Raja Vijayaraghavan V., J.

Accused Nos. 6 and 7 in SC 80 of 2010 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha, have preferred Crl A 465 of 2015 challenging the judgment dated 10/04/2015 passed by the said Court by which they were convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/- each for offence punishable under Section 364A r/w Section 34 of the IPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each. They have also been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each for offence under Section 342 r/w Section 34 IPC. Accused No. 8 in the aforesaid Sessions Case has preferred Crl A 474 of 2015 challenging the conviction and sentence passed against him by the learned Sessions Judge. The aforesaid appellant has also been convicted and sentenced in the same manner as accused No. 6 and 7.

2. (a). Crl MA 5250 of 2015 has been preferred by the appellants in Crl A 465 of 2015 under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking suspension of the execution of sentence imposed against them.

(b). Crl MA 5251 of 2015 has been preferred by the appellants in Crl A 465 of 2015 praying that the powers under Section 391 be invoked and to permit them to adduce additional evidence.

(c). Crl MA 5224 of 2015 has been preferred by the appellant in Crl A 474 of 2015 under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. seeking suspension of the execution of sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge.

3. Since identical questions are involved, the above applications are considered and disposed of together.

4. The appellants were indicted and tried on the following allegations;

There was an intense feeling of ill will between PW 3 (Pearson) and the 1st accused on account of some monetary transactions and as a result, the 1st accused hatched a conspiracy to abduct the son of PW 3 for ransom. In order to accomplish their mission, accused Nos. 1 to 3 forged identity cards and obtained telephone connections. Using these mobile phones, they contacted PW 2 (Sham Prasad), an 18 year old student of Engineering, and the son of PW 3, and misrepresented that they are the friends of PW 3. Thereafter, on 27/08/2008 at 7.30 pm, accused Nos. 5 to 8 came to meet PW 2 and thereafter, abducted him in a Wagon R Car. The prosecution allegation is that the accused threatened to kill him and detained him throughout the night and demanded Rs. 30 Lakhs as ransom from PW 3. When the news of abduction appeared in the Television, PW 2 was let off, it is on these allegations that the police, after investigation, laid charge against accused Nos. 1 to 8 for offence punishable under Section 120B, 201, 364A, 468, 471, 506(1) r/w Section 34 IPC.

5. The prosecution examined as many as 30 witnesses to prove its case, as PWs 1 to 30. Exts. P1 to P44 were also marked through them. The learned Sessions Judge on an analysis of the evidence, found the appellants guilty of the offence under Section 364A r/w Section 34 of the IPC and also under Section 341 r/w Section 34 of the IPC and convicted them and sentenced them as aforesaid. The accused Nos. 1 to 4 were extended the benefit of doubt. Case against accused No. 5 was split up as he absconded.

6. When the appeals had come up for admission, it was submitted by Sri. S. Rajeev, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Crl A 465 of 2015 that grave prejudice has been caused to the appellants as the evidence untested by cross-examination of PW 2, the victim and PW 3, the person from whom ransom was demanded, was relied on by the learned Sessions Judge to convict the appellants. It was contended by the counsel for the appellant in Crl A No. 474 of 2015, that his case fell into a different category from that of the other accused and there were indications in the prosecution evidence itself revealing his innocence in the matter.

7. To ascertain the veracity of the contentions raised by the learned counsel, as per order dated 2