JUDGMENT

A.K. PATNAIK, J.

1. These are three appeals by way of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution against the common judgment dated 22.03.2007 of the High Court of Bombay by which a Sub-Inspector of Police and two Police Constables, have been held guilty for having caused the custodial death of Arun (hereinafter referred to as the deceased).

Facts of the case:

2. The facts very briefly are that a minor girl named Usha fell in love with Chandrakant and both Usha and Chandrakant eloped from Kolhapur where they were residing to Umbrat near Kankavali in Konkan area in Maharashtra. Ushas father Madhukar lodged a complaint against Chandrakant and three others including the deceased for kidnapping Usha, and Subhash, a Sub-Inspector of Police, was entrusted with the investigation into the complaint of Madhukar. On 16.12.1985 between 12.00 and 12.30 in the midnight, Subhash with the help of two constables, Sunil Jadhav and Ananda Bhonsale, arrested the deceased, who was the elder brother of Chandrakant, on the suspicion that he had helped Chandrakant to elope from Kankavali with Usha and lodged the deceased in the lock-up of Shahupuri Police Station at Kolhapur. On the morning of 17.12.1985 at about 7.00 a.m., the deceased was found dead in the lock-up of Shahupuri Police Station. Post mortem on the body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Vilas Manade and Dr. Baburao Ghatage and in all 19 injuries were found on the body of the deceased besides internal injuries. Investigation was conducted and the charge-sheet was filed against Subhash, Ananda Bhonsale and Sunil Jadav (hereinafter referred to as accused No.1, 2 and 3 respectively) and the charges against accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were under Section 342 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short IPC) for having wrongfully confined the deceased, under Section 331 read with Section 34, IPC, for having caused grievous hurt to deceased for extorting information regarding the whereabouts of Chandrakant, under Section 326 read with Section 34, IPC for having caused grievous hurt to deceased and under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC, for having murdered the deceased. Besides accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3, there were eight other accused persons who were police personnel of the Shahupuri Police Station and all the eleven accused persons were charged under Section 218 read with Section 34, IPC, for having forged the records of the Shahupuri Police Station and under Section 193 read with Section 34, IPC for fabricating false evidence.

3. The prosecution case in the trial was that the deceased was picked up from his house in the midnight of 16.12.1985 and taken to the Shahupuri Police Station by accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and was beaten and put in the lock-up of the Police Station and as a result of injuries caused by such beatings, the deceased died in the lock-up between 5.00 am and 7.00 am. The defence case, on the other hand, was that the deceased was not picked up from his house but from the Sonya Maruti Chowk by accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and was brought in a police jeep to the Shahupuri Police Station and at the time of preparation of arrest panchnama, a number of injuries on the body of the deceased were noticed and recorded in the arrest panchnama and thereafter he was put inside in the lock-up in Shahupuri Police Station and therefore accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were not responsible for injuries suffered by the deceased.

4. The trial court rejected the prosecution story that the deceased was picked up from his house and held that he was picked up from Sonya Maruti Chowk and was taken to Shahupuri Police Station in a police jeep driven by Shamrao Dattatraya Patil (PW-19) and while PW-19 was waiting in the jeep parked very close to the Police Station, he did not hear any noise of beating or crying inside the Police Station and, therefore, the prosecution case that accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 gave beatings to the deceased stands disproved by the evidence of prosecution its