Judgment ( 1. ) THESE appeals are interlinked as preferred against the judgment dated 12-11-1990 passed by the II nd. Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh in S. T. No. 125/1988, whereby each one of the appellants stands convicted under Sections 330 and 2001 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R. I. for 5 years and 1 year respectively with the direction that the sentences shall run concurrently. ( 2. ) THE appellants namely Ashok Kumar and Rakesh Kumar (hereinafter referred to as a l to a2 respectively) and one Purushottam Das were jointly tried on the charge of murder of Sardar Singh (for short sardar ). In addition, A l and A2 were charged with the offence under Section 201 read with section 34 of the IPC. All the three accused were acquitted of the charge under section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and, in absence of any appeal by the state, the order of their acquittal has attained finality. ( 3. ) THE prosecution story, in short, may be narrated as under:- (i) At the relevant point of time, A l was posted as Station house Officer at Police Station Mohangarh Distt. Tikamgarh whereas A2 was posted at the same police station as Constable. (ii) On 3-1-1988 at 5 a. m. , on receipt of information that a dacoity had been committed at about 10 in the preceding night in the hose of one Jagdish Dangi at Village Barethi, a case, as Crime No. 1/88, was registered at Police Station mohangarh for the offences under Sections 395 and 397 of the IPC. Jagdish further revealed that the dacoits, being armed with guns and other deadly weapons, had not only beaten him, his brother Ramesh, their parents Ghayshaym das and Sharibai, grand-mother Rajkunwar but had also taken away his HMT watch and a bicycle as well as Rajkunwars golden nose-stud and a pair of silver paijanas (ankle bells ). As SHO, A l himself took up the investigation and immediately proceeded to the spot. (iii) On 3-1-1988 only at about 8 a. m. , A l inspected the spot and found an iron-rod belonging to Jasrath (P. W. 5) and Kailash (P. W. 19 ). Accordingly, he brought both of them along with jagannath, the brother of Jasrath, to the police station for interrogation. (iv) On 4-1-1988, three other suspects viz. (iii) On 3-1-1988 only at about 8 a. m. , A l inspected the spot and found an iron-rod belonging to Jasrath (P. W. 5) and Kailash (P. W. 19 ). Accordingly, he brought both of them along with jagannath, the brother of Jasrath, to the police station for interrogation. (iv) On 4-1-1988, three other suspects viz. , Tunnai @ Amar singh of Village Lohargunwa and Hukum Chand @ Hukma (P. W. 1) and Nathua (P. W. 2) of Village Dhana were also rounded up. Amongst them, only Hukma and Nathua admitted their involvement in the dacoity with three others namely Sardar, Pappu @ Kapoor Singh (hereinafter referred to as pappu) and Pratap Singh. Accordingly, on the following day, A l along with A2, Constable Purushottam and other members of the police force and SAF, proceeded to Village Madori in search of Sardar. (v) On 5-1-1988 only at about 9 p. m. , A l, at the instance of hukma and Nathua, apprehended Sardar at his residence only. During interrogation, he was hit by kicks and fists and also struck with butt in presence of Natthu Singh (P. W. 11), indrapal (P. W. 12), Mardan Singh and Pheran Singh (P. W. 22 ). Thereafter, he was taken to Village Pipra to facilitate search of Pappu and Pratap Singh. As none of them could be traced, the police party along with Sardar returned to the police station. (vi) On 6-1-1988, A l along with other members of the police party carried out an intensive search at Village Tigoda, where Pappus in laws were residing, but was not able to trace him or his companion Pratap. (vii) On 7-1-1988 at about 5 p. m. A l, upon his suggestion for further questioning, permitted A2 to interrogate Sardar thoroughly. However, while doing so, A2 gave beating to sardar with a danada (staff ). A l also joined the process of third degree interrogation, during which he too dealt multiple blows with danda on the person of Sardar. (viii) A l also documented Sardars memorandum, under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, in presence of panch witnesses Tunnai @ Amar Singh and Sheelchand Jain (D. W. 2 ). Immediately thereafter, Sardar began to vomit. Dr. Vidyut Kumar Rai (D. W. 1) was called but Sardars condition did not improve even after taking the medicine given by him. (viii) A l also documented Sardars memorandum, under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, in presence of panch witnesses Tunnai @ Amar Singh and Sheelchand Jain (D. W. 2 ). Immediately thereafter, Sardar began to vomit. Dr. Vidyut Kumar Rai (D. W. 1) was called but Sardars condition did not improve even after taking the medicine given by him. Leaving Sardar in such a precarious condition, the appellants, along with other members of police and SAF started for Dhana to recover properties from Hukma and nathua. Thereafter, condition of Sardar deteriorated further. At about 10 p. m. , he started ejecting blood. Although. Dr. Vidyut Kumar administered an injection and gave some other tablets yet, Sardars condition did not show any improvement. At about 1. 30 a. m. when he vomited blood again, Head Constable Karnapal asked Constable rajkumar to inform the doctor who declined to come. (ix) After recovering the nose-stud and the bicycle stolen in the dacoity at the instance of Hukma and a Dhoti as per information given by Nathua, A l returned to Police Station at about 2. 45 in the night intervening 7th and 8th of January, 1988. Karnapal immediately apprised him of the deteriorating condition of Sardar. In turn, Al asked Sardar as to why he was creating a scene. However, while complaining of severe abdominal pain and insisting for an immediate treatment, Sardar breathed his last. (x) Concealing factum of Sardars custodial death from members of the police force and the SAF, Al made them to believe that ailing Sardar was required to be taken immediately to Tikamgarh for necessary treatment. Accordingly, with the help of A2 and other police personnel, dead body of Sardar that was covered by a blanket, was placed in the rear side of police van. A l then took out rifles and cartridges from Malkhana. One of the rifles was handed over to Bihari Lai (P. W. 14) and another was taken by A l himself. Obeying his direction, the police personnel and members of the SAF got on in the van to accompany him up to Tikamgarh. However, as the vehicle reached near Village khakrone, A l asked the driver namely Ramnaresh to turn it into jungle, that was located on the left side. (xi) At the instance of A l only, the vehicle was ultimately parked at Naupora. However, as the vehicle reached near Village khakrone, A l asked the driver namely Ramnaresh to turn it into jungle, that was located on the left side. (xi) At the instance of A l only, the vehicle was ultimately parked at Naupora. Expressing a false apprehension that the other suspects of the dacoity viz. , Pappu and Pratap Singh were hiding themselves there only with a view to rescuing Sardar from their custody, he instructed all the police personnel except A2 to take respective positions at a distance of 100 yards. At this point of time only, the appellants with the help of Tunnai removed the dead body of Sardar from the van; carried it to a certain distance and fired shots at him in order to give his custodial death a colour of death in encounter. (xii) Accordingly, A l scribed Dehati Nalishi (Exh. P-6) to register a case under Sections 307 and 224 of the IPC against sardar, Pappu and Pratap Singh. It was mentioned therein that A2, Teklal (P. W. 15) and Kushalpal had fired shots from the respective rifles killing Sardar who was trying to escape. As the place of occurrence was located within the jurisdiction of Police Station Jeron, the Dehati Nalishi was forwarded to the SHO concerned for necessary action. The information as to so-called encounter was also duly communicated to the District Magistrate and superintendent of Police. (xiii) The Executive Magistrate Motilal Khare conducted the inquest proceedings. Thereafter, the dead body of Sardar was sent to Government Hospital Prithvipur for post-mortem. It was performed by a team of doctors comprising Dr. M. S. Rawat (P. W. 8) and Dr. Santosh astahana. They categorically opined that the gunshot injuries found on the body of Sardar were post-mortem in nature and his death was caused due to shock resulting from ante- mortem spinal injury. (xiv) In the light of the medical opinion, Circle Inspector R. D. Uniya (P. W. 7) recorded the FIR whereupon, a case under sections 302 and 201 of the IPC was registered at the Police station Mohangarh only. Initially, Sub-Inspector Jiwanlal yadav (P. W. 21) conducted the investigation but later on, it was carried out by the CID Inspector Pahar Singh (P. W. 22 ). Initially, Sub-Inspector Jiwanlal yadav (P. W. 21) conducted the investigation but later on, it was carried out by the CID Inspector Pahar Singh (P. W. 22 ). (xv) After due investigation, charge-sheet was put up against the appellants and Purushottam Das in the Court of CJM, tikamgarh who committed the case to the Court of Session for trial. ( 4. ) THE appellants denied the respective charges. In the examination, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, A l reiterated the facts, as incorporated in Dehati Nalishi (Exh. P-6), suggesting that it was at the instance of Sardar that he along with the police party and panch witness Tunnia @ Amar singh had proceeded to apprehend co-accused Pappu and Pratap Singh and also to recover remaining articles stolen in the dacoity. It contained the core of defence version to the following effect:- "when the police party reached the jungle adjoining village khakrone, all of a sudden, it was fired at from the opposite direction. Thereupon, he instructed his companions to respond to the attack by taking respective positions. However, Sardar, uttering that "kapoore I have come", rushed towards the direction where from the shots had come. At this juncture, there was cross-firing and, in addition, some of the inhabitants of nearby villages Garra and Khakrone also fired to drive off the dacoits. In the morning, dead body of Sardar was found near big stone and he, accordingly, informed the Superintendent of Police about the encounter, resulting in death of Sardar. On 8-1-1988, S. P. R. L. Armvanshi, after inspecting the spot, issued a press-note in respect of the encounter. However, on 9-1-1988, DIG visited Police Station mohangarh and suspended the entire police staff. Thereafter, politicians namely Pratap Tiwari and Ghuwara unduly influence the DIG by threatening to ignite the public uproar against the polices atrocities. It was in this background that the case was registered against him. A2 not only endorsed the statement made by a l but also pleaded that he had not caused any injury to Sardar". ( 5. ) TO bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 22 witnesses including Hukum Chand (P. W. 1), Nathua (P. W. 2), Dr. M. S. Rawat (P. W. 8), Constables Biharilal (P. W. 14) and Teklal (P. W. 15) and Head constable Dwarka Prasad (P. W. 16 ). ( 5. ) TO bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 22 witnesses including Hukum Chand (P. W. 1), Nathua (P. W. 2), Dr. M. S. Rawat (P. W. 8), Constables Biharilal (P. W. 14) and Teklal (P. W. 15) and Head constable Dwarka Prasad (P. W. 16 ). The defence also produced 6 witnesses including Dr. Vidyut Kumar Rai (D. W. 1), panch-witness Sheelchand Jain (D. W. 2), and Sukhlal Rohit (D. W. 3), a Constable of the SAF. ( 6. ) ON consideration of the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge, for the reasons assigned in the judgment in question, proceeded to acquit all the three accused policemen of the charge of Sardars murder. However, rejecting theory of this death in an alleged encounter as highly artificial, he firmly concluded that both the appellants were responsible for causing death of Sardar by subjecting him to custodial torture to elicit confession. Accordingly, he convicted the appellants for the offences under sections 330 and 201 of the IPC and sentenced them as indicated hereinabove. ( 7. ) LEGALITY and propriety of the impugned convictions have been assailed on following grounds:- (i) The evidence that was found unworthy of credit in respect of co-accused Purushottam could not form basis of conviction of the appellants. (ii) After recording the finding that the incriminating statements of Hukum Chand (P. W. 1), Nathua (P. W. 2), jasrath (P. W. 5), Dwarka Prasad (P. W. 16) and Kailash (P. W. 19) were not wholly reliable, the learned Trial Judge committed serious illegality in holding that the injuries found on the body of Sardar were inflicted in the police custody. (iii) There was no evidence on record to show that the appellants had voluntarily caused hurt to extort confession or to compel restoration of properties stolen in dacoity. (iv) Autopsy Surgeon Dr. M. S. Rawat (P. W. 8) did not rule out the possibility that the gun-shot injuries could also be ante-mortem. (v) Nathua (P. W. 2) and Babu (P. W. 3) had specifically stated that A2 was not previously known to them. Thereafter, their evidence as to complicity of A2 was not convincing for want of test identification parade. Further, A2, though posted at the same police station, was only required to assist A l for investigation and had not participated in the alleged ill-treatment of Sardar. Thereafter, their evidence as to complicity of A2 was not convincing for want of test identification parade. Further, A2, though posted at the same police station, was only required to assist A l for investigation and had not participated in the alleged ill-treatment of Sardar. (vi) The entire investigation based on a Dehati Nalishi (Exh. P-6), recorded by Circle Inspector R. D. Uniya was not only illegal but was also doubtful. (vii) There were number of police officials who were present at the time when Sardar had died. As such, the defence version ought to have been accepted as probable. However, the learned Deputy Govt. Advocate, while making reference to the incriminating pieces of evidence available on record, has contended that the conviction in question are well- merited. ( 8. ) BEFORE proceeding to appreciate the merits of the rival contentions, it would be necessary to advert to the medical and forensic evidence available on record. ( 9. ) DR. M. S. Rawat (P. W. 8) testified that on 9-1-1988, he had found the following ante-mortem injuries, as described in the report (Exh. P-14), on the person of Sardar:- (i) Multiple linear bruises, colour red blue, all over right hip underlying subcutaneous blood coagulated. (ii) Multiple linear bruises, colour red blue, all over left hip, underlying subcutaneous blood coagulated. (iii) Multiple bruises, colour blue in area of 2" (torn) lower 1/3 of left side of chest. (iv) Bruises 1 1 \2" x 1\3 and l/3rd of left thigh lateral surface. (v) Bruises 1" x 1/3" beside injury No. (iv ). (vi) Bruises 1" x 1\2" just below left knee lateral surface. (vii) Multiple bruises over calf muscles are of both legs. (viii) Multiple abrasions in 1" diameter of perennial region. (ix) Multiple bruises over both sides of scrotum are present. (x) Multiple bruises are present over back on lumber and sacral region. Under tissue injuries, there is huge haemotoma, present over lumber region (with coagulation present); with fracture of 4th lumber vertebra. ( 10. ) IN his opinion, all the abovementioned injuries were caused by hard and blunt object and injury No. (x) was not only sufficient to cause death but was also homicidal in character. ( 11. ) HE further proved existence of certain gun-shot injuries on the body of Sardar. ( 10. ) IN his opinion, all the abovementioned injuries were caused by hard and blunt object and injury No. (x) was not only sufficient to cause death but was also homicidal in character. ( 11. ) HE further proved existence of certain gun-shot injuries on the body of Sardar. These injuries were described as under:- (i) One circular aperture is present over upper 1/3 of right side of chest (wound of entry ). (ii) One circular aperture is present over centre of neck, underlying trachea is pierced (wound of entry ). (iii) One circular aperture over right pectoral region (base of pectoral girdle) (wound of exit ). (iv) One circular aperture 3" away wound No. (iii) directed laterally (wound exit ). All injuries are caused by gunshot piercing underlying tissues deep farcies muscles. Thoracic ribs are also fractured. ( 12. ) HOWEVER, the Autopsy Surgeon characterized the gunshot injuries as post-mortem in nature. In this way, Dr. M. S. Rawat (P. W. 8) reiterated the opinion as recorded by the team of doctors comprising himself in the report (Exh. P-14) that the cause of death of Sardar was shock due to spinal injury. He was cross-examined at length. However, nothing could be elicited so as to suggest that the gunshot injuries were ante-mortem. ( 13. ) BABU Singh (P. W. 18) was examined as the witness of inquest panchnama (Exh. P-24 ). However, his statement that the blood was seen on the dead body of Sardar only was not questioned. Sukhdeen (P. W. 20) is a resident of Village Khakron. According to him, at about 4. 00 a. m. , he had come out of his house after hearing gunshots and joined the co-villagers who had assembled at khirka. He further deposed that one of his co-villagers namely Halke had fired gunshots. It also came in his statement that while looking at Sardars dead body from a distance, he did not notice any blood on or around it. Further, as per the statement of the forensic expert V. S. Chouhan (P. W. 17), no trail of the blood on the corresponding path or the nearby stone was found at the spot where dead body of Sardar was lying. The absence of line of blood was indicative of the fact that Sardar was shot at when he was not alive. The absence of line of blood was indicative of the fact that Sardar was shot at when he was not alive. As such, the fact that blood was found on the dead body only completely ruled out the probability of the defence that Sardar was shot at while he was running away. ( 14. ) THE nature and situs of injuries clearly indicated that Sardar was subjected to 3rd degree treatment leading to fracture in his 4th lumber vertebral. Moreover, as pointed out already, the circumstances surrounding the see also not supportive to the theory of encounter. In this view of the learned Trial Judge did not commit any illegality in holding that death of was not caused by any gun-shot injuries but was result of shock, consaec spinal injury. ( 15. ) THE question, therefore, arises as to who were the aut injuries other than the gun-shot injuries found on the person of Sardar. ( 16. ) THE prosecution evidence as to complicity of the appell causing death of Sardar may be classified under the following heads:- (i) Evidence of fellow police personnel. (ii) Evidence of other suspects of the dacoity. (iii) Evidence of other witnesses. ( 17. ) AMONG the witnesses falling in category (iii) above, Indrapal, (P. W. 12) is the son and Natthu Singh (P. W. 11) and Laxman Singh (P. W. i: respectively cousin and neighbour of Sardar. Their evidence primarily rela the facts and circumstances under which Sardar was arrested and was brought the Police Station. According to Indrapal, the appellants and co-acc purushottam had not only beaten Sardar while apprehending him but had subjected him to torture near a Banyan Tree in Village Marodi only, testimony was duly substantiated by Natthu Singh. Their presence on the places was quite natural and the relationship with the deceased is not suffice to discredit them. Further, as their neighbour Laxman Singh also corrobora the fact that Sardar was first taken to Village Pipra to facilitate arrest of Prat according to him, he had also informed DSP, Jatara about what he termed as illegal arrest of Sardar. ( 18. ) THE prosecution version that on 5-1-1988 at 9 p. m. , Sardar v apprehended by A l and his companion police officials at his residence fro village Madori and was brought to the police station for interrogation, suspect in the dacoity was not disputed. ( 18. ) THE prosecution version that on 5-1-1988 at 9 p. m. , Sardar v apprehended by A l and his companion police officials at his residence fro village Madori and was brought to the police station for interrogation, suspect in the dacoity was not disputed. Further, the alleged torture meted of to him at Village Madori is also not relevant for discussion as, the spinal inju found fatal to Sardar was allegedly inflicted during a subsequent third degre treatment given to him during the period 5 p. m. to 9 p. m. on 7-1-1988. ( 19. ) ADMITTEDLY, at the relevant point of time, Dwarka Prasad (P. W. 16 was posted as Head Constable and Biharilal (P. W. 14) and Teklal (P. W. 15) wen working as Constables at P. S. Mohangarh only. Dwarka Prasad revealed as to how Sardar was arrested at Madori and was brought to the police station. As pel his statement, although Sardar was interrogated by A l along with Hukma and nathua yet, he was not taken to Dhana where at the instance of Hukma and nathua, a bicycle and other properties were recovered. He further narrated the circumstances under which immediately after return from Dhana, A l had called him from his quarters to board the van wherein Sardar was being taken to tikamgarh. Teklal, who, admittedly, did not accompany A l on is visit to Madori, substantially corroborated other assertion made by Dwarka Prasad. According to him, on 7-1-1988, he had performed guard duty at the police station from 2 p. m. to 6 p. m. and was relieved by Biharilal (P. W. 14 ). This fact also derived support from evidence of Biharilal, who categorically stated that during his duty as guard from 6 p. m. to 9 p. m. , he had seen both the appellants interrogating sardar. He further deposed that he had also heard shouts of the appellants who while questioning Sardar were equipped with dandas. It is relevant to note that dwarka Prasad, Teklal and Biharilal gave almost identical version of the encounter. However, none of them admitted that Sardar was subjected to third degree method or his dead was fired at by the appellants. In the light of their evasive replies on these points, they were declared hostile and were cross-examine by the public prosecutor. However, none of them admitted that Sardar was subjected to third degree method or his dead was fired at by the appellants. In the light of their evasive replies on these points, they were declared hostile and were cross-examine by the public prosecutor. However, none of these could be persuaded to reiterate the corresponding part of the respective police statements. ( 20. ) THUS, evidence of these police officials lent substantial support to the core and substance of the prosecution version yet, all of them refrained from admitting that the injury Nos. (i) to (x) (above) were caused by the appellants during interrogation of Sardar at the police station or that the appellants were authors of the post-mortem gun-short injuries. The trend of their evidence reminds me the following observations made by the Apex Court in Munshi Singh gautam Vs. State of M. P. , AIR 2005 SC 402 :- "rarely in cases of police torture or custodial death, direct ocular evidence of the complicity of the police personnel alone who can only explain the circumstances in which a person in their custody had died. Bound as they are by the ties of brotherhood, it is now unknown that the police personnel prefer to remain silent and more often than not even pervert the truth to save their colleagues. " ( 21. ) ACCORDINGLY, the deviations from the corresponding part of their case diary statements (Exhs. P-19, P-20, P-21 respectively) indicating active involvement of the appellants did not assume much significance. Similarly, the evidence of Sheelchand (D. W. 2) who is having a shop near the police station and Sukhlal Rohit (D. W. 3) examined as one of the member of the SAF, present throughout the proceedings of interrogation of Sardar as well as so-called encounter leading to his death, also did not inspire confidence. ( 22. ) JASRATH (P. W. 5) and his nephew Kailash (P. W. 19) were allegedly detained by A l along with Jagannath as suspects in the dacoity for the period of seven days commencing from 3-1-1988. As per their version, they had occasion to hear cries of Sardar suggesting that he was being subjected to violence in the adjacent room. Nothing could be brought in their cross-examination so as to suggest that they were, in any way, interested in implicating the appellants on absolutely false ground. ( 23. As per their version, they had occasion to hear cries of Sardar suggesting that he was being subjected to violence in the adjacent room. Nothing could be brought in their cross-examination so as to suggest that they were, in any way, interested in implicating the appellants on absolutely false ground. ( 23. ) THE other suspects examined to prove the involvement of the appellants in the custodial death of Sardar are Hukma (P. W. 1) and Nathua (P. W. 2 ). According to them, after being apprehended at Village Dhana; they were taken to Barethi to explain as to how they had climbed over the house of jagdish to commit dacoity. However, both of them, unequivocally, admitted sardar was arrested in pursuance of the information given by them only. also described as to how on his refusal to admit complicity in the dacoity, Sardar was subjected to custodial torture by the appellants. They specifically deposed that Sardar was made to swing to and fro on a rope what was termed as Laxman jhula and was beaten brutally. As per their statement, Sardar had fallen down from the Jhula (swing) and had sustained injuries. Although, they were cross-examined at length yet, no material discrepancy could be brought record with reference to their previous statements (respectively Exhs. D -l d-3) recorded by Circle Inspector Jivanlal Yadav (P. W. 21) and scribed by inspector Pahar Singh (P. W. 22) (Exhs. D-2 and D-4 respectively ). Howe their assertions that Sardar had died at about 9 p. m. was not acceptable in light of a contrary statement made by Dr. Vidyut Kumar (D. W. 1) w admittedly, was called to treat Sardar at about 9 p. m. Moreover, other suspects viz. , Ramkishan (P. W. 4) and Babu (P. W. 3), the maternal uncle of Hukma, were brought from Dhana to the police station after alleged recovery of bicycle and nose-stud at the instance of Hukma also supported the fact that on return from Dhana at about 3 a. m. only, A l had realized that Sardar was not breathing. ( 24. ) THE evidence of other defence witnesses namely Vinay Tripathi (D. W. 5) and Suresh Kumar (D. W. 6) correspond to certain newspaper clippings (Exh. D-l4 and D-l5 respectively) reflecting the press release made s. P. and the public reaction thereto. ( 24. ) THE evidence of other defence witnesses namely Vinay Tripathi (D. W. 5) and Suresh Kumar (D. W. 6) correspond to certain newspaper clippings (Exh. D-l4 and D-l5 respectively) reflecting the press release made s. P. and the public reaction thereto. However, these newspaper reports, not proved by evidence aliunde by the maker of the corresponding statement, are apparently inadmissible (See : Laxmi Raj Setty Vs. State of T. N. , AIR 1988 S 1274 ). ( 25. ) LEARNED Senior Counsel, while inviting attention to a decision (the Apex Court in Muluwa Vs. State of M. P. , AIR 1976 SC 989 , has contended that the evidence of both Hukma (P. W. 1) and Nathua (P. W. 2) was not reliable and therefore, no significance could be attached to the fact that it was corroborated by a number of witnesses of the same brand. Reference has also been made to the decision of State of Bihar Vs. Nathu Pandey, AIR 1970 SC 27 to contend that there was no cogent evidence to suggest that the appellants had inflicted the injury that was found fatal to Sardar. However, as observed in the case of State of M. P. Vs. Shyamsundar Trivedi, (1995) 4 SCC 262 , if there is an evidence that a fatal injury was caused during the period when the person was in the police custody, the Court may presume that the police officer, having the custody of that person, was the author of such an injury. ( 26. ) THE maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus", has no application in india and the witnesses cannot be branded as liars. For this, reference may be made to the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Nisar Ali Vs. State of U. P. , air 1957 SC 366 . Accordingly, the fact that they were disbelieved as against co-accused Purusottam or that their statements were inconsistent on material point is not sufficient to reject the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in its entirety as it is the duty of the Court to separate grain from chaff. ( 27. ) TORTURE in police custody infringes Art. 21 of the Constitution of india as well as basic human rights and strikes a blow at rule of law [d. K. Basu Vs. State of W. B. , (1997) 1 SCC 416 referred to]. ( 27. ) TORTURE in police custody infringes Art. 21 of the Constitution of india as well as basic human rights and strikes a blow at rule of law [d. K. Basu Vs. State of W. B. , (1997) 1 SCC 416 referred to]. Further, the offences relating to custodial torture are the most difficult to be detected (King Emperor Vs. Pran gawa, 1 Cr. L. J 289) and established as, generally, only circumstantial evidence leading to corresponding inference is available. However, in the case on hand, not only circumstantial but also direct evidence as to involvement of the appellants in causing custodial death of Sardar by using third degree method for interrogation with a view to extorting confession was available. From the prosecution evidence, it was also proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellants had staged a fake encounter to cause disappearance of the evidence pertaining to custodial violence. ( 28. ) IN the face of overwhelming incriminating evidence, as re-appreciated above, the learned Trial Judge did not commit any illegality in convicting the appellants for the offences charged with. ( 29. ) FOR these reasons, the convictions in question, being well merited, deserve to be maintained. ( 30. ) COMING to the question of sentence, it may be seen that the appellants have remained in custody for a total period of about 4 months and 4 months respectively. It is also true that they have lost their jobs after having gone through the ordeal of a trial and their appeal before this Court has unfortunately remained pending for a considerable period of time. However, taking into consideration the nature of offences, their magnitudes and corresponding social impact, the delay in disposal of the appeal cannot be considered as mitigating circumstance to restrict the term of imprisonment to the periods already undergone. ( 31. ) IN the result, both the appeals are dismissed and the impugned convictions as well as consequent sentences of the respective appellants are hereby affirmed. ( 32. ) COPY of the judgment be retained in the connected criminal appeal.