A.V. Chandrashekara, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent-complainant.

2. The present appeal is filed under Section 374, Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Principal Sessions Judge and presiding officer of Human Rights Court at Bijapur in Spl.(HR) 1/11. On the basis of a complaint filed under Section 2(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for brevity) before the Special Court at Bijapur, a trial was held against these petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 355, I.P.C. Ultimately all the appellants have been convicted for the said offence and they have been sentenced to undergo SI for a period of 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default, to undergo SI for 2 months each. It is this judgment of conviction and sentence dated 24.6.2013 which is called in question in this appeal on various grounds as set out in the appeal memo.

3. Facts leading to the filing of the complaint and consequential trial held by the special court are as follows:

(a) The respondent-complainant, Ramachandran was working as Senior Section Engineer, Permanent Way Department (Engineering) in South Western Railway, Bijapur, and was in charge of maintenance of the railway track in the section between Bijapur and Nimbal railway stations. He chose to file a petition under Rule 6 of the Protection of Human Rights Rules, 2006, alleging that the appellants herein had indulged in uncivilized atrocities against him in order to extract money from him. It is alleged that there was a report about the theft of CST 9 plates in Bijapur-Bagalkot section and 1st accuse who was the inspector of Railway Protection Force (RPF), was directed to investigate into the matter by A-9, Chief Security Commissioner; 2nd accused was directed to supervise and monitor.

(b) During the course of investigation, the complainant was arrested at 11.15 p.m. on 30.3.2006 by the 1st accused on the ground that he had stolen railway property. He was kept in the lock-up of RPF office at Bijapur from 11.15 on 30.3.2006 to 10.30 p.m. on 31.3.2006. During the said period, it is alleged that complainant was made to sit on the floor with only an undergarment to cover himself. Accused Nos. 1 to 7 indulged in atrocities in order to extract confession and money. It is alleged these accused persons demanded him to pay Rs. 1,40,000/- to release him and he did not yield to their pressure.

(c) It is alleged that the accused persons then took the complainant to the office of the Deputy Station Superintendent, Bijapur, at about 3.30 a.m. on 31.3.2006 and threatened the said officer, Mr. T. Damodaran to arrange for the said amount to secure the early release of his colleague. The said officer expressed his inability to mobilize the said amount. Enraged by such refusal, the accused brought the complainant-Ramachandran back to the lock-up and continued to torture him. He was paraded on the railway platform at 12.30 p.m. on 31.3.2006 in almost naked condition and on bare feet was the allegation. He was handcuffed with the end of the long chain securing the handcuffs and they dragged him like a dog.

(d) After coming to know of the torture meted out to him, his wife sent a telephonic message to accused Nos. 8 and 9 to take appropriate action against accused Nos. 1 to 7 and also complained to National Human Rights Commission on 8.5.2006. Accordingly Sri R. Shivakumar, ADEN, Bijapur, was asked to conduct an enquiry and he held an elaborate enquiry. The report was submitted by him alleging inhuman acts committed by accused Nos. 1 to 7. Later on, it is alleged, accused Nos. 8 and 9 virtually slept on the said report and refused to accept the same and subsequently ordered an independent enquiry by Sri Joseph Beerannavar, APO, Recruitment, RRC, South Western Railway, UBL.

(e) The complainant himself is examined as PW1 and three more witnesses are examined to brin