Judgment Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.- Bahadur and Bhagwan Singh, the appellants herein, were put to trial in Sessions Case No. 93/2001 before the learned Sessions Judge Karauli. Learned trial Judge vide Judgment dated 31.01.2002 convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:- Under Section 364-A IPC: Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer six months simple imprisonment . Under Section 323 IPC: Imposed fine of Rs. 500/-in default to suffer one month simple imprisonment. 2. It is the prosecution case that on 04.05.2000 at 10.30 AM informant Dharam Chand (PW. 2) submitted a written report (Exhibit .P-1) at Police Station Sapotra stating therein that on the said day at 7 AM Ramji Lal, grand father of informant, and Bharat Lal, uncle of informant, had gone to village Amargarh to recover money landed by them. Around 8.30 AM while they had been to Bairwa Basti, four persons armed with guns and other weapons made assault on them and inflicted severe blows on their person. They abducted Bharat Lal and demanded ransom. On that report the Police Station Sapotra registered a case under Sections 365 and 323 IPC and investigation commenced. Statements of witnesses were recorded, necessary memos were drawn and the appellants were arrested. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Sessions Judge Karauli. Charges under Sections 364-A and 323 IPC were framed against the appellants, who denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 8 witnesses. In the explanation under Section 313 CrPC, the appellants claimed innocence. No witness in defence was examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above. 3. The only argument advanced by learned Counsel for the appellants is that even if the prosecution evidence is taken at its face value, charge under Section 364-A IPC is not made out. Elaborating his submissions learned Counsel canvassed that on conclusion of investigation charge-sheet was filed under Section 365 IPC and the case against the appellants does not travel beyond Section 365 IPC. 4. We have heard learned Public Prosecutor on the factual and legal aspect of the case and with his assistance weighed the material on record. Before considering the testimony of star witnesses of the prosecution viz. 4. We have heard learned Public Prosecutor on the factual and legal aspect of the case and with his assistance weighed the material on record. Before considering the testimony of star witnesses of the prosecution viz. Ramji Lal (PW.1) and Bharat Lal (PW.6), we deem it appropriate to analyse the legal issue raised by leaned Counsel for the appellant. 5. Section 364-A IPC was inserted by Act 42 of 1993. It got the assent of President of India on 22.05.1993 and published in Gazette of India on the same day. Section 364-A reads as under:-"364-A. Kidnapping for ransom, etc.-Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt, or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or (any foreign State or international inter-governmental organisation or any other person) to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom, shall be punishable with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine" 6. Section 365 IPC however provides thus:-"365. Kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine person.-Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person with intent to cause that person to be secretly and wrongfully confined, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine." .7. The intention of the abductors has to be judged from the facts and circumstances of the case including what the abductors did at the time of the abduction and immediately thereafter - where the facts and circumstances clearly indicate that the intention of the abductors was to secretly confine the abducted person against his will there could be no doubt that all the ingredients of Section 365 IPC were made out. For establishing charge under Section 365 IPC following points require proof :- .(i) That the accused kidnapped or abducted a person. .(ii) That he did so with intent to confine him secretly and wrongfully. .(iii) That he had such intention at the time of kidnapping or abduction. 8. Bearing these principles in mind we proceed to scan the testimony of Ramji Lal (Pw.1) and Bharat Lal (PW.6). .(ii) That he did so with intent to confine him secretly and wrongfully. .(iii) That he had such intention at the time of kidnapping or abduction. 8. Bearing these principles in mind we proceed to scan the testimony of Ramji Lal (Pw.1) and Bharat Lal (PW.6). In his deposition Ramji Lal stated that he alongwith Bharat Lal had gone to Amargarh to settle the account of borrowed money. Instead of paying cash, borrower Badri Bairwa agreed to give wheat to him. While Badri Bairwa was weighing wheat, four miscreants armed with guns and chains came over there. They abused Bharat Lal, beat him, dragged him out of the house and abducted him. Bharat Lal got rescued after 22 days. Bharat Lal deposed that while he was sleeping in the house of Badri Bairwa, four miscreants came and abducted him. He remained with them for about 22 days thereafter police rescued him. Although Bharat Lal stated that the appellants demanded ransom of Rs. two lakhs and for this purpose he wrote a letter to Ramji Lal but fact of demanding ransom was not stated by him in his police statement. Ramji Lal also did not say that he ever received letter from Bharat Lal. In view of this it is difficult to believe that the appellants demanded any ransom from Ramji Lal. The prosecution is able to establish that the appellants abducted Bharat Lal and they did so with intent to confine Bharat Lal secretly and at the time of abducting Bharat Lal had such intention. There is nothing on record that the appellants after abduction threatened Bharat Lal to cause his death or hurt or by their conduct gave rise a reasonable apprehension that Bharat Lal might be put to death or hurt if Ramji Lal did not pay ransom to them. Thus charge under Section 364-A IPC is not established against the appellants and the appellants are guilty under Section 365 IPC. 9. For these reasons, we partly allow the appeal and instead of Section 364-A, we convict appellants Bahadur and Bhagwan Singh for the offence under Section 365 IPC and sentence each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default they will further suffer six months rigorous imprisonment. The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants under Section 323 IPC are confirmed. 1000/-, in default they will further suffer six months rigorous imprisonment. The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants under Section 323 IPC are confirmed. Impugned Judgment of the learned trial Judge stands modified as indicated above.