JUDGMENT M. Murtaza Husain, J. - The six appellants of this appeal, namely, Ashfaq Ahmad. Madan Pal, Sheo Mohan Mishra, Ganga Ram, Ram Kumar and Ram Bahadur Singh have been convicted under Sections 147, 325/149 (two counts), and 323/149 I. P. C. by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Unnao. They have been awarded six months' R. I. under Section 147. I.P.C. 3 years' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 100 on one count and two years' R. I. and Rs. 100/- as fine on the other count under Section 325/149, I.P.C. and 6 months' R. I. under Section 323/149, I.P.C. Ashfaq Ahmad has been further held guilty under Section 218. I.P.C. and awarded two years' R. I. Different sentences of each appellant have been ordered to run concurrently. Three other persons. namely, Gulab Singh. Tshwar Din Singh and Chandrika were also facing their trial in the court below along with the appellants. They were held not guilty of the charges framed against them and they have been acquitted by the trial Judge. 2. There is a police station in the district of Unnao known as Fatehour Chaurasi, Ashfaq Ahmad appellant No.l was posted to that police station as A.S.I. at the time of occurrence whereas the other five appellants were posted there as constables. One of the acquitted accused Gulab Singh was he Station Officer and the other acquitted" accused Ishwar Din was posted as Head Constable at that police station when the occurrence took place. Village Mundaha lies within the circle of the said police station and is at a distance of about four miles from there. Babu Lal P. W. 1, Shitla Prasad P. W. 2, Sukhdeo Prasad P.W. 3 and Suria P.W. 8 are residents of that very village. Nanha, who lost his life in the occurrence complained of was a son of Surja. He was mostly residing at Kanpur but had undisputedly come to his village sometime before the occurrence and was staying with his father at the time of occurrence. One Chheda is a real brother of Surja P. W. 8. Phool Chand P.W. 4 belongs to another village. He is the brother-in-law of Chheda. At the time of occurrence he was staying at Chheda's house as he had come to invite him in connection with some function which was going to be held at his house. 3. One Chheda is a real brother of Surja P. W. 8. Phool Chand P.W. 4 belongs to another village. He is the brother-in-law of Chheda. At the time of occurrence he was staying at Chheda's house as he had come to invite him in connection with some function which was going to be held at his house. 3. It has not been disputed before me that at 3.30 p. m. on 4-2-1976 Chandrika, an acquitted accused, lodged a report under Sections 147, 148, 322 and 364 I.P.C. against Nanha deceased. Phool Chand, Chheda and four others at P. S. Fatehpur Chaurasi. Investigation of that case was entrusted to A.S.I. Ashfaq Ahmad appellant and he immediately left for Mundaha along with the other five appellants. At 10.30 p. m. in the same night the aforesaid police party returned back to the police station along with three persons on a bullock cart who had injuries on their person. They were Nanha deceased. Chheda and Phool Chand. Entry about the return of the police party to the .police station was made by Ashfaq Ahmad appellant at report No. 27 in the General Diary of that police station which original general diary is on record. Ex. Ka, 11 in its relevant entry. At about 3 O'clock in the same night Nanha died in the lock-up of P. S. Fatehpur Chaurasi. Information was sent to Superintendent of Police. and District Magistrate, Unnao. A Ist class Magistrate namely Sri Dinesh Chandra Misra was deputed for inquest proceedings. He prepared inquest report Ex. Ka. 18 and other relevant papers. Autopsy of Nanha was held by Dr. B. R. Sabberwal, Dy. C. M. O. Unnao on 6-2-1976. He found 18 ante-mortem injuries of blunt weapon upon the dead body of Nanha. A large number of bones of the deceased were found fractured under some of the external injuries. In the opinion of Dr. Sabberwal the deceased had died as a result of multiple blunt weapon injuries inflicted upon different parts of his body in his lifetime. 4. The prosecution case is that when the police party, comprising of the six appellants, reached village Mundaha they forcibly entered into the house of Suria P.W. 8. They beat him and took. away a `Chadar' and `Saari' from his house. They also caught hold of Surja's son Nanha and gave him a merciless beating. 4. The prosecution case is that when the police party, comprising of the six appellants, reached village Mundaha they forcibly entered into the house of Suria P.W. 8. They beat him and took. away a `Chadar' and `Saari' from his house. They also caught hold of Surja's son Nanha and gave him a merciless beating. Confession about his involvement in some decoity was attempted to he extracted from him but he made no such confession. The appellants then entered into Chheda's house and caused injuries to him and Phool Chand. The injuries inflicted by the appellants upon the body of Nanha, Chheda and Phool Chand had made them unable to walk. They were then loaded on a bullock cart and were taken to P.S. Fatehpur Chaurasi. In the entry about the arrival of the police party, along' with the injured, at the police station made by A.S.I. Ashfaq Ahmed (Ex. ka. 11) false entries were made by him to indicate that Nanha was beaten by Chandrika in the incident of 11 a. m. about which a report was lodged by him at the police station at 3.30 p. m. and Phool Chand and Chheda had received iniuries during their arrest by the police party. 5. The prosecution also alleged that at the police station Nanha was further beaten by S.I. Gulab Singh and Head Constable, Sheo Mohan Misra but that part of the prosecution story was not accepted by the trial Judge. 6. When post-mortem examination report relating to Nanha was received by the police, the Circle Officer, namely K. L. Pander directed a case to be registered under Section 302 I.P.C. A case was accordingly registered at report No. 19 of the general diary of P.S. Fatehpur Chaurasi on 7-2-1976 which is Ex. ka. 7. Chheda and Phool Chand had already been sent to jail. Suria got his injuries examined at the District Hospital, Unnao by Dr. Sudhir Baipai in the noon of 6-2-1976. Four visible blunt weapon injuries were found on his person though he was also complaining of pain in his body here and there. According to Dr. Bajpai injuries of Surja were about 2 days old. 7. The case registered against the appellants was successively investigated by Inspector, R.S. Garg P. W. 10 and Dy. S.P.0.P. Singh P.W. 11. After conclusion of investigation the six appellants and three acquitted accused were charge-sheeted. 8. According to Dr. Bajpai injuries of Surja were about 2 days old. 7. The case registered against the appellants was successively investigated by Inspector, R.S. Garg P. W. 10 and Dy. S.P.0.P. Singh P.W. 11. After conclusion of investigation the six appellants and three acquitted accused were charge-sheeted. 8. The appellants admitted that they had gone to Mundaha after the registration of case on the basis of Chandrika's report whose investigation was entrusted to A.S.I. Ashfaq Ahmad. They also admitted that they had brought Nanha, Chheda and Phool Chand injured to the police station on a bullock cart and had reached there at 10.30 p. m. and entry Ex. ka. 11 was made in the general diary by Ashfaq Ahmad. The alleged assault of Nanha. Surja. Phool Chand and Chheda was denied by the appellants. They suggested that Phool Chand and Chheda received minor injuries during their arrest and Nanha had received injuries in the morning incident A.S.I. Ashfaa Ahmad maintained that correct facts were noted by him in Ex. ka. 11. The appellants suggested that they were falsely implicated as some of their officers were displeased with them. A private medical practitioner of Fatehpur Chaurasi, namely. Dr. Sattar Ali. was examined in defence to prove that the police had called him to the police station in the night of 4/5.2.1976 to attend to three persons who were in the lock-up. 9. Besides medical and other formal evidence. the prosecution relied upon the testimony of Babu Lal P. W. 1. Sitla Prasad P. W. 2, Sukhdeo Prasad P.W. 3- Phool Chand P.W. 4 and Surja P.W. 8. Babu Lal and Sukhdeo Prasad did not support the prosecution case as they did not fix the identity of the police-men who had taken the three injured to the police station on a bullock cart though they stated that policemen had taken Nanha. Chheda and Phool Chand to the police station on a bullock cart. Sukhdeo Prasad P. W. 3 did not state about the assault of the alleged victims by the policemen, though he stated that the police party had come to the village, had interrogated Nanha and had taken Nanha. Phool Chand and Chheda on a bullock cart to the police station. The remaining two witnesses, namely, Phool Chand and Surja fully supported the prosecution case, The learned Sessions Judge believed them and passed, the order under appeal. 10. Phool Chand and Chheda on a bullock cart to the police station. The remaining two witnesses, namely, Phool Chand and Surja fully supported the prosecution case, The learned Sessions Judge believed them and passed, the order under appeal. 10. Two technical pleas have been raised on behalf of the appellants an I would like to dispose the same of before taking up the prosecution evidence. 11. It has been, firstly, contended, that because all the six appellants were public servants, so their prosecution in the case under appeal, without sanction of the Government as prescribed by S. 197 Cr. P.C. was illegal. 12. Section 197 (1) Cr. P. C. lays down that when any persons who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office say' by or with the sanction of the Government, is accused of an offence ailed to have been committed by him, while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no could shall take cognizance of such often except with the previous sanction o the Government. Central or State the case may be, in whose employment the accused was at the time of commission of the alleged offence. The section, applies only to such public servants as are not removable from office save by or with the sanction of the State Government or of the Central Government. In other words, the bar of previous sanction imposed by the section will apply only when the public servant is removable from office by or with the sanction of the State Government or Central Government and not by any other authority. While interpreting the phrase 'public servant who is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of a State Government' occurring in Section 197 (11 Cr. P., C. the Supreme Court has laid down in Nagraj v. State of Mysore, ( AIR 1964 SC 269 ) that the Inspector General of Police can dismiss a Sub-Inspector who is a police officer below the grade of. Assistant Superintendent and, therefore, no sanction of the State Government for the prosecution of the Sub-Inspector was necessary even if he had committed an offence while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. Assistant Superintendent and, therefore, no sanction of the State Government for the prosecution of the Sub-Inspector was necessary even if he had committed an offence while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. Ashfaq Ahmad appellant was thus not a public servant removable from his office, save by or with the sanction of the State Government, for the mirposes of Section 197 (1) Cr. P. C. The other five appellants were only police constables removable by the Sundt. of police and were not public servants removable from office save by or with the sanction of the State Government. The six appellants, therefore, do not come within the category of public servants whom Section 197 (1) Cr. P.C. protects. It is also important to note that forming of unlawful assembly for extracting confession, beating of persons or looting of property by pokce officers during the course of investigation, cannot be said to be an act committed by them while acting or purporting to act in discharge of their official duties. I am therefore, of the opinion that sanction of the appellants under Section 197 (1) Cr. P, C. was not at all necessary for their prosecution in the present case. 13. The second technical plea raised the learned counsel for the appellants is that all the eye-witnesses, including Phool Chand and Surja, conceded in the witness-box that they did not now the appellants since before the occurrence, and that they had, for the first time, seen them at the time of occurrence. It was contended that in this state of affairs the investigating agency ought to have arranged a test identification of the appellants, and had the witnesses succeeded in picking them up in the test parade sanctity might have been attached to their testimony and in the absence of the test identification, the naming of the appellants or their identification by the witnesses in the trial court could not attach any credit to their testimony. It is undoubtedly true that where a witness identifies an accused, who is not known to him, in the court for the first time his evidence is absolutely valueless unless there has been a previous test identification parade to test his Dower of observation, because the idea of holding test identification parade under Section 9 of the Evidence Act is to test the veracity of the witness on the question of capability to identify an unknown person whom the witness may have seen only once. Wide Kanan v. State of Kerala, AIR 1979 SC 1127 ). 14. In the present case, however, the failure of the investigating agency to arrange a test identification of the appellants cannot damage the prosecution case because all the six appellants admitted that when the case was registered at P.S. Fatehpur Chaurasi on the basis of Chandrika's report investigation of that case was entrusted to appellant No. 1 and he, along with the other appellants, had gone to village Mundaha for investigation and from there Nanha Phool Chand and Chheda were brought by them in injured condition. The relevant entries of the general diary of P.S. Fatehpur Chaurasi which are on record show that none except the six appellants had gone to Mundaha for investigation of the case registered on Chandrika's report. If under these circumstances the taking place of the occurrence is accepted, none except the six appellants can be said to be the police personnel which was involved in it. There can thus be no confusion about the identity of the policemen who were involved in the occurrence complained of. The cases wherein statements of the witnesses fixing the identity of an accused for the first time in court are disbelieved are those where, apart from the ipse dixit of the witnesses, there is nothing else to fix the identity of the accused persons. In the present case, it is established by the admissions of the appellants made in the trial court, and by the relevant entries of the general diary of P.S. Fatehpur Chaurasi that the appellants were the only policemen who could possibly participate in the occurrence. In the present case, it is established by the admissions of the appellants made in the trial court, and by the relevant entries of the general diary of P.S. Fatehpur Chaurasi that the appellants were the only policemen who could possibly participate in the occurrence. In these particular circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that there can be no confusion' about the participation of the appellants in the occurrence if the eve-witnesses examined by the prosecution are believed and it is held that the occurrence had taken place in the manner alleged by the prosecution. 15. Coming to the direct evidence of the occurrence. it has already been remarked above that Babu Lal, Sukhdeo Prasad, Shitla Prasad, Phool Chand and Surja are the five eve-witnesses examined by the prosecution in the trial court. 16. Babu Lal P.W. 1 stated that at 2 or 3 p.m. on the day of occurrence he saw policemen taking Nanha, Chheda and one more person on a bullock cart towards the police station. He gave the number of policemen to be six, though he refused to fix the identity of the policemen in the witness-box. He was then declared hostile. The settled view of the Supreme Court with respect to the worth of a hostile witness is that after having been declared hostile the statement of a witness does not cease to remain a part of the record and it can be judged by the court upon its own value and can be relied upon if it has any worth (Vide Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1976 SC 294 and Syed Akbar v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1979 SC 1848 ). Thus viewed, the statement of Babu Lal at least proves that six policemen had taken three persons including Nanha and Chheda on a bullock cart to the police station at the alleged time. 17. Shitla Prasad P. W. 2 simply followed the foot-steps of Babu Lal. His statement is also helpful to the prosecution only to the extent indicated above. 18. Sukhdeo Prasad P. W. 3 identified the six appellants in the trial court as the policemen who had taken Nanha, Chheda and a relation of Chheda on bullock cart to the police station. Shitla Prasad P. W. 2 simply followed the foot-steps of Babu Lal. His statement is also helpful to the prosecution only to the extent indicated above. 18. Sukhdeo Prasad P. W. 3 identified the six appellants in the trial court as the policemen who had taken Nanha, Chheda and a relation of Chheda on bullock cart to the police station. He further stated that he had seen Ashfaq Ahmad interrogating Nanha, though he did not support the prosecution case about assault of Nanha, Chheda and Phool Chand before him. 19. Phool Chand P.W. 4 and Surja P. W. 8 have fully supported the prosecution case. According to them the six appellants had at first entered into the house of Suria and had beaten him and Nanha and thereafter they entered into the house of Chheda and beat him and Phool Chand. and then they took Nanha, Chheda and Phool Chand in injured condition on a bullock cart to the police station. 20. Medical examination of Chheda and Phool Chand was not arranged by the police. It was however noted in the general diary Ex. ka. 11 by Ashfaq Ahmad appellant himself that there were injuries on the person of both of them. It can therefore, not be disputed that Chheda and Phool Chand had received injuries in the occurrence. When there is direct evidence on record to prove that they were beaten by the police there is no justification to hold that they received injuries While resisting their arrest. Phool Chand being an injured witness his statement inspires confidence. Similar is the case with Surja P.W. 8. He Was not taken to the police station by the police but the medical evidence led by the prosecution shows that he had received a large number of blunt weapon injuries at the time of occurrence, one of which was grievous. Surja is also thus an injured witness. Mere relationship of Phool Chand and, Surja inter se or with Chheda and Nanha cannot discredit their testimony. The autopsy report of Nanha deceased, which is on record, shows that merciless beating of Nanha was done by the police party. According to the prosecution case Nanha was also beaten at the police station. That story was disbelieved by the trial court and rightly so, because in the general diary entry Ex. ka. 11 though the injuries of Nanha have been described only at serial Nos. According to the prosecution case Nanha was also beaten at the police station. That story was disbelieved by the trial court and rightly so, because in the general diary entry Ex. ka. 11 though the injuries of Nanha have been described only at serial Nos. 1 to 8 yet a careful scrutiny of those injuries would reveal that the same cover all the 18 injuries which were found upon the dead body of Nanha by Dr. Sabberwal. He means that the entire beating was given to Nanha at the time of occurrence A.S.I. Ashfaq Ahmad appellant was also investigating a dacoity case at the time of occurrence. Since Nanha was a new arrival to the village from Kanpur it appears that Ashfaq Ahmad suspected his hand in that dacoity and on that account subjected him to severe beating and third degree methods. The said injuries of Nanha give full support to the statements of Phool Chand and Surja P. Ws. Slight confusion made by Phool Chand or Surja about the exact time of the occurrence cannot discredit their testimony when it is admitted by the appellants themselves that after the registration of the case on the basis of Chandrika's report they had immediately rushed to Mundaha and had brought Nanha Chheda and Phool Chand in injured condition to the police station at 10.30 p.m. The time of the occurrence being thus undisputed any confusion about it in the statements of Phool Chand and Surja cannot belie their testimony on merits. 21. The defence filed certified copies of the report of Chandrika and Munni Lal but that evidence is of no avail to the appellants because their injuries related to the morning incident about which Chandrika had lodged a report at P.S. Fatehpur Chaurasi at 3.30 a. m. on 4-2-1976. It is true that the appellants had no common object to commit murder of Nanha. and he has died as a result of simple and grievous injuries received by him when attempt was made by the appellants to extract confession from him. On that account the learned' Sessions Judge has rightly held the appellants guilty only under Section 325/ 149 I.P.C. and not for committing his murder or culpable homicide amounting to murder. 22. After fully considering the statements of Phool Chand and Surja P. Ws. On that account the learned' Sessions Judge has rightly held the appellants guilty only under Section 325/ 149 I.P.C. and not for committing his murder or culpable homicide amounting to murder. 22. After fully considering the statements of Phool Chand and Surja P. Ws. I am of the opinion that their statements inspire every confidence, and the same read with the statements of other three witnesses, the medical evidence of the injuries of Surja and Nanha, the entry of general diary, Ex. ka. 11 and, the admissions of the appellants themselves leave no room for doubt that after reaching Mundaha in connection with the investigation of case registered on the basis of Chandrika's report the six appellants suddenly formed an unlawful assembly in order (to comit) a dacoity and for causing simple and grievous hurt to him and also to Surja. Phool Chand and Chheda and in prosecution of the common object of the said assembly they caused one grievous hurt to Surja, several grievous injuries to Nanha and a large number of simple injuries to Nanha, Surja Phool Chand and Chheda and Nanha succumbed to his injuries in the same night. The appellants have therefore, been rightly convicted by the trial Judge under Section 147 Indian Penal Code and also on two counts under Section 325/149. IPC and, on one count under S. 323/149, IPC. 23. A perusal of entry Ex. ka. 11 made in the general diary by A.S.I. Ashfaq Ahmad, appellant No. 1, shows that it was incorrectly prepared by him and wrong facts were mentioned by him in that entry in order to suppress the crimes committed by the appellants at the time of occurrence. He has, therefore, been rightly convicted under Section 218 I. P. C. 24. As regards sentences of the appellants, it is true that they showed extreme high-handedness in assaulting Nanha deceased and three others by means of blunt weapons but we cannot lose sight of the fact that it was just an over-zeal on the part of the appellants, while they were busy in investigation of different crimes, that they indulged in the said high-handedness. The evidence on record does not show what specific role was played by each appellant in assaulting Nanha deceased and the other three victims. The evidence on record does not show what specific role was played by each appellant in assaulting Nanha deceased and the other three victims. Considering all these circumstances I am of the opinion that a sentence of two years' R. I. without any fine on each count under S. 325/ 149 I. P. C. would be adequate punishment for each appellant. Other sentences awarded to the appellants by the trial court do not call for any interference by this court. 25. The appeal is thus dismissed. The conviction of the appellants ordered by the trial court for different offences is upheld. The sentence of three years' R. I. on one count under Section 325/149 I. P. C. awarded to the appellants by the trial court is reduced to two years' R. I. The fine of Rs. 100 awarded to each appellant on each of the two counts under Section 325/149 I.P.C. is set aside. In all other respects the order of the trial court is held intact. Different sentences of the appellants shall run concurrently. Fine, if already paid by them, shall stand refunded. The appellants are on bail. They shall surrender forthwith to undergo their aforesaid sentences. The C. J.M. Unnao shall report compliance to this court within six weeks.