JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Paran Kumar Phukan, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and sentence dated 30.03.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta in Sessions Case No. 177/2006 arising out C.R. Case No. 399/2006 convicting the accused appellant under Sections 365/34 IPC and sentencing them to Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 (five) years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default, to Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 (two) years under Sections 365/34 of the IPC. 2. The factual aspects of the case in a nutshell is that a complaint was filed by the complainant Abdus Salam before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta on 04.03.2006 alleging therein that in the month of June in the previous year, his son Bulbul Hussain was picked up by the accused petitioner Habibar Rahman in a Tempo while he was going to the house of his paternal aunt and he was assured that he would be taken to the house of Habibar Rahman. When they arrived at Barpeta road, they were joined by one Alam Ali and both of them took him to Delhi in a train. 3. In Delhi, his son was engaged as a labour in building construction work and thereafter, he was taken to the house of one Munni who informed his son that he was sold to her and he was not allowed to come out of her house. He had to remain in her house for about 8/9 months. The villagers having come to know about the incident caught Habibar Rahman and he admitted before the villagers that he along with Dilowar Rahman, Alam Ali and Md. Karim took the boy to Delhi. He was immediately brought to Howly outpost and he admitted before police about the crime committed by him. The I/C, Howly outpost released Habibar Rahman and directed him to produce the son of the complainant and accordingly, Habibar Rahman and Dilowar Rahman brought his son to home on 30th day of January and left at Howly bazar. An FIR was lodged with the I/C, Howly outpost but no action was taken on the FIR, which compelled the complainant to file the complaint before the court. 4. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, on the basis of the complaint took cognisance and issued process and thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions after observing all the procedures. 5. 4. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, on the basis of the complaint took cognisance and issued process and thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions after observing all the procedures. 5. The prosecution examined 6 witnesses during the trial before the Sessions Court. In their defence statement, the accused appellants denied their involvement. The learned Sessions Judge, on conclusion of the trial found the accused appellants guilty under Sections 365/34 IPC and they were convicted and sentenced accordingly as stated above. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the accused appellants submitted that there was enough delay in filing the case and as such, inference should be drawn against the prosecution. It is further submitted that there was total lack of corroboration in the evidence of the witnesses and on the basis of their uncorroborated testimony, the learned Sessions Judge ought not to have convicted the accused appellants. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, on the other hand, submitted that the delay in filing the case is self-explanatory and it was not known to the appellant that his son was taken to Delhi by the accused appellants. It is submitted that there is full corroboration in the evidence in material particulars and the offence under Section 365 IPC has been established against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. 8. In the backdrop of the aforesaid contentions, I have gone through the entire evidence on record. 9. Since PW1 Balbul Hussain is the victim of the case, his evidence is of utmost importance for the prosecution. His evidence reveals that at first, he was taken by the accused Habibar Rahman in a Tempo and at Athiabari, they were joined by Dilowar and Dilowar took him to Delhi. In Delhi, he was engaged in construction works and thereafter, he was doing the job of washing clothes under a bihari person. After about 10 months, he was brought to Howly bazar by the accused appellant Alam Ali, where he was recognised by some persons and intimation was given to his father. His father came and took him to his home. His evidence satisfactorily established that he was taken by the accused persons to Delhi and was engaged as a construction worker and he was also washing clothes but he was not paid any remuneration for doing the job. His father came and took him to his home. His evidence satisfactorily established that he was taken by the accused persons to Delhi and was engaged as a construction worker and he was also washing clothes but he was not paid any remuneration for doing the job. Defence could not elicit any material contradiction in his evidence, there is no reason for him to falsely implicate the accused petitioners in the case. 10. PW2 claims to have seen the boy at Jain bazar of Howly and he also found the accused appellant Habibar Rahman being interrogated by some persons in the market. Police also came when Habibar Rahman admitted his guilt. He came to know from the other persons that Habibar Rahman took the boy to Delhi. PW3 who was the I/C of Howly outpost admitted having received FIR from the father of the boy, namely, Salam and he also admitted that he did not make any entry in the general diary. He ought to have made G.D. Entry but he failed to do so and his evidence is that he was I/C only for 6/7 days. He appears to have conducted the investigation in a perfunctory manner and even failed to register any case, although information regarding cognizable offence was received by him. 11. His evidence reveals that Habibar Rahman was detained by some people in a market area and they were interrogating him and these people refused to hand over Habibar to him. According to PW3, Habibar admitted before the people that the boy was taken to Delhi and after about 20/25 days, he was brought to home and from Bulbul, he had come to know that Habibar, Dilowar and Alam took Bulbul to Delhi. He admitted having received FIR, Ext. 1, which has been duly proved. From the FIR, I do not find any reason to suspect embellishment or after thought. 12. PW4 is a co-villager and they knew that Bulbul, the son of the complainant is found missing from his house even before filing of the case and after about 10/11 months Bulbul was brought back. He was present when Habibar was interrogated by the villagers at Jain bazar. Similarly, PW5 also knew about the missing boy and he was also present when accused Habibar admitted his guilt before the villagers at Jain bazar. 13. He was present when Habibar was interrogated by the villagers at Jain bazar. Similarly, PW5 also knew about the missing boy and he was also present when accused Habibar admitted his guilt before the villagers at Jain bazar. 13. On careful scrutiny of the entire evidence, I have found that Habibar was caught by the villagers at Jain bazar and on being interrogated, he confessed that he and the co-accused had taken Bulbul to Delhi. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the villagers and in this regard, they have no reason to falsely implicate him in the case. 14. Evidence on record also reveals that the victim boy at that time was aged about 11/12 years. He was forcibly taken by the accused appellant from his lawful custody and was engaged as a labour in Delhi. By taking away the boy from lawful guardian, they have committed offence under Section 365 IPC. The offence against the accused appellants have been proved beyond all reasonable doubt and consequently, I do not find any infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta in convicting the accused appellants under Sections 365/34 of the IPC. 15. Consequently, the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta stands affirmed. Send down the LCR along with a copy of the judgment for information and necessary action. The period already undergone by them in jail shall be set off. The appeal is dismissed.