the said information (Exh.14) from Delhi Police, who in turn, informed Mehsana Police about the same. That as per the said information (Exh.14) an F.I.R. came to be lodged before LCB Police Station, Mehsana Police Station for the aforesaid offence against the appellants accused.

3. The investigating authorities started investigation, recorded statements of witnesses, including the industrialist, manager of Hotel Sunshine, Mehsana and other witnesses of the case, who were in knowledge of the crime under investigation.

4. Upon investigation the investigating agency found that there was ample evidence to link the appellants-accused with the offences and have filed charge-sheet before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mehsana, who in turn, committed the case to the court of Sessions, Mehsana as the offences were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions and the same was registered as Sessions Case No.272 of 2002.

5. Charges were framed by the trial Court against the appellants-accused below Exh.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 364-A, 365, 120-B, 34 and 511 of the IPC. The accused had pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried.

6. After considering the evidence led by the prosecution, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution was successful in proving the charges against the appellant’s-accused and recorded conviction by the judgment impugned in this appeal. Hence, the present appeal.

7. Heard Mr. Y.S. Lakhani, learned Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Anmol Thakkar, learned advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellants-accused, while the respondent-State has been represented by the learned A.P.P. Mr. Divyesh C. Sejpal.

8. Learned advocate Mr. Lakhani has taken me through the oral testimonies of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 and has submitted that even if this evidence is read as it is, at the most, it can be said that the appellants-accused had intention to commit the crime and had undertaken preparation but it cannot be said that they had made an attempt to commit such a crime.

8.1. Mr. Lakhani has submitted that no offence under any of the provisions of the IPC is made out by the prosecution. He has further submitted that identity of the appellants-accused has not been established and no Test Identification Parade is held. He has submitted that the offences, which are alleged against the appellants-accused, are based