1. - Vijay Kumar, Shri Ram, Anima, Kumari Reena and Salim Mohammad, appellants herein, along with seven co-accused persons, were put to trial before Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Sikar, who vide judgment dated February 28, 2005, convicted and sentenced the appellants as under :

Vijay Kumar :

U/s. 376 IPC:

To suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months.

U/s. 366 IPC :

To suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.

U/s. 366A IPC:

To suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.

U/s. 363 IPC:

To suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.

U/s. 120-B IPC:

To suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.

Shri Ram, Amina and Kumari Reena :

U/s. 368 IPC :

All to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.

U/s. 120-B IPC:

All to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.

Salim Mohammad :

U/s. 366 IPC:

To suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.

U/s. 366A IPC:

To suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.

U/s. 363 IPC:

To suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.

U/s. 120-B IPC:

To suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.

The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. It is the prosecution case that Bihari Lal Jaga on May 15, 2003 handed over to Police Station, Ranoli a missing report about his daughter 'R' (name withheld) aged about 15 years, who had gone to school at 8-9 AM to know her result but she did not come back. Again on May 17, 2003 Bihari Lal Jaga submitted written report (Ex.P-14) at the same police station to the effect that on May 15, 2003 while his daughter was going to school Vijay Kumar with the help of Shri Ram Jaga, Pawan Kumar, Rohitash, Rekha, Reena kidnapped her and took her away in vehicle No. RJ-23 T0233. On that report a case under sections 363 and 366 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. Statements of witnesses under section 161 Cr.PC. were recorded, necessary memos were drawn, prosecutrix was recovered and her statements got recorded, accused were arrested and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Sikar. Charges under sections 1208, 363, 366, 366A, 376 and 368 IPC were framed against the accused, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 17 witnesses. In the explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant claimed innocence. One witness in support of defence was examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the prosecutrix accompanied appellant Vijay Kumar of her own and she was a consenting party thus no offence was committed by the appellant. As also no offence as alleged by the prosecution is established against other appellants.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor however supported the impugned judgment and urged that the appellants have been rightly convicted by the learned trial court.

5. Having scanned the material on re