K. R. VYAS, J. ( 1 ) ). ALL these four appeals are filed against the judgement and order dated 29/01/1999 in Sessions Case No. 139 of 1998 by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Ahmedabad. The accused no. 4 was not held guilty under Sections 232 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the offence punishable under Sections 347 and 365 read with Section 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 392 and 397 read with Section 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code. ( 2 ) ). THE appellants in Appeal No. 155 of 1999 are accused nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6. They were held guilty under Section 235 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for the offence punishable under Sections 347, 365, 392 and 397 read with Section 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 162 of 1999 is the accused no. 8 in Sessions Case No. 139 of 1988 and he was also held guilty under Sections 347, 365, 392 and 397 read with Section 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 256 is original accused no. 7 in Sessions Case No. 139 of 1998 and he was held guilty under Sections 347, 365, 392 and 397 read with Section 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 286 of 1999 is original accused no. 3 in Sessions Case No. 139 of 1998 and he was also held guilty under Sections 347, 365, 392 and 397 read with Section 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code. ( 3 ) ). THE learned Judge was pleased to pass the following order of sentence : (A) Accused no. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 were ordered to suffer R. I. for 7 years and pay fine of Rs. 1000 each in default to suffer more R. I. for 15 days. (B) Accused no. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are ordered to suffer R. I. for 10 years for the offence punishable under section 392 and to pay fine of Rs. 1000 each in default more R. I. for 15 days. (C) Accused no. 1000 each in default to suffer more R. I. for 15 days. (B) Accused no. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are ordered to suffer R. I. for 10 years for the offence punishable under section 392 and to pay fine of Rs. 1000 each in default more R. I. for 15 days. (C) Accused no. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are ordered to suffer R. I. for 7 years for the offence punishable under Section 397 and fine of Rs. 1000 each in default to suffer more R. I. for 15 days. (D) Accused nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are ordered to suffer R. I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 200 each in default to suffer more R. I. for one week. (E) No separate sentence for offence punishable under section 120 (B) to accused no. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 was passed ; (F) substantive sentence is to run concurrently. ( 4 ) THE case of the prosecution is that on 2nd October, 1996, one Alkaben, wife of Ajitbhai Chhaganbhai Vithlani, gave a complaint to Ghatlodia Police Station that her husband, Ajitbhai Chhaganbhai Vithlani, is a medical practitioner, residing at A/5, Anandbaugh Tenements, Opposite Alkapuri Society, Ghatlodia, Ahmedabad. He is having a clinic at Agrawal Tower at Bhuyangdev area. He attends clinic in the morning from 9. 00 a. m. to 1. 00 p. m. and in the evening from 5. 00 p. m. to 9. 00 p. m. Over and above, he attends personal visits. Generally, he goes for `visit in his own car, but, yesterday, he had to go to Chanakyapuri and so, he has gone in the patients jeep. On 1/10/1996 at clinic, there was a telephone call to Dr. Vithlani at about 9. 00 p. m. conveying that one patient is serious and he has to visit at Chanakyapuri. A vehicle is being sent and he has to come in the said vehicle. At 9. 15 p. m. , Dr. Vithlani returned from the clinic. He talked to the complainant that he had to go for a `visit at Chanakyapuri to examine a patient. Meanwhile, one Jeep bearing Registration No. GJ1-HH-3785 having brown colour came at about 9. 40 p. m. wherein one person was sitting with driver. At 9. 15 p. m. , Dr. Vithlani returned from the clinic. He talked to the complainant that he had to go for a `visit at Chanakyapuri to examine a patient. Meanwhile, one Jeep bearing Registration No. GJ1-HH-3785 having brown colour came at about 9. 40 p. m. wherein one person was sitting with driver. A person, who was aged about 25 to 30 years and who was wearing khakhi colour clothes, had alighted from the jeep, after which Dr. Vithlani boarded the jeep and went along. He did not return upto 1. 00 a. m. at night. Hence, the complainant made search in the adjoining areas, but no whereabouts were available of her husband and ultimately, she gave a complaint to the police. She has further stated in the complaint that on the day of complaint at about 8. 40 a. m. in the morning, she received a telephone call; she was told that one Pravinkumar Patel from Saijpur Tower is speaking, and; she was also told that they have taken her husband for the `visit yesterday and that as the patient has died, they have detained the Doctor. It was also informed that only if Rs. 10 lacs is paid, the doctor will be released. She was told that one Salimbhai will telephone her in the evening. Hence, the complainant felt that her husband is abducted under a false pretext of a `visit of a patient and therefore, she filed a complaint before the police. ( 5 ) ). MR. R. H. Rathod, Police Inspector, who was serving in `crime Branch at the relevant point of time, on receiving the information that one doctor is abducted from Ghatlodia Police Station area, had gone to Ghatlodia and gathered information from the investigation officer, complainant and witnesses. During the day, he continued the search of the doctor and accused persons. At late evening, he received information from the informant that Dr. Vithlani, who is abducted, is detained in a field of Devayat Khachar of Village : Noli, Taluka : Sayla, District : Surendranagar. It is the case of the prosecution that the Police Inspector had gone along with panchas and found the doctor and some accused persons there. A Panchnama was drawn, certain articles were recovered from the place where the doctor was kept confined and the accused were arrested. ( 6 ) ). It is the case of the prosecution that the Police Inspector had gone along with panchas and found the doctor and some accused persons there. A Panchnama was drawn, certain articles were recovered from the place where the doctor was kept confined and the accused were arrested. ( 6 ) ). THE Police Inspector, thereafter, recorded the statement of Dr. Vithlani and after investigation, a chargesheet was submitted before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. ( 7 ) ). THE learned Metropolitan Magistrate supplied the police papers to the accused and recorded their statements. As the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate committed the case to the Court of City Sessions Judge at Ahmedabad. ( 8 ) ). THE prosecution has examined Dr. Ajitbhai Chhaganbhai Vithlani as PW-4 at Exh. 43. He is the star witness, who has deposed before the Court giving account of the entire incident in detail. He has stated that on 1/10/1996, when he was at his clinic, he received a telephone call at about 8. 30 p. m. informing that, "i, your patient, Rameshbhai, is speaking. The caller inquired as to by what time, he reaches home after closing the clinic. " Dr. Vithlani replied that he returns home at 9. 00 p. m. after closing his clinic. It was further conveyed by the said telephone call that, "a patient is serious and the doctor has to come for visit in Chanakyapuri area. " It was also informed that, "a driver will come to take the doctor with a vehicle. " the doctor then went to his residence and informed about the telephone call received by him to his wife. In turn, the doctors wife informed that a similar telephone call was received at the residence. After taking supper, when the doctor came out to park his car in the compound, a jeep came with two persons at about 9. 40 p. m. It was a commander jeep bearing registration No. GJ1-HH-3785. The driver of the jeep came to the doctor and enquired as to whether he is the doctor and on his replying in the affirmative, the driver told the doctor that he has come to take him for a `visit in Chanakyapuri. 40 p. m. It was a commander jeep bearing registration No. GJ1-HH-3785. The driver of the jeep came to the doctor and enquired as to whether he is the doctor and on his replying in the affirmative, the driver told the doctor that he has come to take him for a `visit in Chanakyapuri. The doctor enquired from that person as to where he has to go in Chanakyapuri area, to which that person replied that there was a telephone call from Rameshbhai and we have to go there. The doctor then enquired as to what is the telephone number of the place where we have to go. The driver replied that he does not know the telephone number, he is only a driver. The doctor has described this man to be of normal structure, blackish in colour and having marks on his face. The doctor has identified this person in the Court, who is accused no. 3. ( 9 ) ). THE doctor has also deposed before the Court that he had identified this person in the test identification parade (hereinafter referred to as "t. I. Parade" for short ). The doctor has deposed that the driver had told him that, "he does not know the address, but he has seen the place. He told the doctor that you sit in the vehicle, I will drop you back. " After the aforesaid conversation with the driver, the doctor went inside the house to collect his visit bag. The wife of the doctor accompanied him while coming out. The doctor informed his wife that neither the telephone number nor the address of the place of the visit is known, but she may note down the (registration) number of the jeep. The doctor has categorically deposed that along with the driver, there was another person sitting in the jeep; the doctor boarded the jeep; then, it started, from Ghatlodia water tank, the jeep took a turn and it was on Janatanagar Road and just before reaching Janatanagar Railway Crossing, the jeep had slowed down and at that time, two persons standing there boarded the jeep and took position near the doctor. One person sat on the left and the other on the right of the doctor. One person sat on the left and the other on the right of the doctor. The doctor has given description of those two persons stating that the person sitting on his left was of strong structure, brownish in colour and had worn white and pant shirt, while the person sitting on the right was thin, tall and having beard and mustaches. The doctor identified these persons in the Court by saying that the person who sat on his left is accused no. 7 while the person who sat on his right is accused no. 5. The jeep instead of proceeding towards Chanakyapuri started going in a different direction and, therefore, the doctor enquired from the persons sitting by his side as to where are you taking. In response to this, the person sitting on the left of the doctor took out his revolver and placed at the throat of the doctor and the person sitting on the right took out knife and placed at the waist of the doctor and told that, `keep quite, do not make any noise; you are under our control, and; have to act as per our orders. The doctor was frightened and, therefore, kept quite. The jeep then accelerated and was on the `sarkhej-Gandhinagar Highway - proceeding towards Sarkhej. Both the persons sitting by the side of the Doctor started searching the doctor. Wallet was taken out from the pocket and Rs. 400 to Rs. 500 along with few visiting cards and other miscellaneous papers were taken by the person sitting on the left of the doctor. After the jeep proceeded towards Sarkhej, the person sitting on the left applied thin insulation tape on both the eyes of the doctor and also made the doctor to wear black coloured goggles. The doctor has deposed that in applying the insulation tape, there was some gap in the lower portion, from that he could see that the jeep turned towards Thaltej Village from Thaltej Cross Roads and proceeded beyond Thaltej Village, on unknown road. He has further deposed that after a drive of about 3 hours, the jeep stopped in a field and there, they made doctor alight from the jeep and removed the black gogles and the insulation tape. He has further deposed that after a drive of about 3 hours, the jeep stopped in a field and there, they made doctor alight from the jeep and removed the black gogles and the insulation tape. Thereafter, the doctor was made to walk for about one and a half kilometre, then he was made to sit near a room situated in some other field. The two persons, who were sitting in the jeep, took out their weapons. The driver and the person accompanying him also took out their weapons. The driver was having a knife while the remaining three were having revolvers. All these four persons started threatening and enquiring the doctor. The person, who sat on the left of the doctor, told him first that, "we want Rs. 10 lacs and only on receiving the same, we will release or else we will not release. If we receive Rs. 10 lacs, then only we will release. " The remaining three enquired as to from where and from whom this money will be received. In response to that, the doctor replied that he does not have this amount. Then, these four persons told the doctor that, "we have taken this much risk, we will not let you go for nothing. " Thereafter, they inquired about other sources from whom, they can get; they asked for the details of relatives or friends. Meanwhile, one person with a spear came near the doctor. He enquired as to whom have they brought. The four persons replied that "he is a doctor". The person with a spear placed the spear at the chest of the doctor, at that time, the person with white pant and shirt dispossessed the doctor of his wrist watch. The doctor has reiterated that the person, who was sitting on his left in the jeep, was wearing white pant and shirt. The doctor identified the person, who had pointed spear at his chest, as accused no. 1 in the Court. The doctor has further deposed that thereafter, they had enquired the telephone numbers of his relatives and friends; the doctor had given the telephone number of his brother-in-law, Deepakbhai, residing at Vadodara, which was 644164. The doctor had also given the telephone number of his Advocate friend, Mr. Kaushikbhai Pujara, which was 7473916. 1 in the Court. The doctor has further deposed that thereafter, they had enquired the telephone numbers of his relatives and friends; the doctor had given the telephone number of his brother-in-law, Deepakbhai, residing at Vadodara, which was 644164. The doctor had also given the telephone number of his Advocate friend, Mr. Kaushikbhai Pujara, which was 7473916. The third telephone number which was given was of doctors residence, that is, 7476933 and the fourth telephone number was of his patient friend, Mr. Amratbhai Birla, that is, 7470570. All these telephone numbers were noted down by theperson who was sitting on the left of the doctor in the jeep, who had worn white pant and shirt. The person, who had noted down these telephone numbers, and some other persons enquired as to whether from the persons of these telephone numbers, whether they will be able to get Rs. 10 lacs, to which the doctor replied that they may or may not get immediately. Thereafter, the person with white pant and shirt had left that place and with him, one another person also had left. Other persons had detained the doctor in the room situated in the field and the doctor was told that until money is received, he will have to stay there. The doctor was detained there for the night of 1/10/1996, day and night of 2/10/1996 and till morning of 3rd October, 1996. On 3/10/1996, the police had reached there and had rescued the doctor. ( 10 ) ). THE doctor has further deposed that while the doctor was in the room situated in the field, the person having beard and mustaches, who sat on his right in the jeep, and the person wearing khakhi clothes, who was sitting in the front seat of the jeep, were keeping constant watch while other three persons were coming and going and keeping watch. The doctor has further deposed that on 03/10/1996, in the morning, when the police reached there, three persons were present while two persons had ran away. The doctor identified accused nos. 1, 2 and 6 as the persons, who were present when the police reached the place. The doctor also identified accused nos. 5 and 8 as the persons, who were constantly keeping watch on him and had ran away when the police reached on the scene. The doctor identified accused nos. 1, 2 and 6 as the persons, who were present when the police reached the place. The doctor also identified accused nos. 5 and 8 as the persons, who were constantly keeping watch on him and had ran away when the police reached on the scene. The doctor has further deposed that in the room, there was an iron chain and two locks. This chain was kept for tying the doctor. In that room, there was a photograph with a frame and a carpet for the doctor to sit. The photograph was of accused no. 5, who was keeping constant watch on the doctor and who had sat on the right side of the doctor in the jeep. The doctor deposed that the police seized the carpet, chain, locks, photograph, etc. , from the room. The doctor has specifically stated that the accused no. 7 had come to the doctor prior to about one and a half month, with a complaint of stomachache, as his patient. He had once came at the residence and also at the clinic of the doctor. Thus, he visited thrice as a patient. It is further deposed that the doctor had come to know that the place at which he was confined, was a field of Village : Noli, Taluka : Sayla, District : Surendranagar. The doctor was brought to Ahmedabad at about 22. 30 hours and was then taken to Gayakwad Haveli Police Station for recording his statement. The second statement of the doctor was recorded after the second T. I. Parade. ( 11 ) ). THE prosecution has also examined the wife of the doctor, Alkaben, PW-3, at Exh. 38. Alkaben has stated the incident corroborating the narration of the doctor. So far as it relates to receiving of the call and boarding of the jeep by the doctor for the visit. She has stated that on 01/10/1996, her husband had reached home at about 9. 15 p. m. and had informed her that just before leaving the clinic, he had received a telephone call from one Rameshbhai Patel, who informed him that he has to go for a visit to Chanakyapuri because one patient is serious there. She has deposed that relatives of the patient had come with the jeep wherein her husband, after talking to her and after having his supper, had gone. She has deposed that relatives of the patient had come with the jeep wherein her husband, after talking to her and after having his supper, had gone. She has deposed that in the jeep, there was a driver and one more person. She has deposed that the person, who got down from the jeep, was wearing khakhi clothes and was aged about 25 to 30 years. She has also identified the person sitting in the jeep as accused no. 8. On a query from the Court, the accused no. 8 has given his name to be Babuji. This witness, Alkaben, wife of the doctor, has stated that she had identified this person in the T. I. Parade before the Executive Magistrate. The deposition of the witness then proceeds to narrate as to what happened after the doctor left at about 9. 40 p. m. She waited for about an hour and half and as her husband did not return, she enquired of her husband along with her neighbours. She enquired in the vicinity of Chanakyapuri, but she did not get any whereabouts of her husband and, therefore, at 1. 30 a. m. she gave intimation to Ghatlodiya Police Station. She has further deposed that the jeep, which had came to take her husband, was a "commander" jeep and its registration number was GJ1-HH-3785. She has also deposed that she had seen the driver of the jeep and that the said driver is present in the Court and he is accused no. 3, who on enquiry, reveals his name as Joraji Joravarsinh. She identified this Joravarsinh at the time of her deposition. She also stated that she had identified him in T. I. Parade also. She has further deposed that on the night of 01/10/1996, the police had told her that she should continue to enquire and the police is also enquiring and if any message is received, the same may be intimated to the police. On the next day morning, at 8. 40 a. m. , a message was received on telephone, whereby she was told by the caller that, "i am Pravinbhai Patel, from Saijpur Tower. We had taken your husband for visit at night and that the patient has died and, therefore, we have detained the doctor and only if you pay Rs. 10 lacs, we will release the doctor. Rs. We had taken your husband for visit at night and that the patient has died and, therefore, we have detained the doctor and only if you pay Rs. 10 lacs, we will release the doctor. Rs. 10 lacs should be kept ready by evening and one Salimbhai will inform you in the evening by telephone. " The witness, Alkaben, informed the details of this telephone call to Ghatlodia Police Station and filed a full-fledge complaint. She also gave the details of the incident, which had taken place before one and a half month before the present incident. According to her, after she returned from the clinic at about 12. 30 p. m. , a person had come and told her that, "he is coming from Jantanagar, he is having an ailment of stomachache for quite sometime and the local doctor has asked him to go to Dr. Vithlani and as it is 12. 30 p. m. he has come at the residence. " The witness told that person that the clinic is open till 1. 00 p. m. and that the doctor will be available at the clinic. The witness has given the description of that person stating that he was of a medium structure, aged about 35 to 40 years, Brownish in colour and had bluish eyes. She has also narrated that on 01/10/1996 (the day of the incident), the witness and her husband had gone out, from where they had returned at about 5. 45 p. m. At that time, her husband had dropped her at the clinic and came to the residence to collect his visit bag. At that time, the person, who had came about one and a half month before, was present at the clinic. That person showed a chit to the witness and enquired as to whether the telephone numbers written therein were that of the doctor. After verifying the telephone numbers written in the chit, the witness told that one telephone number was that of the residence and the other one was that of the clinic. That person enquired as to whether these telephone numbers are correct, the deponent replied in the affirmative. Thereafter, that person enquired as to whether the doctor goes for a visit, to which the deponent answered in the affirmative. Thereafter, that person told that yesterday at about 7. That person enquired as to whether these telephone numbers are correct, the deponent replied in the affirmative. Thereafter, that person enquired as to whether the doctor goes for a visit, to which the deponent answered in the affirmative. Thereafter, that person told that yesterday at about 7. 30 p. m. , he had made so many telephone calls, but nobody was responding. The deponent enquired as to whether on which telephone number, the calls were made to that, the person replied that telephone calls were made on his behalf as he was having some trouble and he wanted to call the doctor at his place. The deponent told that person that may be the telephone calls were made at the residence number, and as it was clinic time, nobody must have replied at the residence. She also told that, both the telephones were in working condition. That person then enquired as to whether the doctor is having two vehicles, to which the deponent could not reply as she was talking to other patients. That person again enquired as to whether the doctor has sold of his Fronti (Car), to which the deponent replied in negative. That person then told that as he was having stomachache, he wanted to get examined by the doctor. Thereafter, saying that he is coming, he left the place. The deponent has identified that person as accused no. 7, who has stated his name to be Naresh @ Narsinhbhai @ Dr. Melabhai Raval. The deponent has also stated that she had identified this person before the Executive Magistrate. ( 12 ) ). BESIDES these two witnesses, the prosecution has examined number of other witnesses, namely, Jagdish Sundarlal Parmar, PW-1, at Exh. 2, Ranjitsingh Veersinh Gohel, PW-2, at Exh. 34, Jatankumar Jatil Majmudar, PW-5, at Exh. 45, Dilip Bachubhai Chauhan, PW-6, at Exh. 46, Ashokbhai Dwarkadas Pandhi, PW-7, at Exh. 47, Rajubhai Ishwarbhai Kahar, PW-8, at Exh. 48, Dilipbhai Vallabhbhai Dutta, PW-10, at Exh. 51, Vinod Shantilal Panchal, PW-11, at Exh. 52, Rajjabbhai Hajibhai Sheikh, PW-12, at Exh. 54, Parmeshwar Prasad Sarvajeet Pandey, PW-13, at Exh. 55, Vijaysinh Gumansinh Jhala, PW-14, at Exh. 61, Mansinghbhai Devjibhai Chaudhari, PW-15, at Exh. 68, Ramprasad Dashrathsinh, PW-16, at Exh. 70 and Rajendrasingh Hathisingh Rathod, PW-17, at Exh. 72. The prosecution has also led documentary evidence in the form of complaint, panchnama, F. S. L. report, etc. 54, Parmeshwar Prasad Sarvajeet Pandey, PW-13, at Exh. 55, Vijaysinh Gumansinh Jhala, PW-14, at Exh. 61, Mansinghbhai Devjibhai Chaudhari, PW-15, at Exh. 68, Ramprasad Dashrathsinh, PW-16, at Exh. 70 and Rajendrasingh Hathisingh Rathod, PW-17, at Exh. 72. The prosecution has also led documentary evidence in the form of complaint, panchnama, F. S. L. report, etc. Out of all the witnesses, the complainant and the victim - Dr. Ajitbhai Chhaganbhai Vithlani are the most important witnesses. From whose deposition, it emerges that a criminal conspiracy was hatched amongst the accused before actual commission of the offence. It is a matter of common knowledge that there cannot be strict evidence of conspiracy, but at the same time, it can be culled out from the evidence on record and from the part played by each accused, which will be relevant to show that there was a criminal conspiracy. From the evidence of Dr. Vithlani and his wife, it is found that there was an intention of abducting the doctor and then, to demand ransom from the wife of the doctor or in the alternative from the relatives or friends of the doctor. ( 13 ) ). FROM the deposition of Dr. Vithlani, it transpires that accused no. 1, who is the father of accused nos. 2 and 5, had come on the scene during the enquiry made by the persons, who had brought the doctor with a spear and had placed the spear at the chest of the doctor. The accused no. 1 was arrested from the scene of occurrence. The accused no. 2 was keeping watch on the doctor and was also arrested from the scene of occurrence. The accused no. 3 was the person, who was driving the jeep and who had brought the doctor to the field. The accused no. 4 is acquitted by the learned Judge. The accused no. 5 is the person who was sitting on the right of the doctor in the jeep, who is extensively described by the doctor being tall, thin and having beard and mustaches, who was also found in the photograph, which was recovered from the room wherein the doctor was confined. The name of the accused no. 5 is also found on the water pot kept in that room. It is alleged that he had ran away from the scene of occurrence when the police reached there. The accused no. The name of the accused no. 5 is also found on the water pot kept in that room. It is alleged that he had ran away from the scene of occurrence when the police reached there. The accused no. 6 is the person against whom it is alleged that the wrist watch was recovered from him and he had caused the discovery of spear. The accused no. 7 is the person, who was sitting on the left of the doctor in the jeep and who had taken out the money, visiting cards and other miscellaneous papers from the wallet of the doctor. He had come as a patient to the doctor prior to about one and a half month. He was wearing white pant and shirt and had applied insulation tape and black gogles to the doctor. He was keeping a close watch on the doctor. He had dispossessed the doctor of his wrist watch. He had visited the clinic of the doctor on the day of the incident and as stated by the wife of the doctor, he was the person having made a detailed enquiry regarding mode of visit by the doctor, his telephone numbers, doctors vehicle and had made a telephone call in the name of `rameshbhai at the residence as well as at the clinic of the doctor. The accused no. 8 was sitting in the jeep along with the driver, when the jeep came to take the doctor for a visit. He is identified by the wife of the doctor as a person wearing Khakhi clothes and aged about 25 to 30 years. The prosecution has examined Ranjitsinh Veersingh Gohel, Executive Magistrate, as PW-2, at Exh. 34. The T. I. Parade was held on 09/10/1996. The Executive Magistrate has deposed in detail the proceedings of T. I. Parade. In this T. I. Parade, complainant, PW-3, wife of the doctor, has identified accused no. 3, Jorawarsingh @ Joraji. In the same T. I. Parade, the doctor has identified three persons. Another witness, Jatan Majmudar, PW-5, Exh. 45, has also identified accused no. 3. Thus, from the evidence of Ranjitsingh Veersingh Gohel, Executive Magistrate, coupled with the panchnama of T. I. Parade, identification of accused nos. 3, 5 and 6 is proved by the prosecution. ( 14 ) ). THE prosecution has also examined one Jagdish Sunderlal Parmar, PW-1, Exh. Another witness, Jatan Majmudar, PW-5, Exh. 45, has also identified accused no. 3. Thus, from the evidence of Ranjitsingh Veersingh Gohel, Executive Magistrate, coupled with the panchnama of T. I. Parade, identification of accused nos. 3, 5 and 6 is proved by the prosecution. ( 14 ) ). THE prosecution has also examined one Jagdish Sunderlal Parmar, PW-1, Exh. 29, to prove the second T. I. Parade, which was held on 20/11/1996. In this T. I. Parade, the doctor and his wife have identified accused nos. 7 and 8. The deponent, Jagdishkumar Sunderlal Parmar, Special Recovery Officer and the Executive Magistrate, who conducted the second T. I. Parade, has deposed in detail. Jagdishkumar Sunderlal Parmar was cross examined by the learned Advocates appearing for accused nos. 3 and 4, accused no. 7 and accused no. 8, but nothing has come on record to render his deposition disbelievable and hence, accused nos. 7 and 8 stand duly identified by the doctor and his wife in this T. I. Parade. ( 15 ) ). MR. Y. S. Lakhani, learned Advocate appearing for accused nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6 in Criminal Appeal No. 155 of 1999 and also appearing for accused no. 3 in Criminal Appeal No. 162 of 1999 on behalf of Mr. Y. M. Malik, submitted that these accused are falsely implicated and that the prosecution is not able to prove any case against these accused. Agitating the individual cause of accused no. 1, he submitted that the case of the prosecution against accused no. 1 is that he came in the field with a spear and placed the same at the chest of the doctor and enquired as to whom have the other accused brought. He also submitted that there is no evidence to the effect that accused no. 1 was the owner of the field and that from the evidence of photograph of accused no. 5 found in the room and his name inscribed on the water pot, it cannot be said that the accused no. 1 was the owner or in possession of the field in question. He submitted with vehemence that no T. I. Parade is held for accused no. 1 and in absence of any T. I. Parade, mere identification of the accused no. 1 in the Court by the doctor or other witness is of no consequence. 1 was the owner or in possession of the field in question. He submitted with vehemence that no T. I. Parade is held for accused no. 1 and in absence of any T. I. Parade, mere identification of the accused no. 1 in the Court by the doctor or other witness is of no consequence. He also submitted that as the panch witnesses of the arrest panchnama of the arrest carried out by the police on 3rd October, 1996 in the field, wherein it is alleged that accused nos. 1 and 2 were arrested from the field, it cannot be said to have been proved. He submitted that in absence of corroborating evidence of the panch witness, the arrest of accused nos. 1 and 2 cannot be said to have been proved and their involvement in the offence cannot be believed. He also submitted that no witness has attributed any role to accused no. 1 at any point of time either prior to incident or later, except at the time of coming to the field with a spear. He submitted that from the evidence, which is placed on record by the prosecution, it cannot be said that there was a meeting of mind amongst the accused so as to held them liable for the offence alleged against them. He further submitted that in case the aforesaid submissions are not accepted by the Court, an important fact is required to be taken into consideration that not a single antecedent of accused no. 1 is placed on record coupled with the fact that the accused is more than 60 years of age. This will have a bearing at the time of considering the case of each accused on the basis of the role played by them individually. Lastly, he submitted that it is clear that there is no sufficient evidence to infer `conspiracy on the part of accused no. 1. ( 16 ) ). MR. Y. S. Lakhani submitted that so far as accused no. 2 is concerned, the case of the prosecution is still weak than that of accused no. 1 inasmuch as only one sentence is averred against the accused no. 2 by the star witness i. e the doctor. The learned Advocate submitted that the doctor has stated that the accused no. 2 was keeping watch over him. 2 is concerned, the case of the prosecution is still weak than that of accused no. 1 inasmuch as only one sentence is averred against the accused no. 2 by the star witness i. e the doctor. The learned Advocate submitted that the doctor has stated that the accused no. 2 was keeping watch over him. He submitted that neither any overt act nor role is alleged against or attributed to accused no. 2. As in the case of accused no. 1, the panch witnesses of arrest panchnama have turned hostile, same is the position qua accused no. 2 also and hence, the same is not proved against accused no. 2 also. It was submitted that accused no. 2 was 21 years of age on the date of incident; there is no prior antecedent of accused no. 2 like accused no. 1, and; there is no evidence about the ownership or possession of the field in question of accused no. 2 also. Like accused no. 1, there is no sufficient evidence to allege conspiracy against this accused also. ( 17 ) ). THE learned Advocate submitted that so far as accused no. 5 is concerned, the prosecution has not led any strong evidence on the basis of which ownership of the field in question can be established that of accused no. 5. Photograph of accused no. 5 is found in the photograph along with some other person, which was found in the room in which the doctor was confined, and his name was inscribed on a water pot found in the room. The learned Advocate submitted that besides this, other evidence against accused no. 5 is, a tamancha and live cartridges, recovered from him. But, both the panch witnesses have not supported the panchnama. Rajjabbhai Sheikh is PW-12, Exh. 54 and Karamat Ali Umamuddin is PW-9, Exh. 49. The learned Advocate submitted that in absence of any supporting evidence of the panch witnesses, there is no evidence so far as recovery of tamancha and cartridges are concerned. He then submitted that, the only act which is attributed to accused no. 5 is that he pointed knife to the doctor while the doctor was being brought to the field in jeep. Besides that, no other act is attributed to him. He also submitted that accused no. 5 was not found on the scene at the time of arrest. He then submitted that, the only act which is attributed to accused no. 5 is that he pointed knife to the doctor while the doctor was being brought to the field in jeep. Besides that, no other act is attributed to him. He also submitted that accused no. 5 was not found on the scene at the time of arrest. ( 18 ) ). MR. Y. S. Lakhani, learned Advocate, submitted that so far as accused no. 6 is concerned, taking overall view of the evidence led by the prosecution, the prosecution has weakest case against accused no. 6. The learned Advocate submitted that he was identified in the Court room, which is of no help to the prosecution. So far as his identification in so-called T. I. Parade is concerned, the same is not proved as the Executive Magistrate, Mr. Ranjitsingh Gohel, has not narrated in his deposition that each of the three persons were taken out after identification by the doctor. Mr. Lakhani submitted that the accused no. 6 was arrested near Paldi. Neither the doctor nor any other witness of the prosecution attributes any role to accused no. 6. What is alleged against accused no. 6 is that a watch was recovered from him. He submitted that the prosecution has not proved the fact that the watch was identified by the doctor to be of his ownership. Not only that the doctor, in his evidence, has not at any place stated that the watch was taken away by accused no. 6 from him. Mr. Lakhani submitted that it is the case of the prosecution that the `spear was discovered at the instance of accused no. 6. On perusal of the evidence of panch witnesses to panchnama of discovery, there is material contradiction on this point as it is stated that the spear was discovered by the police of their own. Learned Advocate submitted that in this view of the matter, so far as accused no. 6 is concerned, there is hardly any evidence to connect accused no. 6 with the alleged offence at all. ( 19 ) ). MR. Kapadia, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 256 of 1999, submitted that the accused no. 7 is not properly identified. He is alleged to have been identified in Second T. I. Parade. But then, Shri Jagdish Sunderlal Parmar, Executive Magistrate, PW-1, Exh. 6 with the alleged offence at all. ( 19 ) ). MR. Kapadia, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 256 of 1999, submitted that the accused no. 7 is not properly identified. He is alleged to have been identified in Second T. I. Parade. But then, Shri Jagdish Sunderlal Parmar, Executive Magistrate, PW-1, Exh. 29, has not stated that while conducting the T. I. Parade, he had taken care to see that other blue eyed persons were also included in the group of persons before proceeding with the test-identification parade. Mr. Kapadia also submitted that accused no. 7 was arrested on 18/11/1996 and since then, he is in jail for the entire period except for a short time when he was granted interim bail once for a period of 10 to 15 days and second time for two months. Mr. Kapadia submitted that the accused no. 7 has undergone the imprisonment for almost 5 years and with remission it will be about six years. He submitted that the same be treated as sufficient punishment for the offence, if any, committed by him. Mr. Kapadia relied upon a judgement of the Apex Court in the matter of Chandersingh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in AIR 1973 SC 1200 . ( 20 ) ). MR. Deepak M. Shah, learned Advocate appearing for accused no. 8 in Criminal Appeal No. 162 of 1999, submitted that there is no evidence against accused no. 8. He strenuously submitted that the only evidence against accused no. 8 is that of the wife of the doctor, Alkaben, PW-3, Exh. 38. But then she has deposed that, `she did not look at the person with full attention. She has used the same phrase while lodging the complaint before the police. Mr. Shah submitted that if a person is seen only once by the witness and that too, without paying full attention to him, it is not possible for the witness to identify the person during T. I. Parade. Mr. Shah relied upon a judgement of the Apex Court in the matter of Surendrasingh Rautala @ Surendarsingh Bengali vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 2002 SC 260 . . ( 21 ) ). MR. Mr. Shah relied upon a judgement of the Apex Court in the matter of Surendrasingh Rautala @ Surendarsingh Bengali vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 2002 SC 260 . . ( 21 ) ). MR. K. T. Dave, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, fairly conceded that all the accused cannot be convicted for the offence under Sections 392 and 397 read with Section 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code. He submitted that from the evidence on record, they can be convicted for the offence under Sections 347 and 365 read with Section 120 (B ). He also submitted that the accused can be convicted for their individual act. He also submitted that in the facts of the present case, the accused no. 7 can be said to have committed offence under Section 392 and 397, but then if it is taken into consideration that recovery of currency notes and wrist watch is not established and further when it is not established that the watch, which was recovered from accused no. 6, belonged to the doctor, it is not possible for the Court to hold that the accused no. 7 was guilty of the offence under Section 392 and 397. ( 22 ) ). ON perusal of the evidence, to which the learned APP invited our attention and which we also peruse at the instance of the learned Advocates appearing for the accused, we find that the concession made by the learned APP is justified in view of the evidence on record. Taking into consideration the totality of the evidence, it is not possible to hold that all the accused are guilty of the offence under Sections 392 and 397 read with Section 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code. Even taking into consideration the individual acts of accused nos. 5, 7 and 8, they cannot be held guilty for the offence under Section 392 and 397 for their individual acts. The Court now proceeds to consider as to whether the accused are guilty of the offence under Sections 347 and 362 read with Section 120 (B ). ( 23 ) ). ON perusal of the evidence of the doctor, who has narrated the incident in detail and has stated that he had received a telephone call and a similar telephone call was received at his residence; he reached his residence at 9. ( 23 ) ). ON perusal of the evidence of the doctor, who has narrated the incident in detail and has stated that he had received a telephone call and a similar telephone call was received at his residence; he reached his residence at 9. 15 p. m. after he had his supper; a jeep came driven by accused no. 3, who was accompanied by accused no. 8; the doctor was taken in that jeep and that when the jeep reached near Railway Crossing, it was slowed down and accused no. 5 and 7 boarded the jeep, then, the jeep proceeded towards Sarkhej on Gandhinagar Sarkhej Highway; accused nos. 5 and 7 took out their weapons and pointed them at the doctor; accused no. 7 took out wallet of the doctor and took currency notes of Rs. 400=00 to Rs. 500=00 along with visiting cards and other miscellaneous papers; accused no. 7 applied insulation tape and black coloured gogles on the eyes of the doctor; the doctor was then brought to the field by making him walk for about one and a half kilometre, there he met accused no. 1, who is father of accused no. 5; he was armed with spear; he placed spear at the chest of the doctor and then enquired as to whom the other accused have brought; he was told that he is a doctor; thereafter, accused no. 2 in the company of accused no. 1 and other accused kept watch on the doctor; accused no. 2 is also a son of accused no. 1; and thus, accused no. 5 along with his brother and father, and also accused nos. 3, 7 and 8 had hatched a conspiracy. ( 24 ) ). FROM the evidence on record, it is clear that accused no. 7 was the master mind behind the whole episode inasmuch as accused no. 7 had gone to the doctor prior to about one and a half month. Not only that he had, thereafter, gone to the clinic of the doctor on the day of the incident and had made detailed enquiry from the wife of the doctor, which is on record as deposed by doctors wife. He is the person, who enquired about the correct telephone numbers of the doctor, timings of the doctor-reaching home, vehicles of the doctor, and then, in the company of accused nos. He is the person, who enquired about the correct telephone numbers of the doctor, timings of the doctor-reaching home, vehicles of the doctor, and then, in the company of accused nos. 3, 5 and 8 brought the doctor to the field belonging to the accused no. 5. The accused no. 7 placed the knife touching it to the waist of the doctor, took out money from the wallet along with visiting cards and other miscellaneous papers and also wrist watch of the doctor. Thus, the accused no. 7 not only masterminded the whole episode, but also acted for the fulfillment of the object of extorting money by resorting to wrongful confining and by abducting the doctor. It was accused no. 7, who collected telephone numbers of the relatives and friends of the doctor. It will be appropriate at this stage to take into consideration the jail record of accused nos. 7 and 8 produced by the learned APP. The accused no. 8 was convicted of an offence under section 302, 34 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code by a judgement and order dated 13th July, 1992 by the Sessions Court, Mehsana. On 30th January, 1995, he was released on furlough for a period of 14 days, but then, he did not report back and it was only on 25/11/1996 (present offence is committed on 1/10/1996) that he was arrested by the police after being absconding for 650 days. So far as accused no. 7 is concerned, after he was convicted in the present case, by a judgement and order dated 20th January, 1999 by the City Sessions Court No. 9, Ahmedabad, during his release on temporary bail on 8th September, 2001, for a period of 90 days, he indulged in similar not one, but three other offences, which are registered at Kalol Police Station, being C. R. No. 275, 284 and 285 of 2001. Therefore, he was arrested by the police on 10/11/2001. This is noted and narrated because it reflects the mental framework of accused no. 7. As the facts emerge, the accused no. 7, after having masterminded the offence, took help of his friend, accused no. 5, who was having a field in a remote place at Village : Noli, Taluka : Sayla, District : Surendranagar. From the occurrence of the events, it is clear that after the doctor was abducted by accused nos. 7. As the facts emerge, the accused no. 7, after having masterminded the offence, took help of his friend, accused no. 5, who was having a field in a remote place at Village : Noli, Taluka : Sayla, District : Surendranagar. From the occurrence of the events, it is clear that after the doctor was abducted by accused nos. 3 and 8 in a jeep, accused nos. 5 and 7 boarded the jeep from Railway Crossing and then, brought the doctor to the field of accused no. 5, wherein, in a room, he was confined. ( 25 ) ). FROM the totality of the evidence, it is clear that there was a conspiracy and, therefore, conviction under section 120 (B) is upheld. It is to be appreciated that the accused no. 5 has accompanied accused no. 7 in the jeep right from the beginning and has brought the doctor to a place where in the room, a photograph of accused no. 5 is found and his name is also found inscribed on a water pot. In criminal cases, the Court is not deciding the title of a property, as is decided in civil cases. In criminal cases, while appreciating the evidence, even on the basis of strong probability, it can be ascertained that the prosecution is successful in establishing that accused no. 5 was having link/connection with the field in which there was a room, in which the doctor was confined. Not only that, an important aspect that the father of accused no. 5 was present in the field with a spear and as the doctor has deposed, accused nos. 1 and 2 were keeping watch over the doctor while he was confined in that room. This is more than sufficient for this Court to infer that all these accused were involved in the offence alleged against them under Section 347 and 362 read with Section 120 (B ). The fact that there cannot be a direct evidence of conspiracy, the same is to be inferred from the circumstances of the case and totality of the evidence led before the Court. In the present case, sufficient evidence is on record which can lead the Court to believe that all the accused had meeting of minds. Accused no. The fact that there cannot be a direct evidence of conspiracy, the same is to be inferred from the circumstances of the case and totality of the evidence led before the Court. In the present case, sufficient evidence is on record which can lead the Court to believe that all the accused had meeting of minds. Accused no. 7 plans the offence, visits the doctor prior to about one and a half month, then visits the doctor on the day of incident at his residence, ascertains doctors telephone numbers, gives telephone calls at doctors residence and clinic and then with the help of accused nos. 3 and 8, who were sent to the doctors residence to call him for a visit, accused nos. 3 and 8 abduct the doctor, bring him in the jeep in which accused nos. 5 and 7 board on the way, take out deadly weapons and point them at the doctor, take away the currency notes and wrist watch of the doctor; on reaching the field, accused no. 1 is found to be present with a spear; accused no. 7 then collects the telephone numbers of the relatives and friends and the doctor was confined in a room so as to extort money; and, accused nos. 1 and 2 keep watch on the doctor. ( 26 ) ). IN this view of the matter, there is no reason for the Court not to infer that all these accused had hatched a conspiracy for committing offence. On perusal of the evidence of the doctor, the entire evidence is not only inspiring confidence, but the same is to be believed in toto. It is also corroborated by the wife of the doctor. The other evidence produced on record of the case shows that accused no. 7, having found company of accused no. 5 and a place to give final design, has committed offence under Sections 347 and 365 read with Section 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code. ( 27 ) ). THE submissions made by the learned Advocate on behalf of accused nos, 1, 2, 3 and 5 do not find favour and the Court comes to the conclusion that all these accused are guilty of the aforesaid offences. The submission made by the learned Advocate, Mr. Y. S. Lakhani, for the aforesaid accused, to an extent that accused no. THE submissions made by the learned Advocate on behalf of accused nos, 1, 2, 3 and 5 do not find favour and the Court comes to the conclusion that all these accused are guilty of the aforesaid offences. The submission made by the learned Advocate, Mr. Y. S. Lakhani, for the aforesaid accused, to an extent that accused no. 6 is not found guilty of any offence as prosecution is not able to establish any case against him, finds favour with the Court to the extent that while considering the aspect of sentence, individual act of each accused is required to be appreciated. It is right that when accused no. 1 is to be considered as against accused no. 5, 7 or 8. The role played by accused no. 7 and 8 is definitely different than the role played by accused no. 1 and, therefore, while determining the liability so as to render them liable for different sentence, it is important. So far as role played by accused no. 1 is concerned, it is alleged that after accused nos. 3, 5, 7 and 8 reached the field with the doctor, he came there when the telephone numbers were being noted and placed the spear with which he appeared on the scene, on the chest of the doctor and, thereafter, he kept watch on the doctor. From the fact that accused no. 1 is the father of accused no. 5, it cannot be said that he did not know about the act committed by the other accused, that is, accused nos. 3, 5, 7 and 8 and, therefore, he is to be held guilty of the offence alleged against him under Section 347 and 365 read with Section 120 (B ). When the question of punishment to be imposed on accused no. 1 comes, it has to be different than the punishment which is to be awarded to accused nos. 3, 5, 7 and 8. ( 28 ) ). ON appreciation of evidence and after taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, accused no. 6 is acquitted as no evidence admissible is found against him. So far as accused nos. 3, 5, 7 and 8. ( 28 ) ). ON appreciation of evidence and after taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, accused no. 6 is acquitted as no evidence admissible is found against him. So far as accused nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, looking to the role attributed to them and looking to the fact that no overt act is attributed to them, though they are held guilty of offence under Sections 347 and 365 read with Section 120 (B), interest of justice will be served if they are sentenced for the period already undergone. ( 29 ) ). SO far as accused nos. 3, 5, 7 and 8 are concerned, these are the persons who have committed the offence. From the evidence, it is found that they have indulged in the act right from the beginning. Even at the cost of repetition, it can be stated that accused no. 3 was the driver, accused no. 8 accompanied him and accused nos. 5 and 7 boarded the jeep and while the doctor was brought in the jeep; accused nos. 5 and 7 pointed deadly weapons at the doctor; accused no. 7 took out money and wrist watch of the doctor; accused no. 8 has accompanied right from the beginning and he was the person, who was also alleged to have pointed revolver at the doctor in the field and who was constantly keeping watch at the doctor. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, we pass the following order : ORDERA) All these Criminal Appeal Nos. 155/1999, 162/1999, 256/1999 and 286/1999 are partly allowed. The conviction of all the appellants recorded under Section 392 and 397 read with Section 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code as well as punishment imposed for commission of the said offence is hereby set aside. B) In Criminal Appeal No. 155 of 1999, the conviction of appellant no. 4, Jagabhai Ranabhai Khachar i. e. accused no. 6 in Sessions Case No. 139 of 1998, recorded under Section 347 and 365 read with Section 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code as well as punishment imposed for the commission of the said offence is hereby set aside. He is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required for any other offence. Fine, if paid, is to be refunded. He is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required for any other offence. Fine, if paid, is to be refunded. C) In Criminal Appeal No. 155 of 1999, the conviction of appellant nos. 1 and 2, Devayatbhai Bhimbhai Khachar and Aalaku @ Aalu Devayatbhai Khachar, accused nos. 1 and 2 respectively, recorded under Section 347 and 365 read with Section 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code is maintained, but, they are punished with R. I. for the period already undergone and pay a fine of Rs. 1000=00 each, in default to suffer R. I. for 15 days for the offence punishable under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code and pay a fine of Rs. 200=00 each, in default to suffer R. I. for one week for the offence punishable under Section 347 of the Indian Penal Code. D) In Criminal Appeal No. 155 of 1999, the conviction of appellant no. 3, Gabharubhai Devayatbhai Khachar, accused no. 5, recorded under section 347 and 365 read with Section 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code as well as sentence is maintained i. e. he is ordered to undergo R. I. for seven years and pay fine of Rs. 1000=00, in default to suffer R. I. for 15 days more for the offence punishable under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code and R. I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 200=00 in default to suffer R. I. for one week more for the offence punishable under Section 347 of the Indian Penal Code. E) In Criminal Appeal No. 162/1999, the conviction of the appellant, Babu @ Chhanaji Malaji Thakor, accused no. 8, recorded under Section 347 and 365 read with Section 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code as well as sentence is maintained i. e. he is ordered to undergo R. I. for seven years and pay a fine of Rs. 1000=00, in default to suffer R. I. for 15 days more for the offence punishable under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code and R. I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 200=00, in default to suffer R. I. for one week more for the offence punishable under Section 347 of the Indian Penal Code. F) In Criminal Appeal No. 256 of 1999, the conviction of the appellant, Naresh @ Narsinhbhai @ Doctor Melabhai Raval, accused no. 200=00, in default to suffer R. I. for one week more for the offence punishable under Section 347 of the Indian Penal Code. F) In Criminal Appeal No. 256 of 1999, the conviction of the appellant, Naresh @ Narsinhbhai @ Doctor Melabhai Raval, accused no. 7, recorded under Section 347 and 365 read with Section 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code as well as sentence is maintained i. e. he is ordered to undergo R. I. for seven years and pay a fine of Rs. 1000=00, in default to suffer R. I. for 15 days more for the offence punishable under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code and R. I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 200=00, in default to suffer R. I. for one week more for the offence punishable under Section 347 of the Indian Penal Code. G) In Criminal Appeal No. 286 of 1999, the conviction of the appellant, Joraji @ Joravarsinh Rundhaji @ Rupsinh Thakor, accused no. 3, recorded under Section 347 and 365 read with Section 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code as well as sentence is maintained i. e. he is ordered to undergo R. I. for seven years and pay a fine of Rs. 1000=00, in default to suffer R. I. for 15 days more for the offence punishable under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code and R. I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 200=00, in default to suffer R. I. for one week more for the offence punishable under Section 347 of the Indian Penal Code. H) No separate orders for sentence is passed for the offence punishable under Section 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code to any of the accused. I) substantive sentences to run concurrently. J) set off may be given to all accused. .