JUDGMENT Basi Reddy, J.- This is an appeal by the State Government against the acquittal of the seven respondents in Sessions Case No. 32 of 1961 on the file of the Court of Sessions, Warangal Division. The seven respondents who figured as accused 1 to 7 respectively and will be referred to as such in the course of this judgment, are: 1. Shaik Ibrahim (accused 1) 2. Syed Hassan Ali (accused 2) 3. C. Janardhan Rao (accused 3) 4. G. Satyanarayana Rao (accused 4) 5. Ahmed Ali (accused 5) 6. K. Narasimhamurthy (accused 6) 7. K. Ramaiah (accused 7) The accused were all members of the Police Force, and at the material time accused 1 was the Circle Inspector, accused 2 and 3 were the Sub-Inspectors and accused 7 was a Police Constable attached to the Central Crime Station, Warangal, accused 4 was the Sub-Inspector and accused 5 and 6 were the Police Constables Nos. 957 and 885 respectively attached to the Mathwada Police Station. Both the Central Crime Station and the Mathwada Police Station were located in one and the same building in adjoining halls. The accused were tried by the Sessions Judge, Warangal on two charges. The first charge comprised of two pans - the first part was against accused 2, 5, 6 and 7 under section 302 read with section 34 , Indian Penal Code on the allegation that on the night of 24th April, 1961, at the Police Station, Mathwadain Warangal town, they had in furtherance of their common intention caused the death of one Botla Chandriga, hereinafter referred to as Chandriga, while the second part of the charge was framed against accused 1, 3 and 4 under section 302 read with section 109, Indian Penal Code for having abetted the commission of the aforesaid offence. The second charge was against all the seven accused under section 201 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code for having caused the evidence of the said offence to disappear with the intention of screening themselves from legal punishment. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted all the accused after recording the following finding in the penultimate paragraph of his judgment. “ The eye evidence and the circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution is unreliable at is not established that the death of Chandriga was homicidal. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted all the accused after recording the following finding in the penultimate paragraph of his judgment. “ The eye evidence and the circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution is unreliable at is not established that the death of Chandriga was homicidal. The guilt of the accused on any of the charges framed against them or for the offence under section 330 I.P.C. (Voluntarily causing hurt to extort any confession or any information which may lead to the detection of an offence) is not proved. All the accused are fit to be acquitted.” In support of this appeal by the State Government against the order of acquittal it was contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that the judgment of the Sessions Judge is vitiated by gross misappreciation of evidence and by manifest errors of law, and the acquittal of the accused has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. This is a case of alleged use by the accused-police officers of third-decree methods to extort information regarding an offence from a suspect, which ended in the death of the suspect. The facts unfolded by the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution areas follows: On the night of 22nd April, 1961, the “house of one Maganti Ramachandram in Warangal town was broken into by thieves and property consisting of gold and silver ornaments and cash of the total value of about Rs. 2,200 was stolen. On a complaint filed by the said Ramachandram, a crime was registered under sections 457 and 380, Indian Penal Code as Crime No. 44 of 1961 of Mathwada Police Station and the case was entrusted to the Central Crime Station, Warangal, for investigation. Accused 1, who was then the Circle Inspector of Police in charge the Central Crime Station, Warangal, took up the investigation. As the crime was suspected to be the work of professional criminals, accused 1 directed his subordinates to check up all suspects and exconvicts in Warangal and round about. P.W. 8 (Khaja Basheeruddin) is Police Constable No. 876 who was at that time working in the Central Crime Station, Warangal. According to him, on the night of 23rd April, 1961, accused 1 instructed him to bring Chandriga and P.Ws. 1 and 2 (Pasula Komaraiah and Jannu Kankaiah) who were all ex-convicts and who were living at that time in a, locality known as Desaipet, near Warangal town. According to him, on the night of 23rd April, 1961, accused 1 instructed him to bring Chandriga and P.Ws. 1 and 2 (Pasula Komaraiah and Jannu Kankaiah) who were all ex-convicts and who were living at that time in a, locality known as Desaipet, near Warangal town. Accordingly P.W. 8 and a Head Constable by name Asgari Hasan went to Desaipeta early on the next morning, i.e., on 24th April, 1961, to bring those three persons but they were able to get at only Chandriga and the latter was taken to the Mathwada Police Station at about 8 a.m. and handed over to accused 3, one of the two Sub-Inspectors attached to the Central Crime Station. Similarly P.Ws. 1 and 2 as well as P.Ws. 3 and 4 (Balasani Kotiah and Ponna Venkiah) were taken to the Mathwada Police Station for purposes of interrogation on the same day, i.e., 24th April, 1961. The case of the prosecution is that on the night of the are between 10-00 and 11-00 p.m., accused 2 to 7 took Chandriga inside the Mathwada Police Station, tied up his wrists with a cloth, hung him by the wrists to a peg driven into the wall and tortured him whilst so suspended, by placing a pestle on his neck and pressing it down with a view to extort a confession or information from him regarding the aforesaid property offence. The process was carried on to such a pitch thatChandriga died, presumably due to the fracture of the vertebrae. Thereupon in the course of the same night, accused 3 and accused 4 contacted accused 1 and in accordance with his instructions, accused 2 to 7 first threw the body of Chandriga into a well situated near the Police Station and subsequently removed the dead body from the well, took it to a distant spot some thirty miles away from Warangal and buried it in the bed of a river. However, on the next morning i.e., on the morning of the 25th, it was given out at the Mathwada Police Station that Chandriga had escaped from custody during the night and his whereabouts were not known. Entries were made to that effect in the General Diary of the Central Crime Station. This was a false story and the truth could not be suppressed for long. Entries were made to that effect in the General Diary of the Central Crime Station. This was a false story and the truth could not be suppressed for long. There were persistent rumours that Chandriga had been tortured and killed in the Police Station. Matters came to a head on the 28th April, when a large crowed consisting of about a thousand persons collected at the Mathwada Police Station and demanded that those responsible for the death of Chandriga, should come out. P.W. 31 (Sri S. Ananda Ram), the Superintendent of Police, Warangal, was informed by telephone about the situation at the Police Station in the evening of the 28th. He proceeded to the Police Station and took stock of the situation. Various voices were heard in the crowd that one Chandriga had been brought to Mathwada Police Station four days earlier along with P.Ws. 1 and 2 and that Chandriga had been done to death in the Police Station during interrogation. P.W. 31 tried to pacify the crowd and get a coherent version. He picked out P.W. 1, took him into the Police Stat on compound and asked him to give an account of what had happened. P.W. 1 then gave a statement which was recorded by P.W. 29 (Franklin), the Town Inspector of Police, Warangal. The statement is Exhibit P.-6 and it runs thus: “First Information Report. Time 9-30 p.m. on 28th April, 1961. Pasala Komriah, son of Abbiah, resident of Desaipet. I am the resident of Desaipet. On Sunday one C.I.D. H.C. came to my house in my absence and informed my wife that I am wanted by S.I. Janardan Sab (A-3), so I came to P.S. Mathwada on Monday at about 11 a.m. When I came to P.S.I saw Botla Chandriga, S.I.S. Janardhan Sab (A-3), Junior S. I. and S. I. Satyanarayana (A-4) present at the P. S. After an hour, 2 P. Cs. Ahmed Ali (A-5) and Murthy (A-6) brought Jannu Kanakayya (P.W. 2). S. Is. Satyanarayana (A-4) and and Janardan (A-3) and Hassan Ali (A-2) made me, Jannu Kanakayya (P.W. 2) and Botla Chandrigasit separately. At about 10 in the night Botla Chandriga was taken inside for interrogation. P. C. Murthy (A-6) came to me and took my upper cloth and the hands of Botla Chandriga were tied by S.I. Satyanarayana (A-4). Later the P.Cs. hung him to the peg. The P.Cs. At about 10 in the night Botla Chandriga was taken inside for interrogation. P. C. Murthy (A-6) came to me and took my upper cloth and the hands of Botla Chandriga were tied by S.I. Satyanarayana (A-4). Later the P.Cs. hung him to the peg. The P.Cs. who have interrogated are Ahmed Ali (A-5), Murthy (A-6), Venkat Narsiah, Ramanna (A-7) and Bashir, also Vaikuntam. There were also some more Police Constables. I can identify them by their faces. While the interrogation was going on I was called inside by the 3 S. Is. and shown the condition of Chandriga and threatened that I will also be subjected to the same treatment. At the time Chandriga was tied to the peg with his hands and a pestle was placed on his neck which was being pressed by the constable. Chandriga was crying of pain then. At the same time S. I. Janardhan Sab (A-3) was beating and questioning him to reveal, while S. I. Satyanarayana (A-4) held his neck and pressed. At this time, the tongue of Chandriga came out and he became unconscious and froth was coming outof his mouth. In the meanwhile the Seth Sindi Abbiga brought the parents of Chandriga, his wife, the wife and children of Kanakayya and my wife to the station in the night. For sometime after their arrival Chandriga was crying. On hearing the cries of Chandriga, his parents, wife and children wept. When Chandriga became unconscious, he was removed from the peg and made him he on the ground. S.I. and P.C. Murthy (A-6) beat him with stick saying that he was pretending. Then S.I Satyanarayana (A-4) sent P. C. Ahmed Ali (A-5) for a doctor. The doctor came and examined and went away making signs with his hands. After Chandriga's death a ‘cumbal’ was brought and he was covered with it. The parents, wife of Chandriga and others were sent back as there was no need for them to remain. Later I was confined in the office room. About 1 a.m. the same P.Cs. and S. Is. wrapped him in the ‘cumbal’ and took him out to the back of the Police Station. I was seeing this through the window of the room. In the early morning at about 4 a.m. myself and Jannu Kanakayya (P.W. 2) were confined together in the small office room and not allowed to speak with anybody. and S. Is. wrapped him in the ‘cumbal’ and took him out to the back of the Police Station. I was seeing this through the window of the room. In the early morning at about 4 a.m. myself and Jannu Kanakayya (P.W. 2) were confined together in the small office room and not allowed to speak with anybody. Later when we raised alarm, C. I. Ibrahim (A-1) made us sit outside. Left thumb impression of (Pesala Komriah) Recorded by me and read over in Telugu to the deponent and admitted to be correct. I issued F.I.R. in Cr. No. 45/61 under section 302, I.P.C. and the case is being; transferred to the S.D.M. for investigation. (Sd.) R. Franklin, Town Inspector, Warangal.“. This was treated as the First Information Report and the crime was registered as Crime No. 45 of 1961 under section 302, Indian Penal Code against accused-2 to 7 and some other Police Constables. Thereafter a copy of the First Information Report was sent to the Sub-Collector, Warangal, who was also the Joint Executive First-Class Magistrate, P.W. 16 (Sri P. Sitapati) was the officer at that time and he received the First Information Report on the morning of 29th April, 1961, at about 7 a.m. and proceeded to the Mathwada Police Station with a view to hold an enquiry under section 176, Criminal Procedure Code into the cause of death, of Chandriga. He reached the Police Station at 8 a.m. P.W. 31, the Superintend dent of Police, was present and there was a boisterous crowd outside the Police Station. P.W. 16 had a talk with the Superintendent of Police, P.W. 31, and the latter told him that accused 2 was about to reveal some inculpatory facts about the incident. Thereupon, P.W. 16 sent for accused-2 and questioned him with a view to ascertain whether he wished to give a statement voluntarily. After satisfying himself that accused 2 desirous of making a statement of his own free will regarding the incident, P.W. 16 recorded the statement given by accused-2. That statement is Exhibit P.-40 and it contains a record of the preliminary questions put by P.W. 16, the answers given by Accused-2 to those questions and the narrative given by accused 2 about the occurrence which resulted in the death of Chandriga and the parts played by himself and the other accused in the incident. That statement is Exhibit P.-40 and it contains a record of the preliminary questions put by P.W. 16, the answers given by Accused-2 to those questions and the narrative given by accused 2 about the occurrence which resulted in the death of Chandriga and the parts played by himself and the other accused in the incident. It is necessary to set out Exhibit P.-40 in full. It runs thus: “Statement of Sri Syed Hasan Ali, S. I. (Central Crime Station), Warangal, son of Syed Ahmed Ali, 23 years, permanent resident of Hyderabad, residing at present in Warangal Girinjipeta,. Warangal. 8-30 a.m. 29th April, 1961. Sri Syed Hassan Ali who is one of the Sub-Inspectors involved was called before me. All other police officials were asked to go away. No other police official in view of this S. I. or the Magistrate recording statement. I have explained to him that he is not bound to make any statement unless it is voluntarily made by him. Given ten minutes to think over in my presence. He has been, told that any statement made by him may be used against him. 8-40. Sri Syed Hassan Ali asked whether he is going to make any statement. The following: record is maintained as per rules. Q.-Mr. Syed Hassan Ali, are you making this statement voluntarily e A.-Yes, Sir, Q-Has there been any threat, inducement or promise to influence you e A-No. Q.-You are aware that the statement if any made by you is liable to be used against you.. A-Yes, Sir. Q.-What have you to say e A-I am a Sub-Inspector, C.C.S., Warangal. I have been C.C.S., Warangal since a year. Inthe morning on, 24th April, 1961, the crime occurred on Sunday, i.e., 23rd April, 1961. On 23rd April 1961. C.I. Sri Sheik Ibrahim (A. 1) instructed S.I. Janardhanarao (A. 3) and me to call for the Chagagang criminals of Desaipeta, namely, Panila Pega Komrah (P.W. 1) Prakasam, Jannu Kanka (P.W. 2) and Botla Chandrayya. We acted on his instructions, deputed H. C. 459 and P.C. 876 P.W. 8) to call them. This H. C. and P. C. both went, brought only Botla Chandriga but at the time when these persons were brought I was not at C.C.S., I was engaged in crime investigation No. 44 of 1961 and was moving in the town. We acted on his instructions, deputed H. C. 459 and P.C. 876 P.W. 8) to call them. This H. C. and P. C. both went, brought only Botla Chandriga but at the time when these persons were brought I was not at C.C.S., I was engaged in crime investigation No. 44 of 1961 and was moving in the town. During night also I did not return to C.C.S. I went home for rest, as I was too tired. Although I knew that I have to go and interrogate the Desaipeta criminals, but due to tiredness, I was forced to lie on bed. Meanwhile between 9 or 9-30 p.m. P.C. No. 849 Abdul Majid (P.W.) 10 came to my house and informed me that C. I. (C.C.S.) Sri Sheik Ibrahim (A. 1) is seated at Mathwada P.S. and the criminals, namely, Pasula Pedda Komra and Botla Chandriga and Jannu Kankam are at Mathwada P.S. I came over to C.C.S. and found that C. I was not present that C.I. had. left instructions that these persons should be thoroughly interrogated in Crl. No. 44 of 1961 and also in other undetected cases. Meanwhile S.I. Janardhanarao (A-3) came, and Land S.I. Janardhanarao (A 3) with the assistance of H. C. 459 and P. C. 429 Ramayya (A 7) and 459 H.C. Askar Hussain of C. C.S. and P.C No. 1090 Bhadrayya of C.C.S. and P.Cs. 885 (A 6), 957 (A 5), 507 of crime detachment, Mathwada P.S. took Botla Chendriga, brought him over to the Police Station room (the room in the right in Mathwada police station as one enters from the road into the P. S.) the room in which we are sitting. Then I and Janardhanarao (A-3) instructed these P.Cs.and H.Cs. to start interrogation. I sat in the corner (left as you enter the room) and Janardhan (A 3) sat on the chair (near the door from the left room). P.Cs. with Botla Chendriga were in the centre of the room. Asper the interrogation system of the Police, they tied the hands of Botla Chendriga towards up, and then put a ‘Munug’ (pounding stick, wooden pestle) on his neck. In this way they started giving J urn tease so that he may confess of having committed the offence. P.Cs. with Botla Chendriga were in the centre of the room. Asper the interrogation system of the Police, they tied the hands of Botla Chendriga towards up, and then put a ‘Munug’ (pounding stick, wooden pestle) on his neck. In this way they started giving J urn tease so that he may confess of having committed the offence. Because he is a criminal involved in Chagal gang case, which is a grave H. B. in which it is learnt from Botla Chendriga himself that he was the same person who had made man-hole attempting that case. As the same case was here in C.R. No. 44 of 1961 of Mathwada that a hole in the wall besides the door-frame was made and the culprits, gained entrance by opening the inner chain by inserting their hands through the hole, we suspected him and his co-accused of the gang because their M.O. (Modus operandi) tallies. These P.Cs. and H. Cs. continued this thing for a period of half an hour. All the P.Cs. in turn Ahmed Ali (A.5). Murthy (A-6), Vykuntam were near to him and active and applying pressure with the pestle on, Botla Chendriga. Ramayya (A-7) also was doing this. Then after half an hour, sweat came out of his body. Within a short period it stopped again. At the same moment we found that hewas not well. I observed that he was not well and in order. The ‘ Mussal’ was immediately taken off. No sooner was it taken off, he fell down unconscious and breathed his last. We were not in a mood at that time when we saw the scene of his death and without thinking of law, committed a sin to hide the fact and instead of informing the Magistrate, in fear, with the help of P.Cs. and H.Cs. above wrapped him in a rag and took him from the back door of the room behind the Police Station. The body was taken 2, 3 furlongs and there to safeguard ourselves threw him in a well. At this time S. I. Janardhan Rao (A3) was not with us as he feared a lot and was unable to walk. He later informed me that he informed to C. I., C. C. S. (A-1) who did not guide him in a better manner. Instead of that he guided in a wrong manner. At this time S. I. Janardhan Rao (A3) was not with us as he feared a lot and was unable to walk. He later informed me that he informed to C. I., C. C. S. (A-1) who did not guide him in a better manner. Instead of that he guided in a wrong manner. The time of going behind the P. S. was between 2 a.m. to 3 a.m. (early morning). The time of death was approximately 2-3 a.m. (or less also). It is not 2 to 3. Excuse me. It may be at about 12 midnight (between 12 and 1 a.m.). I am sure it is between 12 mid-night and 1 a.m. The body was also disposed off during 12 mid-right and 1 A.M. The next day, on the instruction of C. I., C. C. S. (A-1) to take him to a distant place and to. bury him, I and S.I. Janardhanarao (A.3) with the above P.Cs. and H.Cs. went to the same well where we dropped him. This was the second night. The P.Cs. and H.Cs. took off the dead body. We kept the body in a jeep and took him from Khammam road, nearly 32 to 33 miles. In between there is a road on the river bed. We stopped the jeep. Then at about 1/2 furlong in between the river, we carried the dead body and there dug the sand of about 1-1/2 feet. As we tried to dig more, the sand again began to fill up. We could not dig up more. He was then thrown in and covered with sand. We then returned. I will show you the well into which the body was thrown. Come, I will lead to the place where he has been buried without any clothes on him. His clothes are said to have been thrown by some of the P.Cs. in this well only. All this fact I have not done with a criminal intention but this was my duty. Only for the sake of detection, I did and that too I have not beat him. It is my bad luck and misfortune that he accedentally expired by heart failure. There are no signs of any injuries on his body except the ‘Mussal’ injuries. Only because as I am the responsible Inspector and in my presence the P.Cs. Only for the sake of detection, I did and that too I have not beat him. It is my bad luck and misfortune that he accedentally expired by heart failure. There are no signs of any injuries on his body except the ‘Mussal’ injuries. Only because as I am the responsible Inspector and in my presence the P.Cs. have interrogated him, as such I am also considered to be one of the accused of the case. (Sd.) Syed Hasan, Sub-Inspector, C.C.S. I have explained to Syed Hasan Ali, that he is not bound to make a confession and that if he does so, any confession he may make may be used as evidence against him, and I believe that this confession was voluntarily made. It was taken down by me and was read over to the person making it and admitted by him to be true and that it contains a full and true account of the statement made by him. Warangal, 29th April, 1961. (Sd.) P. Sitapati, Joint Magistrate.” It will be observed that although P.W. 16 was conducting an enquiry under section 176 , Criminal Procedure Code, yet by way of abundant caution, he followed the procedure prescribed by section 164, Criminal Procedure Code, for recording confessions. The recording of this statement was completed by 11 a.m. P.W. 16 went home and came back to the Police Station by 2 p.m. By then he learnt that accused 2 had been taken by some police officers to Vardannapet. (It is necessary to mention here that after P.W. 16 had gone home, the crowd outside the Police Station became unruly and demanded the production of accused 2, having come to know that he had made a confession. To prevent the situation from taking an ugly turn P.W. 31, the Superintendent of Police, had accused 2 escorted by the Taluk Inspector with specific instructions that the party should remain at Vardannapet Travellers’ Bungalow and await the arrival of the Magistrate, P.W. 16). P.W. 16, accompanied by Mr. James, the Additional Executive District Magistrate; Dr. Seshagirirao, the Superintendent of the M.G.M. Hospital; Dr. Tilak (P.W. 25), the Civil Assistant Surgeon attached to the M.G.M. Hospital; Adavala. P.W. 16, accompanied by Mr. James, the Additional Executive District Magistrate; Dr. Seshagirirao, the Superintendent of the M.G.M. Hospital; Dr. Tilak (P.W. 25), the Civil Assistant Surgeon attached to the M.G.M. Hospital; Adavala. Satyanarayana (P.W. 23) who is a labour leader and claims to be a public worker, and one Govinda Rao, started from the Police Station and reached Vardannapet in a jeep by 3 p.m. Accused 2 and the police officers were waiting at the dak bungalow at Vardannapet. All of them then proceeded in two vehicles to a ‘vagu’ near Nelli Kudur and covering a total distance of about 33 miles, reached it by 5 p.m. This journey was undertaken by P.W. 16 because in Exhibit P-40, accused 2 had stated that the body of Chandriga had been buried there in the bed of the river more than thirty miles away from Warangal. At that place the police brought, some local ‘panchas’ and in the presence of P.W. 16, the Doctors and all the others, accused 2 showed a spot near a boulder in the bed of the river. A photograph was taken of that spot. Under the orders of P.W. 16, the spot was dug to a depth of 1-½ to 2 feet and from there were recovered a jaw-bone, a shoulder bone and two smaller bones forming portions of the tibia and fibula besides three pieces of cuticle of hand and feet. They were all seized under a panchanama Exhibit P. 55. The inquest report was drawn up and that is Exhibit P. 41. By 9-30 p.m. P.W. 16 went back to the Mathwada Police Station and there, recorded the statement of P.W. 15 (Botla Veera Mallu) the father of Ghandriga, and of P.W. 2 and two others. At midnight accused 2 took P.W. 16 and the ‘panchas’ to a well which is about two furlongs away from the Police Station and from that well a banian (M.O. 2) was recovered. It was seized under a ‘panchanama’ Exhibit P-42. It will be remembered that in the confessional statement Exhibit P-40. accused 2 had stated that the body of Ghandriga had first been thrown into a well near the Police Station and removed from there the next night to a distant spot. (It may be mentioned here that P.W. 15, the father of Chandriga, identified M.O. 2 as the banian of his son). accused 2 had stated that the body of Ghandriga had first been thrown into a well near the Police Station and removed from there the next night to a distant spot. (It may be mentioned here that P.W. 15, the father of Chandriga, identified M.O. 2 as the banian of his son). On the next day, i.e., 30th April, 1961, P.W. 16 examined P.W. 4 (Ponna Venkaiah). That night he issued warrants for the arrest of accused 2 to 7 and when they were produced before him by the Town Inspector, he remanded them to judicial custody for fifteen days. On 1st May, 1961, P.W. 16 examined P.Ws. 1, 3 and another person and then sent his report Exhibit P-49 to the Executive District Magistrate, Warangal, for necessary action. On a report by P.W. 20 (Ganji Venkatadri), the Mali patel of Kachikal, that some cowherds had informed him that a human skull and some chest bones had been seen by them lying at ‘kattu-kaluva’ which is about half a mile from the riverbed from which some bones and cuticle had been recovered two days earlier, P.W. 21, the Head Constable of Kesamundram, went there, seized the skull and twenty broken ribs under a ‘panchanama’ Exhibit P.-54 and handed them over to the Deputy Collector, Warangal. The Circle Inspector of Police, C.I.D. P.W. 33, took up the investigation on 26th May, 1961, and after examining all the material witnesses and completing the investigation, filed a charge-sheet against the seven accused on 4th July, 1961. P.W. 25 (Dr. T.B. G. Tilak) was the Civil Assistant Surgeon in charge of the M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal, at the time. He had accompanied P.W. 16 and others on 29th April, 1961, to the river near Nelli Kudur where the bones and other things were recovered. On a requisition from the District Medical Officer, Warangal, he examined the bones sent to him and sent his report Exhibit P.-5 7. The bones he examined were M.Os. 3 to 5, 10 and 11 and they were (1) skull with atlas bone intact and with ten teeth in the upper jaw ; (2) two ribs with vertebrae attached ; (3) clavicle (one) and (4) 17 ribs some broken. He could not express any definite opinion regarding the bones and suggested that they might be sent to the Forensic Expert for further examination. P.W. 24 (Dr. He could not express any definite opinion regarding the bones and suggested that they might be sent to the Forensic Expert for further examination. P.W. 24 (Dr. I. Bhushanarao), Professor of Forensic Medicine in the Osmania Medical College, examined the bones recovered at the aforesaid two spots and gave his opinion that the deceased was a male aged between 24 and 30 years ; and that the deceased had died due to fracture of odontoid process of the second cervical vertebra and the slipping of the first cervical vertebra over the second cervical vertebra producing medullary compression. He added that sudden tilting of the head and stretching of the neck and upward blow on the chin, judicial hanging and sudden stretching of the neck backwards, may cause the fracture of odontoid process. He was also of the opinion that the lower jaw and the skull belonged to one and the same person. He forwarded the sealed glass in which the skin pieces of the hand and feet along with some hair were found, to the expert, Finger Print Bureau. P.W. 27 (Sri C.B. Jaipal) is the Superintendent of the Finger Print Bureau, Hyderabad. He deposed to having examined the skin of the hand which was found in the bottle sent to him, along with another expert who is an associate of his, P.W. 28 (Sri Y. Kameswararao). Inked impressions of the left thumb, left index, left middle and left ring fingers of that skin were taken. Photographs were taken of the impressions and the enlarged photograph of the thumb-impression of the skin was also taken. After a search of the records, Exhibit P-80, finger-print slip, which was in the records of the Finger Print Bureau, was traced. Exhibit P-80 contained the finger prints of Botla Chandriga, son of Veeramallu, caste Harijan, village Mutyalapalli of Karimnagar district. He was an old offender having had two previous convictions. After comparing the impressions in Exhibits P-69 to P-72 with the finger-prints contained in Exhibit P-80, P.Ws. 27 and 28 expressed their opinion that the former were identical with the latter. In other words, the impressions found on the hand-skin recovered from the river-bed on information given by accused 2, tallied with the finger-prints of the ex convict Botla Chandriga, son of Veeramallu belonging to Harijan caste and a native of Mutyalapalli of Karimnagar district. 27 and 28 expressed their opinion that the former were identical with the latter. In other words, the impressions found on the hand-skin recovered from the river-bed on information given by accused 2, tallied with the finger-prints of the ex convict Botla Chandriga, son of Veeramallu belonging to Harijan caste and a native of Mutyalapalli of Karimnagar district. The name of P.W. 15, the father of Chandriga is Botla Veeramallu. He deposed that he and his son originally belonged to Mutyalapalli but that they had come over from there and settled down at Desaipet near Warangal sometime before this occurrence. It is also in evidence that Chandriga was an ex-convict and at the time of the occurrence, a case of theft was pending against him and P.W. 1 in the Juvenile Court, Hyderabad. To speak to the incidents that happened at the Mathwada Police Station on the night of 24th April, 1961, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 4 and P.Ws 5, 7 and 9, the last three of whom are members of the police force. P.W. 5 (B. Meeniah) is Police Constable No. 636 who was working at the Mathwada Police Station. P.W. 7 (Vazir AH) is Head Constable No. 774 who was then working at the same Station. P.W. 9 (Govindaswami) is a Reserve Constable who was at that time working in the District Police Office, Warangal, and was on election duty at Mathwada Police Station on 24th April, 1961. P.W. 3 (Balsani Kotiah) and P.W. 4 (Ponna Venkaiah) were two other suspects who were rounded up and taken to the Mathwada Police Station for interrogation and who claim to have witnessed the occurrence. For a proper evaluation of the testimony of these witnesses, it is necessary to set out their evidence in detail. * * * * * * (His Lordship then proceeded to discuss the evidence in the case and concluded): These are the main items of evidence relied on by the prosecution to substantiate its case against the accused. We shall now notice the pleas of the accused. All of them protested their innocence and accused 2 to accused 7 denied their very presence at the Mathwada Police Station on the night of 24th April, 1961, and denied all knowledge of the incidents that took place at the Police Station on that night. We shall now notice the pleas of the accused. All of them protested their innocence and accused 2 to accused 7 denied their very presence at the Mathwada Police Station on the night of 24th April, 1961, and denied all knowledge of the incidents that took place at the Police Station on that night. Accused 1 denied having directed his subordinates to bring Chandriga and other suspects and interrogate them about the house-breaking and theft case. He however admitted the entries in Exhibits P-30 to P-32 in the General Diary of the Central Crime Station, Warangal, as also the entries in his pocket note-book Exhibit P-68 ( a) to (e). He said he did not know anything about accused 3 and 4 coming to his house on the night of 24th/25th in a truck because he was not in his house that night. Accused-2 stated that the case against him was false. He said that he was not at the Police Station that night and he did not know what happened there, When questioned about his confession Exhibit P-40 recorded by the Magistrate, P.W. 16, he asserted that it was not a voluntary statement and he was tutored by P.Ws. 26 and 31 to make that statement. He added in the Committal Court: “I have no knowledge of the facts detailed in the said statement. The recoveries alleged were not effected at my instance. At both the recoveries I was present. I was at a distance. I was guardedby Constables by the orders of C.W. 4 (P.W. 31).” In the Sessions Court he said: “I was detained in the Police Station, Mathwada since 26th April, 1961. I was kept hungry and beaten to say facts. I showed and stated as I was asked to tell.” When he was asked whether he had any enmity with any of the prosecution witnesses, he said that he had enmity with P.W. 31, the Superintendent of Police. When asked whether he had anything to add to the answers he had given to the specific questions put to him, he made an elaborate statemment as follows: “At Choppadandi P.W. 31 slapped me and I abused him. On 26th instant I had come to the office, (26th April, 1961). At that time Franklin, Town Inspector, was present. He told me that I was being taken in custody as per Superintendent of Police's orders. On 26th instant I had come to the office, (26th April, 1961). At that time Franklin, Town Inspector, was present. He told me that I was being taken in custody as per Superintendent of Police's orders. He had detained me. Meanwhile Deputy Superintendent of Police also had arrived there. They both tried to convince me and asked me as to what the matter was. I told them that I know nothing. On this they threatened me, beat me. In this way they kept me hungry continuously from 26th to 28th. I could not to lerate that condition and I told them that I would act as per their directions. The statement which I had given on the 28th before the Deputy Collector was taught me by heart. They said that if I would not give that statement, I would be suspended, dismissed and handed over to crowd, that had gathered there. Due to the above stated reasons, I had stated the facts before the Deputy Collector according to the directions given by the Police officers. Before giving the statement I informed the Deputy Collector that I was hungry. So he gave me a cup of tea. Thereafter my statement was recorded; after that the Deputy Collector had left the Police Station. After half an hour, Purnachander, Inspector, took me in police van to Vardhannapet. There I was made to sit. The Deputy Collector had come there some 4, 5 hours after. An hour after the arrival of Deputy Collector, we all started. The jeep car of Deputy Collector was in front. Behind it there were two police vans in which Harijans were sitting. In the last van, I, Poornachander Rao and Dr. Tilak and some other persons and two Police Constables were present. They took to a place. There we got down. Two P.Cs. took me to the river-bed, holding my shoulders. I was made to stand at a place. The Harijans had started digging 10, 12 yards away from that place. We came back at about 7-30 or 8 p.m. Similarly at about 11 p.m. both the P.Cs. holding my shoulders, took me behind the Police Station where there is a well. I was stopped at a distance of 20 or 25 paces from that well. 20 or 25 persons were around that well. Again they took me back to the Police Station and kept me there. holding my shoulders, took me behind the Police Station where there is a well. I was stopped at a distance of 20 or 25 paces from that well. 20 or 25 persons were around that well. Again they took me back to the Police Station and kept me there. On 30th instant, no, in the night of 29th instant, I was taken to Hanamkonda. Satyanarayana Saheb, Janardhan Saheb and some other javans (P.Cs.) were present there. On 30th instant Franklin produced me before the Deputy Collector along with other Inspectors and Javans. At about 4, 5, I was produced before M. M. Principal Magistrate. Therefrom I was again taken before Deputy Collector. I was remanded to jail custody at about 5 or 6. I had sent a petition from jail on 23rd instant (23rd May, 1961) about the facts, to the lower Court. Nothing more is to be stated.” When asked about Exhibits P-33, P-35 and P-37 (entries in the General Diary) he stated that they were not written by him. Accused 3 denied all knowledge of Chandriga and P.Ws. 1 and 2 having been brought to the Police Station and asserted that he knew nothing about occurrence. He said that he had gone home on the night of 24th at 10 P.M. and was not in the Police Station at all on that night. He denied having gone in the company of accused 4 and P.W. 11 on the night of 24th/25th in the truck driven by P.W. 12 to the house of accused 1. When he was asked whether he had any enmity with any of the pro section witnesses, he said that Constables had ill-feelings against him. Similarly accused 4 denied all knowledge of the incident and said chat the evidence against him was false. When he was asked whether there were any ill-feelings between him and the prosecution witnesses, he said that P.W. 29 was inimical to him and added that he was strict with P.Ws. 5 and 7 who were his subordinates. Likewise accused 5, 6 and 7 said that they knew nothing about the occurrence and had left the Police Station at 7 P.M. on the night of 24thApril, 1961 and stayed in their houses the whole of that night. Accused 5 asserted that the C.I.D. Police had foisted the case against him and the witnesses had been tutored. Likewise accused 5, 6 and 7 said that they knew nothing about the occurrence and had left the Police Station at 7 P.M. on the night of 24thApril, 1961 and stayed in their houses the whole of that night. Accused 5 asserted that the C.I.D. Police had foisted the case against him and the witnesses had been tutored. When, he was asked whether there was any enmity between him and the prosecution witnesses, he said there was no enmity. Accused 6 said that there was no enmity between him and any of the presecution witnesses but that they had been tutored by the Police. When accused 7 was asked whether he had any enmity with the prosecution witnesses, he said that he had enmity with P.Ws. 1 and 2. We shall now set out one by one the findings of the learned Sessions Judge on the various points that fell for decision in the case, and consider how far those findings are sustainable on any reasonable view of the evidence. In the first place the learned Judge had little difficulty in reaching the conclusion that Chandriga had been taken to the Central Crime Station, Warangal, on the night of 24th April, 1961, for purposes of interrogation and that he had died. This point is discussed by the learned Judge in paragraph 5 of the judgment and in order to show how inconsistent some of the other findings of the learned Judge are, it is necessary to reproduce the whole of that paragraph. It runs thus: “The first point to be determined in this case is whether Botla Chandriga was brought to C.C.S., Warangal, on 24th April, 1961, for interrogation and he died. P.W. 8 Khaja Bashiruddin, P.C. said that on 23rd April, 1961 at night A-1 instructed him to bring Botla Chandriga and P.Ws. 1 and 2 from Desaipet, that on 24th April, 1961, he and Askari Hassan (H.C.) went to Desaipet and brought only Chandriga by 8 a.m., on 24th April, 1961 and that they handed him over to A-3. P. W. 15, the father of Botla Chandriga, deposed that about 7 months ago at about 8 a.m. on a Monday a Police Constable took Botla Chandriga from his house saying that he was wanted by C. I. Police and that Botla Chandriga had left his house on a cycle. P. W. 15, the father of Botla Chandriga, deposed that about 7 months ago at about 8 a.m. on a Monday a Police Constable took Botla Chandriga from his house saying that he was wanted by C. I. Police and that Botla Chandriga had left his house on a cycle. The cycle M.O. 7 was found in the Police Station, Mathwada. It was seized under Exhibit P-51 in the presence of P.W. 18. P.W. 17 identified M.O. 7 as the cycle belonging to him and said that it was given on hire to Botla Chandriga on 24th April, 1961 at 7-40 a.m. Exhibit P-50 is the entry in the register of P.W. 17 about giving cycle M.C. 7 to Botla Chandriga on hire. Exhibit P-33 is the entry made by A-2 in the General diary of C.C.S., Warangal. P.W. 14 said that that entry was in the handwriting of A-2. That entry shows that on 24th April, 1961, Botla Chandriga was brought for interrogation and he was interrogated. Exhibit P-68 1 ( b) an entry made by A-1 in his pocket note-book is to the effect that Botla Chandriga of Desaipet was brought to Police Station on 24th April, 1961, for interrogation and that he escaped at 5-30 a.m. on 25th April, 1961. A-1 in his statement under section 342, Criminal Procedure Code, admitted that he made entry Exhibit P-68 (i). P.W. 8 said that he was kept in custody to give evidence in this case but his evidence to the extent that he brought Chandriga to the Police Station cannot be discarded because entries Exhibits P-33 and P-68 (b) made by A-2 and A-1 respectively in registers support it. P.W. 16 and P.W. 23 swore that cuticle preserved in M.O. 6 was seized from a river near Nellikudur. That cuticle was sent to Finger Print Bureau for examination. P.W. 27 and P.W. 28 who are the experts working in the Finger Print Bureau said that they took impressions of that cuticle and compared them with the impressions that were available in their Bureau and that they found those impressions tallying with the impressions of Botla Chandriga, s/o. Veeramallu r/o Mutyalapalli in Karimnagar district. P.W. 24 Dr. I. Bhushan Rao, after examining the cuticle preserved in M.O. 6 said that it was of a person who had died within 3 to 10 days from the date of its seizure. P.W. 24 Dr. I. Bhushan Rao, after examining the cuticle preserved in M.O. 6 said that it was of a person who had died within 3 to 10 days from the date of its seizure. P.W. 15, father of Botla Chandriga, says that his son died. It is in the evidence of P.W. 15 Veeramallu, that his son Botla Chandriga, and he came to Desaipet from Mutyalapalli. On the basis of all this evidence I hold that on 24th April, 1961, Botla Chandriga was brought to C.C.S., Warangal, for interrogation and that hedled. ” We are entirely in agreement with the learned Judge on the above finding but we would add that in addition to the pieces of evidence relied on by him, there are several other items of evidence, which, we shall presently show, have been wrongly rejected by him and which reinforce that finding. The next important finding of the learned Judge is that the confessional statement Exhibit P-40, made by accused 2 to the Magistrate P.W. 16, was not voluntary, and the recovery of M.Os. 2 to 6 was not made in consequence of hat statement or at the instance of accused 2. The learned Judge has dealt with this aspect of the case in paragraph 14 of the judgment. In the course of that paragraph the learned Judge says: “ M.Os. 2 to 6 might have been recovered from the places stated by P.Ws. 16 and 23, but the point for determination is whether A-2 gave statement voluntarily leading to the recovery of those articles. A-2 in his statement under section 342 , Criminal Procedure Code, said that his statement Exhibit P-40 was recorded after torturing him from 26th or 28th April, 1961. This statement of A-2 does not appear to be baseless. ” The learned Judge goes on to give another reason for doubting the voluntariness of Exhibit P-40 and the consequent recovery. He says: “More over there is one more circumstance which makes me feel that statement Exhibit P-40 is not a voluntarily given statement. P.W. 16 says that A-2 had told him that the body of Chandriga was buried in the river-bed. From the river bed no corpse was recovered. He says: “More over there is one more circumstance which makes me feel that statement Exhibit P-40 is not a voluntarily given statement. P.W. 16 says that A-2 had told him that the body of Chandriga was buried in the river-bed. From the river bed no corpse was recovered. Only some bones and cuticles were recovered from that place-----------.Even though it is said that the banian, M.O. 2, was recovered on the information given by A-2, no statement of his las been recorded to that effect. There is no mention about the banian in the statement Exhibit P-40 . If A-2 wanted to disclose the facts about the death of Chandriga to P.W. 16 in the morning on 29th April, 1961, there was no necessity for him to hide about the banian at the time of his giving the statement Exhibit P-40. It is not established that Exhibit P-40 is a voluntarily given statement of A-2and that M.Os. 2 to 6 were recovered at his instance. ” In our considered opinion, this finding of the learned Judge is wholly wrong and is opposed to the evidence and probabilities. The learned Judge has too readily accepted the wild allegation made by accused 2 in his statement under section 342, Criminal Procedure Code, and has too lightly brushed aside the sworn testimony of an independent and disinterested official, viz., the Magistrate, P.W. 16. In the Committal Court accused 2 had said with reference to Exhibit P-40, that he had been forced by P.W. 31, the Superintendent of Police and P.W. 26 (who were examined as C.W. 4 and P.W. 20 respectively in the Committing Court) and tutored to give that statement and that the recoveries were not effected at his instance but he was standing at a distance and was guarded by the Constables under the orders of P.W. 31. In the Sessions Court he went a step further and alleged that he had been detained in the Mathwada Police Station since 26th April, 1962 and beaten, and forced to give a statement. He added: “I showed and stated as I was asked to tell”. Accused 2 had also stated that while at Choppadandi, P.W. 31 had slapped him and he had abused P.W. 31. So there were ill-feelings between them. He added: “I showed and stated as I was asked to tell”. Accused 2 had also stated that while at Choppadandi, P.W. 31 had slapped him and he had abused P.W. 31. So there were ill-feelings between them. When P.W. 31 (the Superintendent of Police) was cross-examined about these matters, he stated on oath that he was the Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar, for a few months in 1957-58. He could not say whether accused 2 was a Head-Constable under him and it was incorrect to say that he had slapped accused 2 at Choppadandi village while he was on election duty and added: “When I did not slap him, the question of his abusing me for my slapping him cannot arise”. P.W. 31 also stated that he did not put accused 2 in the lock-up. It was, however, not suggested to P.W. 31 that he has tutored accused 2 to give a confessional statement on the lines of Exhibit P-40. As for P.W. 26, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Warangal, it was not even suggested to him that he had either coerced or tutored accused 2 to give a. statement. Furthermore, it appears from the evidence of P.W. 16, the Magistrate, and. from the statement Exhibit P-40 itself, that he took every precaution to satisfy himself that accused 2 was making a statement voluntarily, and in cross-examination he stated as follows: “It is not correct to say that A-2 at first told me that he knew nothing. It is not correct to say that 1/2 hour after A-2 saying that he knew nothing, he was produced before me again by Superintendent of Police. ” Again in the course of the cross-examination he said: “ A-2 did not complain to me that he was kept hungry for 2 or 3 days to give the statement, A-2 did not tell me that he was not in a condition to give evidence. On S. P., Warangal sending A-2 to the room in which I was, I asked A-2 as to what he had to say, A-2 stated facts incoherently. He to Id me that he and his associates were concerned with the death of Botla Chandriga. I satisfied myself that he was giving the statement voluntarily. As what he stated appeared to be incoherent, I asked: him to pull himself up by taking a hot cup of tea. Some one brought tea. He to Id me that he and his associates were concerned with the death of Botla Chandriga. I satisfied myself that he was giving the statement voluntarily. As what he stated appeared to be incoherent, I asked: him to pull himself up by taking a hot cup of tea. Some one brought tea. A-2 took it. Then I recorded his statement.” He went on to say: “I did not ask S. P. as to how many times he had asked A-2 about the incident. I did not ask A-2 for how many days he was in custody. I did not tell A-2 that as Magistrate I was examining him. He must have known that fact being a Police Officer. I did not tell A-2 that he would be made an approver. I did not give 24 hours time to A-2 to depose------------.For greater precaution, the detailed procedure under section 164 , Criminal Procedure Code, was followed while recording A-2's statement, but it was recorded under section 176, Criminal Procedure Code, during a Magisterial enquiry. ” He added that about the banian M.O. 2, accused 2 had told him only in the night. It will be recalled that in Exhibit P-40 the questions put by P.W. 16 and the answers given by accused 2 were recorded in full. Accused 2 was asked whether he was making a statement voluntarily to which he replied “Yes, Sir”. He was then asked whether there had been any threat, inducement or promise to influence him to which he replied “No”. He was then asked whether he was aware that any statement made by him was liable to be used as evidence against him, to which he replied “Yes, Sir”. In view of all the above precautions taken by P.W. 16 and having regard to the fact that accused 2 as a Sub-Inspector of Police, must have known the consequences of making a statement of that kind, it is somewhat surprising that the learned Sessions Judge should have so readily accepted the wild and reckless allegation made by accused 2 that he had been detained, coerced and induced to make that statement. If in truth there had been any such inducement or threat, nothing prevented him from telling P.W. 16 before giving that statement. If in truth there had been any such inducement or threat, nothing prevented him from telling P.W. 16 before giving that statement. Moreover, a reading of Exhibit P-40 shows that it was a statement made of his own free will and out of repentence for an act done in excess of zeal rather than with any malicious intent. Spontaneity and voluntariness are writ large on the face of Exhibit P-40. The concluding sentences in Exhibit P-40 are of special significance They are as follows: “All this fact I have not done with a criminal intention but this was my duty. Only for the sake of detection, I did and that too I have not beat him. It is my bad luck and misfortune that he accidentally expired by heart failure. There are no signs of any injuries on his body, except the ‘mussal’ injuries. Only because as I am the responsible Inspector and in my presence the P.Cs. have interrogated him, as such I am also considered to be one of the accused of the case.” Another reason given by the learned Sessions Judge for holding that Exhibit P-40 was not a voluntary statement and M.Os. 2 to 6 were not recovered at the instance of accused 2 is that although accused 2 had stated that the body had been buried in the bed of the river only a few bones and the cuticle were found, and further in Exhibit P-40 accused 2 had not made any reference to the banian, M.O. 2 but had mentioned about it only in the night. The learned Judge himself had, however, found, as noticed already, that the cuticle recovered from the river-bed was hat of Chandriga because the expert evidence given by P.Ws. 27 and 28 showed that the impressions on that cuticle tallied with the finger prints of Chandriga which were in the records of the Finger Print Bureau. If that be so, it is more than probable that the bones that were found there, were also the remains of Chandriga. The fact that the corpse was not found intact, does not in the least militate against the truth of the information contained in Exhihit P-4C that thebody had been buried in the river bed more than thirty miles away from Warangal. The fact that the corpse was not found intact, does not in the least militate against the truth of the information contained in Exhihit P-4C that thebody had been buried in the river bed more than thirty miles away from Warangal. It is in evidence that that area is a jungle area and it is not unlikely that wild animals might have dragged and eaten away the fleshy portions of the body. It appears from the evidence of P.Ws. 19, 20 and 21 that a skull and some broken ribs were recovered at a spot about half a mile away from Nellikudur ‘vagu’ from which M.Os. 2 to 6, the jaw-bone and some other bones and the cuticle portions of the hand and feet were recovered. According to the evidence of P.W. 24, the Professor of Forensic Medicine, the lower jaw which was found at the Nellikudur ‘vagu’ and the skull which was found half a mile away at ‘Kattu-kalva’, belonged to one and the same person. The learned Judge has lost sight of the fact that P.W. 16 and others had gone to Nellikudur ‘vagu’ on the information furnished by accused 2 in Exhibit P-40 and the spot where the body had been buried, was pointed out by accused 2. As. regards the banian M.O. 2, no doubt it was not referred to in Exhibit P-40 but it was stated therein that the clothes of Chandriga were said to have been thrown by some of the Police Constables in the well in which the body was dumped in the first instance. According to the evidence of P.W. 16, accused 2 gave information about M.O. 2 after the party came back to the Station on the night of the 24th and further, accused 2 took them to the well which was about two furlongs away from the Station, and M.O. 2 the banian was recovered from the well. That banian has been identified by P.W. 15, the father of Chandriga, as that of his son. In view of the foregoing circumstances, we are clearly of opinion chat the learned Judge fell into a grievous error in characterising the confessional statement, Exhibit P-40 as involuntary and in holding that the recovery of M.Os. 2 to 6 had not been effected in consequence of the information given by accused 2. In view of the foregoing circumstances, we are clearly of opinion chat the learned Judge fell into a grievous error in characterising the confessional statement, Exhibit P-40 as involuntary and in holding that the recovery of M.Os. 2 to 6 had not been effected in consequence of the information given by accused 2. We are fully satisfied that Exhibit P-40 was voluntary and true and although it has been retracted by accused 2 at the trial, it receives corroboration in an ample measure from the direct and circumstantial evidence in the case. It will be remembered that in Exhibit P-40 accused 2 had made a clean breast of the matter. He had stated how as instructed by accused 1, he (accused 2) and accused 3 had sent for Chandriga and P.Ws. 1 and 2 for the purpose of investigation into Grime No. 44/61; how he and accused 3 had instructed the Pol ice Constables accused 5, 6, and 7 and others to start interrogation; how Chandriga had been tortured with a view to make him confess ; how the man had collapsed and breathed his last; how they had all got panicky at the unexpected turn of events ; how the body had been thrown into a well some two or three furlongs away from the Police Station ; and how the next day, as instructed by accused 1, he (accused 2) and accused 3 with the assistance of some Constables and Head-Constables had got the body taken out from the well and after taking it in a jeep to a distance of about thirty-two miles, the body had been buried in the bed of a river. It will thus be seen that in this statement, accused 2 had clearly and unequivocally admitted his guilt although he attributed to his ill-luck that Chandriga has succumbed to the torture ; accused 3, 5, 6 and 7 were implicated in the. torture while accused 1 was stated to have given instructions that the body should be removed to a distant place and buried there. It is important to note that in this confessional statement accused 2 did not implicate accused 4 at all and there is no reference to him throughout that statement. torture while accused 1 was stated to have given instructions that the body should be removed to a distant place and buried there. It is important to note that in this confessional statement accused 2 did not implicate accused 4 at all and there is no reference to him throughout that statement. It was, however contended by the learned counsel for accused 2 that the confession Exhibt P-40 is inadmissible because a Magistrate holding an enquiry under section 176, Criminal Procedure Code, has no power to record a confession as the scope of that inquiry is to ascertain the cause of death when a person dies whilst in the custody of the Police but not to find out who the offender is. We are clearly of opinion that this argument is devoid of force. The terms of the section make it clear that the Magistrate holding such an inquiry is invested with all the powers in conducting it which he would have in holding an inquiry into an offence and shall record the evidence taken by him in any of the manners prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Code, according to the circumstances of the case. Chapter XXV of the Code prescribes the mode of taking and recording evidence in inquiries and trials ; and section 364 which occurs in that chapter indicates how the examination of the accused is to be recorded. In the present case in recording Exhibit P-40 P.W. 16, the Magistrate, has acted in strict conformity with the provisions of section 364, Criminal Procedrue Code. The questions put by him, the answers given by accused 2 and the narrative he gave, were taken down fully and correctly; the statement was read over to accused 2, admitted by him to be correct and true and thereafter the record was signed by accused 2 and the Magistrate. Indeed, the Magistrate went a step further and in his anxiety to be scrupulously fail, followed the procedure prescribed by section 164 , Criminal Procedure Code, for the recording of confessions, although what he was recording was not such a confession, as it was not made in -the course of an investigation by the Police under Chapter XIV of the Code. We Lave found supra that Exhibit P-40 is a voluntary confession made by accused 2 out of his own free will, and it is therefore, in our opinion, admissible in evidence and may be used for all permissible purposes. If authority were needed for this position, it is to be found in a Division Bench ruling of the Madras High Court in In re Ramaswami1, and we respectfuly agree with the reasoning and the conclusion of Mack, J. Learned counsel for accused 2 relied on certain observations contained in another Division Bench decision of the Madras High Court in P. Rajangam v. State of Madras2. In that case the learned Judges were dealing with two connected applications under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings relating to an inquiry conducted by one of the Presidency Magistrates in the City of Madras under section 176, Criminal Procedure Code, read with Police Standing Order No. 157, issued by the Government of Madras, which inquiry had culminated in the filing of complaints against the Police Officers concerned. In dismissing the Writ Petitions, the learned Judges held inter alia’ that an inquiry under section 176 , Criminal Procedure Code, read with Police Standing Order No. 157 does not offend the other provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code nor is it violative of Articles 14 , 20 (3) and 21 of the Constitution; that such an inquiry is nothing more than a fact-finding inquiry and as it does not decide or determine the rights of the parties, the impugned proceedings were not amenable to a writ of certiorari. But the learned counsel relied on the following observation of Ramaswami, J., at page 312 (paragraph 35) of the report and in particular, the portion we have italicised: “Bearing these principles in mind, if we examine the instant case, it will be found that the proceedings of the Fifth Presidency Magistrate which are sought to be quashed by the writ of certicrari are not judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings amenable to a writ of certiorari in that those proceedings constitute nothing more than a fact-finding inquiry and have none of the characteristics of judicial or quasijudicial proceedings, that it is only optional for the Magistrate holding the enquiry under section 176 to make a report or not, that the object of the inquiry is nothing more than to furnish materials on which action might be taken or not, that the report by itself would purely be recommendatory and not one effective proprio vigore, that it does not dispose of the rights of parties and in fact neither the report nor the statements recorded therein would be admissible in evidence in any future proceedings. Therefore, I find myself in entire agreement with the contention of the learned Advocate-General that in these circumstances a writ of certiorari cannot issue.” It is not necessary for us to consider the correctness of the view of the learned Judges that the proceedings under section 176 , Criminal Procedure Code, are not judicial or quasi-judicial, having regard to the power given to the Magistrate holding such an inquiry to record evidence, and the definition of “judicial proceeding” in section 4 ( m) of the Criminal Procedure Code ; but with great respect to the learned Judges, we find it difficult to agree with the dictum that the statements recorded by a Magistrate in the course of an inquiry under section 176 , Criminal Procedure Code, would not be admissible in evidence in any future proceedings. We are unable to see why such statements cannot be treated and used as former statements of witnesses, or as confessions or admissions of accused persons in accordance with and subject to the relevant provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. We are unable to see why such statements cannot be treated and used as former statements of witnesses, or as confessions or admissions of accused persons in accordance with and subject to the relevant provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. At any rate, the question of the admissibility of a confession made by a person in the course of an inquiry under section 176 , Criminal Procedure Code, did not directly or indirectly call for decision in that case, and we do not understand the learned Judges as laying down, contrary to the earlier Bench decision of the same Court, which was not even referred to, that such a confession is inadmissible even if it is free from the taint of involuntariness and is not hit by section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act. We are therefore of opinion that Exhibit P-40 is a valuable piece of evidence against its maker, accused 2, and can be taken into consideration against his co-accused-accused 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7 under section 30 of the Evidence Act. So much for Exhibit P-40. Now we turn to the manner in which the learned trial Judge has dealt with the eye-witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 5 and 7 and the corroborative evidence of P.W. 9. The learned Judge has discussed the evidence of these witnesses in paragraph 7 of his judgment and has rejected it in toto by holding that it was totally untrustworthy and on the basis of it, it could not be held that Chandriga was tortured in the Police Station as alleged by the prosecution. In appreciating the evidence of the above witnesses, the learned trial Judge appears to have been unduly oppressed by the fact that there was delay in their examination first by the Magistrate, P.W. 16 and subsequendy by the Circle Inspector of Police, C.I.D., P.W. 33. The learned Judge failed to appreciate that having regard to the unusual circumstances of this case such delay as there was, was inevitable. The learned Judge failed to appreciate that having regard to the unusual circumstances of this case such delay as there was, was inevitable. The man was tortured inside the Police Station; the culprits were Police Officers; the witnesses were either members of the Police Force or ex-convicts who were under the control of the Police; powerful forces were at work to hush up the matter by putting out a cock-and-bull story that Chandriga had escaped from Police custody on the night of the 24th ; and it was only after public-spirited men of the locality like P.W. 23 intervened and a crowd had collected at the Police Station clamouring for justice, that the Superintendent of Police, P.W. 31 went to the Police Station on the night of the 28th and recorded a statement Exhibit P-6 from P.W. 1. On the next day, the services of the Magistrate, P.W. 16, were requisitioned and he accordingly proceeded to the Police Station on the morning of the 29th April and commenced an inquiry under section 176 , Criminal Procedure Code. It was in the course of that inquiry that he recorded the confession of accused 2 (Exhibit P-40) and subsequently in consequence of the information furnished in Exhibit P-40, the remains of the body of Chandriga were recovered from the river-bed more than thirty miles away from the Police Station. In the course of that enquiry P.W. 16 examined P.W. 2 and some others on the night of the 29th, P.W. 4 on the morning of the 30th and on the 1st of next month he examined P.Ws. 1, 3, and some others. On the material collected by him, he sent up his report Exhibit P-49 to the Executive District Magistrate, Warangal, for necessary action. Later, under the orders of the Government, the investigation into this case was taken up by the Crime Branch of the Criminal Investigation Department and P.W. 33, the Circle Inspector of Police, C.I.D., was deputed to investigate this case on 26th May, 1961, and he examined all the material witnesses subsequent thereto. In these circumstances the Sessions Judge was not right in thinking that the delay in the examination of the witnesses and the reluctance on the part of the witnesses voluntarily to come forward and give information about the crime, were fatal to the prosecution case. So far as P.Ws. In these circumstances the Sessions Judge was not right in thinking that the delay in the examination of the witnesses and the reluctance on the part of the witnesses voluntarily to come forward and give information about the crime, were fatal to the prosecution case. So far as P.Ws. 1 to 4 were concerned, they were ex-convicts and suspects and there were cases pending against them even at the time of the occurrence and as such they were very much under the influence of the local Police, while P.Ws. 5, 7 and 9.. were members of the Police Force, whose sympathies would have been on the side of the delinquent Police Officers and who were amenable to their influence. On careful consideration of the evidence of these witnesses, we have reached the conclusion that while we would not be justified in disagreeing with the learned trial Judge that P.Ws. 1, 2 and 7 are untrustworthy witnesses, we are of opinion “hat the learned trial Judge was clearly wrong in rejecting the evidence of P.Ws. 3, 4, 5. and 9. In particular, the testimony of P.W. 5, the Police Constable who was on guard duty at the Mathwada Police Station on that fateful night, is entitled to great weight, as also the corroborative evidence furnished by P.W. 9, the Reserve Police Constable. As regards P.Ws. 1 and 2, although their presence at the Police Station on the night in question and their having witnessed the incident relating to the torture of Chandriga are not open to reasonable doubt, yet they have made so many contradictory statements on oath that it would not be safe to rely on their evidence so far as it seeks to implicate any particular accused in the crime. It was contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that these witnesses had progressively watered down their evidence obviously because they were tampered with, by interested parties. Although there is some force in this contention, the fact remains that on their own showing, P.Ws. 1 and 2 have falsely implicated one or other of the accused in the earlier stages of the case. But at the trial, P.W. 1 implicated only accused 2, accused 5 and accused 6, while P.W. 2 pretended ignorance of the entire incident after Chandriga had been taken inside the Police Station. 1 and 2 have falsely implicated one or other of the accused in the earlier stages of the case. But at the trial, P.W. 1 implicated only accused 2, accused 5 and accused 6, while P.W. 2 pretended ignorance of the entire incident after Chandriga had been taken inside the Police Station. Be that as it may we are not prepared to disagree with the finding of the learned trial Judge that it is not safe to act upon the testimony of these two witnesses. P.W. 7 is an equally unreliable witness. While in chief-examination he implicated only one of the accused, namely, accused 4, in cross-examination he went further and sought to implicate accused 2 and accused 3 also. On his own showing he had made a false entry in the General Diary regarding the alleged escape of Chandriga, and to wriggle out of it, he said that he had done so under the orders, of his Sub-Inspector, accused 4. It was obviously with a view to blacken the case against accused 4 that he deposed that he had seen accused 4, interrogating Chandriga on the night in question. But in point of fact, the rest of the prosecution evidence does not clinchingly connect accused 4 with the crime. We are therefore in agreement with the learned trial Judge that P.W. 7 is an untrustworthy witness. As regards P.Ws. 3 and 4, it will be recalled that they were also taken to the Police Station for purposes of interrogation and were present on the night in question when Chandriga was tortured inside the Police Station. Both these witnesses claimed to have witnessed the incident from the verandah and they described the manner in which Chandriga was tortured and both of them identified only two of the accused viz., accused 5 and accused 6 although they said that there were four or five persons inside the room in which Chandriga was subjected to torture. The reasons given by the learned Judge for discrediting these two witnesses, do not bear scrutiny. One of those reasons is that there is no documentary evidence to prove the presence of P.Ws. 3 and 4 at the Police Station on that night. But it was never suggested by the defence in the cross-examination of these witnesses or in the cross-examination of the official witnesses, that P.Ws. One of those reasons is that there is no documentary evidence to prove the presence of P.Ws. 3 and 4 at the Police Station on that night. But it was never suggested by the defence in the cross-examination of these witnesses or in the cross-examination of the official witnesses, that P.Ws. 3 and 4 were not even present at the Station on that night. In fact P.Ws. 5 and 7 speak to the presence of these two witnesses besides P.Ws. 1 and 2 at the Police Station on that night. The other reasons given by the learned Judge are that there are material discrepancies in their evidence and that they are not men of status because 1 hey were suspects in the eye of the Police. Neither of these reasons is sound. The discrepancies relied on by the learned Judge are on trivial matters of detail and the fact that these witnesses were police suspects, does not render their evidence false. Those who could have been possibly present in the Station at the time of the occurrence, were either Police Officers or suspects taken there to be questioned. We are fully satisfied that the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4 can be safely acted upon and it establishes that accused 5 and accused 6 had taken an active part in torturing Chandriga. The learned Judge was equally wrong in brushing aside the evidence of P.W. 5. It will be remembered that he was the Police Constable who was on guard duty at the Mathwada Police Station on the night of 24th April, 1961 from 9 to 12 P.M. and the occurrence took place during that period. The entry in the entry Book confirms his presence at the material time. It will be remembered that he was the Police Constable who was on guard duty at the Mathwada Police Station on the night of 24th April, 1961 from 9 to 12 P.M. and the occurrence took place during that period. The entry in the entry Book confirms his presence at the material time. He speaks to accused 5 and accused 6 taking Chandriga from the verandah of the Police Station into the Sub-Inspector's room ; then to accused 6 taking the ‘roomal’ of P.W. 1; to accused 5 and 6 tying up the wrists of Chandriga with that ‘roomal’ and hanging him up to a peg in the wall; to their inserting a stick between the uplifted arms and the back of the neck, and to accused 6 and accused 7 pressing the stick down on the neck from either end; to accused 5 tying up the legs of Chandriga with a rope, and to accused 2 and accused 3 supervising the operations seated on chairs. The witness saw all this while standing in the verandah and then the doors of the room were shut from inside. The witness also spoke to accused 4 going into the room and taking away some papers from his table, but that was before the other accused started torturing Chandriga. The witness was emphatic in saying that accused 4 did not come back later. He added that at the time Chandriga was being tortured, there were two Sub-Inspectors and three Police Constables inside the room, and they were accused 2, 3 and 5 to 7. Nothing was elicited in the cross-examination of this witness to cast the slightest doubt on his veracity. The witness admitted that a case had been put up against him for outraging the modesty of a woman but that he had been acquitted in that case. The reluctance on his part immediately to volunteer information to the authorities, is understandable because he himself was a Constable attached to the Mathwada Police Station and his own Sub-Inspector, accused 4 and two other Sub-Inspectors as well as the Circle Inspector of the Central Crime Station, were involved in the case. The learned Sessions Judge has disbelieved this witness for the following reasons: “There was a case against P.W. 5 for outraging the modesty of a woman. The learned Sessions Judge has disbelieved this witness for the following reasons: “There was a case against P.W. 5 for outraging the modesty of a woman. It is admitted by P.W. 5 that he did not tell anyone about the incident seen by him till he was examined by the C.I.D. Inspector. He was present when enquiry was held by the Magistrate P.W. 16. There was no reason for him to hide the facts till he was examined by the C.I.D. Inspector. He cannot say as to how many days after the incident he was examined by the C.I.D. Inspector. Even though P.Ws. 3 and 4 say that lights went off in the Police Station, P.W. 5 says that the lights were not put off. According to the evidence of P.W. 4 a doctor came to the Police Station on the night of the occurrence. But P.W. 5 says that no doctor came. The fact of A-7 pressing the stick and A-5 tying the legs of Chandriga has not been stated by P.Ws. 3 and 4. P.Ws. 3 and 4 do not say about the presence of A-2 to 4 on the scene of the occurrence.” In our opinion none of the reasons given by the learned Judge is convincing. The witness never admitted that he had not told anyone about the incident seen by him till he was examined by the C.I.D. Inspector. All that he said in cross-examination was that he had told Kistiah (P.W. 6) the Constable who had relieved P.W. 5 at 12-00 midnight on the 24th, that a person was being investigated in the room but he (the witness) did not tell Vazir Ali (P.W. 7) of what he had seen. He was not examined by the Magistrate, P.W. 16 and he came out with his version when he was examined by the C.I.D. Inspector P.W. 33, on the 30th. The so-called discrepancies between his evidence and that of P.Ws. 3 and 4, which are relied on by the learned Judge to discredit this witness, are neither vital nor do they establish that this witness did not speak the truth. This witness knew all the Police Officers who were involved in the incident whereas P.Ws. 3 and 4, who are not natives of Warangal district but belong to Bezwada and Guntur, could identify only two of the culprits viz., accused 5 and 6. This witness knew all the Police Officers who were involved in the incident whereas P.Ws. 3 and 4, who are not natives of Warangal district but belong to Bezwada and Guntur, could identify only two of the culprits viz., accused 5 and 6. There is no reason why the evidence of P.W. 5 should be thrown overboard in so far as it implicates not only accused 5 and 6 but also accused 2, 3 and 7. It is not shown that P.W. 5 bore any grudge against any of the accused whom he implicated. We are definitely of the view that the testimony of this witness is very impressive and the learned Sessions Judge fell into a grave error in discarding it. Equally convincing is the testimony of P.W. 9, which also the learned Sessions Judge has thought fit to reject out of hand. As noticed supra, P.W. 9 was a Reserve Constable at the District Police Office, Warangal. He along with others of the Reserve Police party were on election duty at the Mathwada Police Station between 24th and 26th. On the night in question he and others of his party came back to the Police Station at 1 A.M. He found the two front doors of the Police Station shut. So he went to the back of the building and shouted to those inside to open the door. When the back door of the Sub-Inspector's room was opened, he and the others went through the Sub-Inspector's room and kept their rifles in the bell-of-arms. In the Sub-Inspector's room the witness noticed the presence of accused 2 to 7-accused 2 to 4 were sitting on chairs while accused 5 to 7 were standing. One stranger was also there in a collapsed condition. About half an hour later, the lights were put out and a person was taken out. But the witness could not say who that person was. When questioned by the Court, the witness went on to say that he presumed that the person who was in that condition inside the room had died during investigation and his corpse had been taken out, and he thought that a murder had been committed. But the witness could not say who that person was. When questioned by the Court, the witness went on to say that he presumed that the person who was in that condition inside the room had died during investigation and his corpse had been taken out, and he thought that a murder had been committed. Apart from eliciting that he had been examined after some delay by the C.I.D Inspector, he was not in the least shaken in cross-examination and there was not even a suggestion that he had any animosity towards the accused, who according to him, were present inside the Police Station near the victim on the night of the 24th/25th at about 1 A.M. The grounds on which the learned Judge has thought fit to reject this witness's evidence are that he had not disclosed to anyone of what he had seen till he was examined by the C.I.D. Inspector and that none of the other Constables of the Reserve Police party have been examined to corroborate his evidence. Neither of these reasons is a valid one. The witness was examined only after the C.I.D. Inspector, P.W. 33 took over the investigation. It was under his direction that P.W. 32, the Sub-Inspector of Police, C.I.D. recorded the statements of the members of the Armed Reserve party who were present in the Police Station on the night of the occurrence, and P.W. 32 speaks to having examined and recorded on 2nd June, 1961 the statements of a number of Constables and Head Constables of the Armed Reserve party. In our opinion, the learned Judge was wrong in brushing aside the evidence of this witness, P.W. 9. His evidence establishes the presence of accused 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 inside the Sub-Inspector's room at the time when the unknown person was on the ground dead or dying. The witness did not know who that person was, but there can be little doubt that it was Chandriga. Thus, the evidence of this, witness corroborates the direct evidence of P.Ws. 3,4 and 5. No doubt this witness speaks to the presence of accused 4 also along with, accused 2, 3, and 5 to 7, but as noticed already, there is no reference to accused 4 in Ex. P-40 nor does the evidence of P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 implicate him either as an. 3,4 and 5. No doubt this witness speaks to the presence of accused 4 also along with, accused 2, 3, and 5 to 7, but as noticed already, there is no reference to accused 4 in Ex. P-40 nor does the evidence of P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 implicate him either as an. active participant in torturing Chandriga or as an abetter. For the foregoing reasons, we are firmly of the view that the learned Sessions Judge was wrong in disbelieving the evidence of P.Ws. 3, 4, 5 and 9. Ex. F-40, the confession of accused 2, which we have found to be voluntary and true, lends assurance to the testimony of the above witnesses. In our opinion the prosecution has succeeded in bringing home the guilt to accused 2, 3 and 5 to 7. The case of accused 1 and accused 4 stands on a different footing and we are unable to disagree with the conclusion reached by lower Court as regards them. We shall now summarise the items of evidence against each of the accused. Accused 1-Admittedly he was not present at the Police Station on the night in question when Chandriga was subjected to torture, as a result of which the man. died, and he did not himself take part in disposing of the body. The evidence of P.Ws. 11 and 12 shows that on the night of the 24th/25th, accused 3 and 4 had gone in a truck to the house of accused 1, but neither P.W. 11, who acted as a guide nor P.W. 12 the driver of the truck states that accused 3 and 4 had actually contacted, accused 1 and spoken to him. On the contrary P.W. 11 swears that he was told that accused 1 was not in the house. The evidence of these two witnesses does not establish that accused 3 and 4 had actually contacted accused 1 that night, from, which it might be inferred that they had sought his instructions as to what to do with the body of Chandriga. It is true that in Ex. P-40 accused 2 had stated that the Circle Inspector, accused 1, had instructed them that the body should be removed to a far-off place and buried, and accordingly the body had been removed from the well to a distant place and buried in the river-bed. Ex. It is true that in Ex. P-40 accused 2 had stated that the Circle Inspector, accused 1, had instructed them that the body should be removed to a far-off place and buried, and accordingly the body had been removed from the well to a distant place and buried in the river-bed. Ex. P-40 is the confession of a co-accused and cannot be used as a substantive piece of evidence against accused 1. The other item of evidence relied on by the prosecution are the entries made by accused 1 in the General Diary and in the Pocket note-book (Ex. P-68) to the effect that Chandriga had escaped from custody. But these entries must have been made on information furnished to him by others, and not out of his own personal knowledge. We therefore agree with the learned Sessions Judge that there is no legal evidence to connect accused 1 with the abetment of the offence or with, the causing of disappearance of evidence, and therefore his acquittal will stand. Accused 2.-First, there is his own confession Ex. P-40, which is voluntary and true. Though it was retracted, it finds corroboration in material particulars from the various recoveries made at his instance. There is then the direct evidence of the eye-witness, P.W. 5, and the corroborative evidence of P.W. 9. His plea that he was not at all present onthe night in question at the Police Station, is demonstrably false in view of the above items of evidence and the entries made in his own hand in the General Diary, Exs. P-33, P-35 and P-37. Accused 3.-As against him, there is the direct evidence of P.W. 5 and the corroborative evidence of P.W. 9. His attempt to contact accused 1 on the night of the occurrence is spoken to by P.Ws. 11 and 12. Accused 2's confession (Ex. P-40) implicates him to the hilt and can be taken into consideration in support of the evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 9. His plea that he was not present at the Station on. the night in question, is palpably false. Accused 4.-In Ex. P-40, the confession of accused 2, he is not attributed any part either in the commission of the crime or in the subsequent disposal of the body. He was not connected with the investigation of the property offence which led to the occurrence. the night in question, is palpably false. Accused 4.-In Ex. P-40, the confession of accused 2, he is not attributed any part either in the commission of the crime or in the subsequent disposal of the body. He was not connected with the investigation of the property offence which led to the occurrence. P.W. 5's evidence does not involve him in the crime, but on the contrary exonerates him. No doubt P.W. 9 speaks to his presence later at about 1 A.M. on the night in question, but that was some considerable time after the occurrence and does not establish his participation in the crime either as a principal or as an abetter. His acquittal cannot be said to be erroneous. Accused 5.-As against this accused, there is the direct evidence of P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 and the corroborative evidence of P.W. 9. He is implicated in Ex. P-40. His plea denying his very presence at the Police Station is a desperate and futile one. Accused 6.-Likewise as against this accused, there is the direct evidence of P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5, corroborated by the testimony of P.W. 9. He is implicated in Ex. P-40. His plea of total denial of even his presence is wholly unacceptable. Accused 7.-As against this accused, there is the direct evidence of P.W. 5 and the corroborative testimony of P.W. 9. He is implicated in Ex. P-40. He denies his very presence at the Police Station, which denial is demonstrable false. The net result is that while the guilt of accused 1 and 4 is open to doubt, that of accused 2, 3, and 5, to 7 has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence which we have accepted, establishes that accused 5, 6 and 7 had taken an active part in torturing Chandriga, while accused 2 and 3 had actively abetted the commission of the crime. As regards the disposal of the dead body, the only item of evidence is Ex. P-40 but that can be used only as against its maker, accused 2, but cannot be used as substantive evidence as against any of the other accused. The next question that falls for consideration is the nature of the offence committed by accused 2, 3 and 5 to 7. P-40 but that can be used only as against its maker, accused 2, but cannot be used as substantive evidence as against any of the other accused. The next question that falls for consideration is the nature of the offence committed by accused 2, 3 and 5 to 7. While the evidence establishes clearly and clinchingly that accused 5, 6 and 7 had subjected Chandriga to torture with a view to extort a confession or information and that accused 2 and 3 had actively abetted them, it cannot be said with judicial certitude that in doing so, any of the accused could have had the intention or knowledge of causing the death of Chandriga or even of causing grievous hurt to him. All that can be safely predicated is that they had subjected the unfortunate man to torture and in doing so, had voluntarily caused hurt to him. (We may point out here that in a case closely similar to the present one, which went up to the Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal No. 142 of 1961) wherein the modus operandi employed by the police officers was the same as in this case, their Lordships convicted the accused under section 330 , Indian Penal Code.) We would therefore set aside the order of acquittal passed by the Court below with regard to accused 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 and confirm the order of acquittal as regards accused 1 and 4. We convict accused 2 and 3 under section 330 read with section 109 , Indian Penal Code and sentence each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years ; and we convict accused 5, 6 and 7 under section 330, Indian Penal Code and sentence each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. We further convict accused 2 under section 201, Indian Penal Code and sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. This sentence shall run concurrently with the sentence awarded to him under section 330 read with section 109, Indian Penal Code. We uphold the acquittal of accused 1 and accused 4. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. Before parting with this case, we wish to observe that torturing suspects with a view to extorting information from them is a crude, barbarous and reprehensible method of investigating and detecting crime. We uphold the acquittal of accused 1 and accused 4. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. Before parting with this case, we wish to observe that torturing suspects with a view to extorting information from them is a crude, barbarous and reprehensible method of investigating and detecting crime. Those who are entrusted with the duty of enforcing the law, must learn to obey the law. In police investigation as in other matters, the end does not justify the means; the means are as important as the end. K.N.R.-----Appeal allowed in part.