I.K. Jain, J.

1. Criminal Appeal No. 642 of 1992 arises out of the Judgment and Order dated 30/06/1992 passed by the learned 5th Assistant Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Sessions Case No. 114 of 1991. By the said Judgment and Order, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge acquitted Respondent Nos. 1 to 9 of the offences under Section 330 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge acquitted Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 also, of the offences under Sections 167, 177, 217, 218 and 201 IPC. By the very same Judgment and Order, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge convicted Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 for the offence under Section 365 of IPC and sentenced each of them to R.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. Respondent No. 8 was convicted for the offence under Section 342 of IPC and instead of sentencing him at once, the learned Judge released him on probation of good conduct on bond of Rs. 5,000/- with surety for two years.

2. Being aggrieved by the inadequacy of the sentence imposed against the above Respondents, the State of Maharashtra has sought enhancement of sentence in Criminal Appeal No. 643 of 1992.

3. During the pendency of Appeals, Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 9 have expired. By the order dated 19/09/2014, Appeals against Respondent No. 1 stood abated. By the order dated 25/08/2014, Appeals against Respondent Nos. 2 and 5 stood abated and by the order dated 01/09/2010, Criminal Appeal No. 642 of 1992 against Respondent No. 9 stood abated. Thus, these Appeals are being heard only in respect of Respondent Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8.

4. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer the Appellants as they were referred before the trial Court.

5. The prosecution case briefly stated is as under:--

"(i) Accused No. 1 was dealing in business of making silver ornaments at Village Hupari, Taluka Hatkanangale, District Kolhapur. Netaji Balu Lohar was employed as a dye maker in the shop of accused No. 1. At the relevant time, accused Nos. 8 and 9 were the Police Head Constable and Police Constable respectively at police outpost, Hupari.

(ii) A theft was committed in the shop of accused No. 1. He suspected that Netaji had stolen silver from the shop. Netaji was staying in a house of his father-in-law at Shirguppi. On 18/04/1990, accused Nos. 1 to 7 had been to village Shirguppi. They assaulted Netaji on the suspicion of theft of silver from the shop of accused No. 1 and brought him to police outpost Hupari. Accused No. 8 was in-charge of the said police outpost. No offence was registered against Netaji at the outpost. Accused No. 8 detained Netaji in the police outpost without any complaint from accused No. 1.

(iii) On 19/04/1990, accused had taken Netaji to village Shirguppi and compelled him to dig the earth at the rear portion of the house of his in-laws to find out whether stolen silver was concealed there. Accused Nos. 1 to 9 tried to extort confession from Netaji regarding theft of silver from the shop of accused No. 1. He was detained in custody without following the legal procedure.

(iv) Thereafter on 20/04/1990, accused allowed Netaji to go from police outpost Hupari. He was asked to return to police outpost on the next day with stolen silver. On 21/04/1990, on his return to police outpost, accused Nos. 8 and 9, at the instance of accused Nos. 1 to 7, again detained Netaji in the custody. His relatives came to see him but accused No. 8 did not allow them to see Netaji.

(v) On 23/04/1990, Netaji committed suicide in the police lock-up at police outpost Hupari. Accused Nos. 8 and 9 were on duty. At around 7.30 a.m., it was revealed by them that Netaji committed suicide. Accused Nos. 8 and 9 then prepared a false panchanama to show that Netaji was arrested during night intervening 22/04/1990 and 23/04/1990 under Section 122 (c) of the Bombay Police Act as he was found concealing himself near Vithoba temple and could not give satisfactory explanation. Accused No. 8 avoide