ROMESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ramesh and Bhushan, the appellants, were tried for the murder of one Chhinda. They were convicted under S. 302/34 Indian Penal Code by the Special court, Ludhiana and were sentenced to imprisonment for life. This appeal is against their conviction and sentence by the Special court at Ludhiana.

(2.) According to the prosecution story during the night intervening 11th/ 12th Feb. , 1984 Ashok Kumar, a Riksha Puller, was standing outside the railway station at about 11. 00 p. m. when four persons came and sat in his rickshaw. Apart from the two appellant the other two were deceased Chhinda abd Pammi alias Ashoka. All of them sat Ashok Kumar's rickshaw and directed him take them towards the city. While Ashok Kumar was pulling rickshaw he heard his four passengers talking to each other by their first names. After some distance three of them started beating Chhinda. All of them had knives in their hands and they gave serve knife-injuries to Chhinda due to which' died and fell on the foot-rest of the rickshaw. Ashok Kumar drove the rickshaw under the directions of the three assailants along with the dead body of Chhinda through the steets of Luchiana. The assailants directed the rickshaw puller to take them to the cremation ground. Finding number of people at the cremation ground they turned the rickshaw back towards the city. Some time after midnight while Ashok Kumar was pulling the rickshaw they came across two police on the road side. The constables sloped the rickshaw on which the three assailants left the rickshaw and ran away. The constables tried to chase the assailants but could not catch them. The constables took charge of the dead body and also interrogated Ashok Kumar. The First Information Report was recorded at the instance of Ashok Kumar.

(3.) All the three accused were arrested by the police. After completing the investigation they were sent up for trial under S. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Pummi alias Ashoka died during the pendency of the trial. As stated above the two appellants were tried and convicted by the Special court.