G.M. LODHA, J.—An indigenous method of detecting the crime and extorting confession by taking law into ones own hand and substituting Panchay-at for police has come to light in this appeal. The accused wanted to detect the criminals of a theft-case, punishing them on the spot, extorting confession, made recoveries and declared that the trial is over, but the rule of law has brought them to trial. 2. The incident happened on January 30, and 31, 1972 when a theft was committed at the residence of Chandkaran. The suspect was that the theft was committed by Gordhan (PW4), Banney Singh (Pw5), Prabhu (Pw7). Ghanshyam, Sarpanch of Panchayat Ora, who happened to be uncle of Chandkaran, called a Panchayat and these above witnesses (PW4, Pvv5 & Pw7) were called as accused for an interrogation in the night between 30th and 31st January, 1972- None of them confessed and they denied the charges. The indigenous method to torture them was then adopted by putting them in the room in the night and, calling the Panchayat again in the morning, for the whole of the day, the Panchayat conducted interrogation and enquiry, but with no result. 3. It is at this stage that in the second night, the third degree methods were adopted and they did not stop giving fists and kick blows but hanged the suspects after tying them to a tree and beat them. The most crucial and worst of the torturing happened when the fingers of Gordhan (PW4) suspect, were put to fire after covering them by clothes, and pouring kerosene oil. 4. The allegation of the prosecution still goes further that the wife of Gordhan, Mst. Harpyari was hanged and in her private parts, the chilly powder was put, and she was also hanged to the tree. Fortunately, this part of the prosecution was held to be not proved, let us pray that it would never have happened. 5. Kamal, (Pw ll) reported this matter to the police while the incident was going on, and on the information Ramswarup came there he and Kamal then asked the Panchayat people to release the said suspects and to hand over them to the police but, the Panchayat people refused to do so. Ramswarup (Pw l0) then went to the police station and lodged a report (Ex. P. 6). 6. Ramswarup (Pw l0) then went to the police station and lodged a report (Ex. P. 6). 6. In the meanwhile, Brij Mohan (Pw6) during petrolling on February 1, 1972, at about 8 in the morning found that Banneysingh, Gordhan & Prabhu were hanging on the tree, and found Ghanshyam Kindurilal, Guteri and Chandkaran to be there. Even when the persuasion did not succeed then the police force was brought and the said suspects and witnesses (Pw4, Pw5 & Pw7) were got released. On the arrival of the police, these appellants-accused ran away from the spot. After the investigation, the challan was filed and the following injuries were found on the person of the injured, Gordhan, Banneysingh, and Prabhu, and no injury was found on the person of Ratan Lal and Smt. Harpyari-Gordhan (PW 4). 1. Slight swelling and tenderness in left ankle and foot. 2. Contusion l"x1/2" over left back on scapular region. 3. Contusion l"x1/2" on right back on scapular region. 4. Second degree burns on fingers and dorsum of left hand. Blisters all over the back side of fingers and adjacent portion of hand. The dermis layer of skin is only partially burnt. 5. Swelling and tenderness over dorsal surface of left hand. 6. Contusion 1/2 x 1/2"and slight swelling on right forearm on middle one third. 7. Abrasions at three places on left wrist and two places on right wrist superficial in nature. Prabhu (Pw7) 1. Multiple and intermingled contusions on both the sides of back over scapulas and in the middle of the back in an area of 6"x8". 2. Contusion 3"x1/2" and 2"x 1/2" on right buttock, 3. Contusion 3"x 1/2" on left buttock. 4. Contusion 1/2"x 1/2"on left forehead. 5. Contusion 1" only breadth over the back of both wrists, 6. Contusion 1/2"x 1/4" on case of left index finger. 7. Complaints of pain both hands, slight swelling is seen on both hands, dorsal side. 8. Bruise 1/2"x 1/4" on right foot. 9. Contusion l"x 1/4" on left foot. Banney Singh (Pw5) 1. Swelling and tenderness on lateral side of right ankle and foot 2. Slight swelling on the outer side of left ankle. 3. Bruise 3"x 1/4" on outer side upper one third left side. 4. Contusion l"x 1/2" over the left tip joint. 5. Five abrasions on the back sizes 2-1/2"X1/2", 2"X1/2", 2"X1", 1"X1/2",1/2"X1/2" 6. Bruise 1/4"x 1/4" behind the right ear. Slight swelling on the outer side of left ankle. 3. Bruise 3"x 1/4" on outer side upper one third left side. 4. Contusion l"x 1/2" over the left tip joint. 5. Five abrasions on the back sizes 2-1/2"X1/2", 2"X1/2", 2"X1", 1"X1/2",1/2"X1/2" 6. Bruise 1/4"x 1/4" behind the right ear. 7. Abrasion lenier x 1/4" on right side of noes. 8. Contusion 1/4"x 1/2" on left wrist. 7. At the contusion of the trial, the appellants-accused were convicted and sentenced as under: Chandkaran & Ghanshyam U/s 326, IPC 5 years RI with fine of Rs. 1000/- in default 6 months R.I. U/s 331 IPC 2 years R.I. with fine of Rs. 1000/- in default 6 months R.I. U/s 342, IPC 3 months R. I. U/s 323, IPC 1 months R. I. U/s 330/149 IPC 2 years R. I. with fine of Rs. 500/- in default 3 months R.I. U/s 147, IPC 6 months R.I. Bhauthi, Raju, Ramnarain, Pratap, Karan, Vishembhar, Dhanphool, Kinduri, Guteri: U/s 147, IPC 6 months R.I. U/s 326/149, IPC 3 years R. I. with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default 6 months R. I. U/s 330 IPC 2 years R. I. with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default 3 months R. I. U/s 331/149, IPC 2 years R.I. with fine of Rs. 1000/- in default 6 months R. I. U/s 342, IPC 3 months R. I. U/s 323, IPC 3 months R. I. 8. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Two accused, namely, Shyama, & Muliya, were acquitted of the charges levelled against them. 9. Shri Shyam Arya and N. L. Tibrewal, the learned counsel for the appellants, have taken me through the entire record of the case and pointed out various infirmities. 10. Shri S. B. Mathur, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State has rebutted the allegation of the learned counsel, and submitted that this is one of those cases, where the punishment awarded by the trial court is inadequate and it should be enhanced and increased. 11. 10. Shri S. B. Mathur, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State has rebutted the allegation of the learned counsel, and submitted that this is one of those cases, where the punishment awarded by the trial court is inadequate and it should be enhanced and increased. 11. Shri Mathur submitted that now we are entering into 21st century and it is unimaginable that no mere suspicion without investigation, filing of tie challan, recording of the evidence, opportunity of defence, trial, judgment, opportunity of appeal, and final adjudication, cruel punishment like, burning fingers which is impermissible not only under the law of the land but also against the Constitution of the country, would be imparted. 12. I have got no doubt in endorsing the view of Shri Mathur that whosoever was responsible for the burning lingers of Gordhan (Pw 4) has committed a heinous, barbaric, in human and serious offence which is not only unconstitutional but also unlawful act. It shocks ones conscious and society and human dignity that the accused took the law in their own hand; of the trial, investigation, etc., punishing the suspects or his supporters by hanging them on the tree, keeping them under detention and beating them. 13. Now the question is as to who is responsible and liable for committing such a barbaric and inhuman unconstitutional act, as all & sundry cannot be punished. 14. I have, therefore, scrutinised the evidence with the help of the learned public prosecutor and the learned counsel. So far as the collection of the people in the form of a Panchayat is concerned, I have got no hesitation in accepting the contention of Shri Tibrewal that if village people assemble in the form of @ Panchayat for having deliberations, it cannot be called an unlawful assembly. The evidence read before me allows that times, the persons were alleged to be suspects, were beaten, than given food; interrogated again and again, tad ultimately, the offensive attitude started in the second night when some of them were given beating severely. Even, calling of the suspects for asking an inquiry by the village Panchayat cannot be treated as offence because it is traditional way, if it is not accompanied by any violence or physical torture. 15. Even, calling of the suspects for asking an inquiry by the village Panchayat cannot be treated as offence because it is traditional way, if it is not accompanied by any violence or physical torture. 15. I would, therefore concentrate on the individual part played by the individual accused in the process of the beating or even tying the suspects with the tree because, that is equally cruel and the worst of the offence of being burning the fingers of Gordhan (Pw 4). 16. Now coming first to the worst offence, so far as the burning of fingers of Gordhan (Pw 4) is concerned. The evidence of Gordhan (Pw 4) is most important because no one can be more-pious than pope, himself. Gordhan (Pw 4) is the best witness in this respect. Gordhan (Pw 4) in court statement has stated that it was Ghanshyam who lit the fire after Chauthi had put the cloth on the hand and Chandkaran had poured the oil for making it inflammable. In the police station, with which he had contradicted, he has not mentioned the name of Ghanshyam at all so far as the serious allegation of either striking a light or covering the hand with the cloth or, pouring of the oil, in this respect is concerned. 17. I have asked Mr. Mathur to minutely scrutinise the evidence of Gordhan (PW 4) in police as well as the trial court in this respect, and after minutely scrutiny, he fairly submitted that so far as Ghaushyam is concerned, in the earlier version before the police no part was assigned to him for the offence of burning the fingers of Gordhan (PW 4). 18. This being the factual position, I have got no hesitation in holding that Ghanshyam cannot be made liable for the act of burning the fingers of Gordhan (Pw 4), and the conviction based so far as on this incident is concerned, cannot be sustained. However, Gordhan (Pw 4) has stated that Ghanshyam did give beating to him and this is corroborated by the statement of Banneysingh (Pw 5) in general terms. 19. Ghanshyam is therefore, liable for committing the offence of causing simple hurt to Gordhan (Pw 4). It is significant that as per the scrutiny of Shri Mathur, Ghanshyam had no lathi nor he is alleged to have used the lathi for causing any injury to one. 19. Ghanshyam is therefore, liable for committing the offence of causing simple hurt to Gordhan (Pw 4). It is significant that as per the scrutiny of Shri Mathur, Ghanshyam had no lathi nor he is alleged to have used the lathi for causing any injury to one. He would, therefore, be liable and responsible for causing simple injuries. So far as the incident of burning is concerned, Chuttan is not before this Court and, therefore it would not be useful to discuss the evidence against him. Of course, there is consistent evidence against Chand karan of burning the fingers. I have, therefore, no hesitation in upholding the conviction of Chandkaran for burning the fingers of Gordhan, and his conviction under S. 326 I.P.C. and the sentence passed on that count is confirmed. 20. On a thorough scruting of the evidence, it is now established that it is proved by Gordhan (Pw 4), Banney Singh (Pw 5) Prabhu (Pw6) and Harpyari (Pw 1) that the accused-appellants Pratap, Dhanphool, Karan, Narain, Visham-bhar, and Raju also gave beating to Gordhan, Banney singh and Prabhu. So far as grievous hurt in the form of the fracture in the hand above the fingers is concerned, on scrutiny of the evidence, learned Public Prosecutor submits that it is not possible to identify any one accused who has caused such injury. 21. So far as the other accused-appellants are concerned there is no evidence against them that they caused any injuries either simple or grievous to the injured. 22. The result of the above discussion is that the conviction of the appellants, Ghanshyam, Chandkaran, Pratap, Dhanphoo, Ramnarain, Karan, Vishambhar and Raju, is maintained for the following offences, but the convic-tion & sentences of other appellants, Guteri Chawthi and Kindoori, is set aside, and these three appellants Guteri, Chouthi, and Kindoori are acquitted of the offence under s. 147, 326/149, 330, 331/149, 342 & 323 IPC. CONVICTION UPHELD Chandkaran U/s 326 IPC U/s 331, 342, 323 & 147 IPC The sentences as recorded against Chandkaran by the trial court on the above counts are confirmed. Ghanshyam U/s 323, 330, 342, 147 IPC Pratap, Dhanphool, Ramnarain, Karan, Vishambhar, & Raju U/s 324, 330/342 IPC & 147 IPC. 23. So far as the question of sentence for the other accused except Chand karan is concerned, detailed arguments.......... 24. Ghanshyam U/s 323, 330, 342, 147 IPC Pratap, Dhanphool, Ramnarain, Karan, Vishambhar, & Raju U/s 324, 330/342 IPC & 147 IPC. 23. So far as the question of sentence for the other accused except Chand karan is concerned, detailed arguments.......... 24. Shri Tibrewal submitted that the offence was committed some time in the year 1972, and the people of the village assembled in Panchayat to find out the guilt of the suspects for the theft. Shri Tibrewal argued that undoubtedly they exceeded normal method of inquiry, by resorting to beating but, for that, the compensation can be awarded to the injured persons and no substantive imprisonment should be given now in 1986. 25. Shri Mathur, learned Public Prosecutor on the contrary assisted by Shri P.N. Agrawal, the learned counsel for the complainant, submitted that so far as the question of burning fingers is concerned, it is most barbaric, inhuman, uncivilised violent act which levelled against the social conscious of all in the era where rule of law is supreme and if the appellants are treated lightly that tantamounts to the rule of unjungle in contrast to rule of law. However, in view of the different category the other accused are put from Chandkaran who is responsible for the burnings of the fingers, Shri Mathur and Shri Agarwal submitted that it would meet ends of justice if the sentences of imprisonment for a period of six months is awarded along with fine. They added the rider that this fine should be paid to the injured as compensation. 26. I have again very thoughtfully considered this crucial aspect of the case also. As mentioned above, at the very threshold of my this judgment, crude absolute, outmoded method of resorting to violence by the accused or bis supporters for detecting the crime or awarding the punishment of the crime without there being any investigation, challan production, trial, opportunity of defence, and judgment and final adjudication, shakes the social conscience of all in this era where they are protected by protective umbrella provided under the various clauses of the Criminal Code, requiring criminal investigation and trial, I would have no hesitation to enhance in case the State would have filed an appeal, the sentence of the accused. Therefore, the sentence passed against Chandkaran who is responsible for burning the fingers of Gordhan (PW 4) is confirmed as mentioned above, in to to as imposed by the trial court. The fine realised from Chandkaran as imposed by the trial court on different counts would also be paid as compensation to the three injured persons, namely, Gordhan (Pw 4), Prabhu (Pw6) and Banney Singh (Pw5) in the ratio which I would mention hereinafter. 27. All other accused appellants who are convicted under S.330 IPC as above, while reducing the sentence from 2 years RI to 6 months Rl the fine of Rs. 500/- is increased to that of Rs. 1000/-. Here also, the fine realised from the accused appellants who are convicted and sentenced, as above, would be paid to the three injured persons named above in the following ratio : Gordhan (Pw4) whose fingers have been burnt: 3/4 th of the entire fine realised from all the accused on different counts. 28. The balance of the amount i.e. l/4th, would be divided in equal proportion between Prabhu (Pw6) and Banney Singh (Pw5). 29. For the other offences, the sentences recorded against the convicted appellants by the trial court are confirmed. The trial court is directed to take steps for the arrest of the appellants who have been convicted and sentenced by this court, as indicated above, for undergoing the sentences. The bail bonds of the convicted appellants are forfeited. 30. The acquitted appellants are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds are cancelled and discharged. 31. In case of default of payment of fine increased by this court and imposed by the trial court under the different counts, the sentences as recorded against them in default of payment of fine would take effect. 32. A copy of this judgment may be given free of charge to the injured Gordhan (Pw4) only who is too poor. 33. The appeal in the net result, is allowed to the limited extent above and to that extent the impugned judgment of the trial court is modified.