1. - These appeals are directed against judgment dated 10.06.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FT) No.1, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.78/2003 whereby the accused-appellants were convicted for offences under sections 365, 364A, 392 and 120B IPC and sentenced as under:

Sec.365 IPC - Simple imprisonment for 5 years along with fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further one year's imprisonment

Sec.364A IPC - life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further 3 years' imprisonemnt

Sec.392 IPC - 5 years' simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further one year's imprisonment

Sec.120B IPC - 3 years' simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further one year's imprisonment

2. The factual matrix of the case is that First Information Report Ex.P1 was lodged on written complaint submitted by PW1 Vinay Kumar Jain on 15.12.2002 at 7:10PM at the Police Station, Udaimandir, Jodhpur stating that he has a showroom named M/s Basant Handicrafts near Circuit House, Jodhpur for handicraft business. His son Gaurav Jain had come to the showroom on that day and a person, who had been coming to the showroom for last two days for purchasing articles, asked his son to take him to their handicrafts factory situated at the Industrial Area, Mandore to see some more handicraft articles. His son along with that person went there in his son's Lancer car No.RJ19-1C-6565 for showing him the handicraft items. This information was given to him when he reached the showroom at 3:30PM by Nitin who works at the showroom. When he phoned the factory to talk to his son, he came to know that his son Gaurav has not reached the factory. He tried to contact his son on his mobile phone but the same was out of range. He tried to search for his son but could not find him. Thereafter he informed his friend Mr Madan Jain at about 4:15PM about this fact but since that time he has not received any information about his son. He requested the Police to take necessary action to trace his son Gaurav Jain.

3. On the basis of aforementioned report, the Police registered a case for offence under section 365 IPC and started investigation. Subsequently, supplementary statement of the complainant PW1 Vinay Kumar Jain was recorded by Police on 16.12.2002 wherein he had specifically disclosed that ransom of Rs. 3 crores has been demanded from him.

4. On 23.12.2002 a Police team headed by Dy.S.P. Mr Arshad Ali arrested the accused-appellants Vikas Verma @ Vicky and Mahendra Singh @ Happy whereupon Vikas informed that Gaurav is under custody of his mother Nirmala and brother Rajan at Amritsar. Thereafter a Police team headed by Dy.S.P. Mr Hemant Sharma recovered Gaurav Jain from House No.1310, Koocha Kamaldeen in Amritsar and arrested Nirmala and Rajan Verma.

5. The Police filed challan against the accused persons for offences under sections 365, 364A, 392 and 120B IPC in the court of Judicial Magistrate No.3, Jodhpur on 22.03.2003 who committed the case to the court of Sessions Judge, Jodhpur. The learned trial court on 06.05.2003 framed the charges against the accused persons for offences under sections 365, 364A, 392, 120B IPC. The accused denied the charges and sought trial.

6. The prosecution examined 47 witnesses and proved documents Exhibits P1 to P185 and articles 1 to 54 in support of its case. The accused in their statements under section 313 CrPC denied the allegations levelled by the prosecution and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case. The accused did not produce any oral evidence but exhibited and proved documents Exhibits D1 to D25 in their defence.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants at the very outset submitted that as the appellants have already undergone more than 12 years of sentence, they are challenging the conviction only to the extent that offence of kidnapping or abduction