R. K. GAUBA, J.

1. The spectre of "custody death" raises its ugly head yet again in the case at hand, bringing under cloud the claim of our polity that the State guarantees, to one and all, a civil society truly wedded to the normative of rule of law.

2. The four appellants stood trial in the court of additional sessions Judge in Sessions Case no. 73/96 on the basis of the report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("CrPC"), submitted on conclusion of investigation into the first information report ("FIR") no. 72/92 of the police station Welcome, on the charge for offences punishable under section 342 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC"), section 330 read with section 34 IPC and section 302 read with section 34 IPC, the gravamen being that, in furtherance of their common intention, they had wrongfully confined Darshan Singh, after having picked him up on the night intervening 10th and 11th of March 1992 from his house no. K- 463 New Seelampur, Delhi, assaulting him intentionally and causing injuries to him in order to extract a confession to such an extent as to result in his death. By judgment dated 15 February 2000, the trial Court held the appellants guilty, as charged. By order dated 22 February 2000, each of the appellants was awarded imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 2000/- for offence under section 302/34 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 500/- each for offence under section 342/34 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with fine of Rs. 1000/- each for offence under section 330/34 IPC. It was directed by the trial Court that in case of default in payment of fine, the appellants would undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years, simple imprisonment for 2 months and simple imprisonment for one year respectively on the three counts. Benefit of section 428 CrPC was accorded and it was directed that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.

3. Through the criminal appeals at hand, the convicted persons have assailed the judgment and the order of sentence.

4. It is not disputed that the four appellants were members of Delhi Police, posted at the relevant point of time in Anti Auto Theft Squad (AATS) of North East District. The AATS was headed by Inspector Shakti Singh (PW 15). Its office was located near the office of Deputy Commissioner of Police of the area. Since questions have been raised in such regard, it must be mentioned here that the building from where the office of AATS was functioning was distinct from the properties where the police stations named Seelampur and Welcome were located. Though, it may also be added here that all these units of Delhi police were not much distant from each other. The AATS had a total staff strength of 11 police personnel, including one Inspector (PW 15), 2 sub inspectors, one assistant sub Inspector, one head Constable and 6 constables. The appellant Mahipal (criminal appeal no. 112/2000), accused no. 3 (A3) before the trial Court, was posted as head Constable. The other three appellants namely Anand Prakash (criminal appeal no. 202/2000), accused no. 1 (A1) before the trial Court, Sunil Kumar (criminal appeal no. 135/2000), accused no. 2 (A2) before the trial Court, and, Niraj Kumar (criminal appeal no. 148/2000), accused no. 4 (A4) before the trial Court, were working as Constables.

5. Certain facts concerning Darshan Singh (hereinafter referred to variously by his name or as "the victim" or "the deceased") have also emerged as indisputable. He was son of Prem Pal (PW 3) aged about 21 years, unmarried, reasonably tall (170 cm) and average in build. He was residing in house no.K-463, New Seelampur, Delhi. Munna Lal (PW 4) describes him as his nephew. Since the parentage of PW4 is different from that of PW 3, it appears that both of them hailing from same brotherhood were distantly related. PW4 ran a shop of denting and painting (of motor vehicles) in Bihari Colony. He had employed the victim in his