JUDGMENT Romesh 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 February, 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 appellants the other two were deceased Chhinda and Pammi alias Ashoka. All of them sat in Ashok Kumars rickshaw and directed him to 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 serveral knife-injuries to Chhinda due to which he 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 mid night while Ashok Kumar was pulling the rickshaw they came across two police on the road side. The constables stoped 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 hte 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. 4. Ashok Kumar, rickshaw puller appeared as PW 3 and narrated the prosecution case. He stated before the Special Court that he knew the appellants. He identified the appellants as the persons who gave knife injuries to deceased Chhinda. As stated above the two appellants were tried and convicted by the Special Court. 4. Ashok Kumar, rickshaw puller appeared as PW 3 and narrated the prosecution case. He stated before the Special Court that he knew the appellants. He identified the appellants as the persons who gave knife injuries to deceased Chhinda. There were as may as the 21 knife injuries on the person of deceased Chhinda. The testimony of Ashok Kumar PW 3 was corroborated by Manjit Singh PW 5. Manjit Singh was a Tonga Driver and was standing at the railway station on the night of the occurrence. According to him the three assailants had first come to him but ultimately changed their mind and went away to hire a rickshaw. Manjit Singh deposed that he knew the assailants before hand as they used to roam about near the railway station. Jogi Ram and Dev Singh were the two constables who stopped the rickshaw on the night of the occurrence. Jogi Ram appeared as PW 4 stated that he along with constable Dev Singh intercepted the rickshaw and found the dead body. He also deposed that the two appellants and their third companion ran away on seeing them. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the appellants has taken us through the judgment of the Special Court, the statements of Ashok Kumar PW 3, Manjit Singh PW 5 and Jogi Ram PW 4. The Special Court has based the conviction primarily on the testimony of PW 3 Ashok Kumar as corroborated by PW 5 Manjit Singh and PW 4 constable Jogi Ram. We see no infirmity in the approach of the Special Judge. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that in the absence of test identification parade no reliance can be placed on the testimony of Ashok Kumar PW 3. We do not agree with the learned counsel. Ashok Kumar has stated that he knew the appellants and even otherwise he was in the company of the appellants for about three hours and had witnessed the killing of Chhinda at their hands. There was, thus, no question of holding any test identification parade in this case. 7. The learned counsel then contended that the prosecution story was highly improbable. There was, thus, no question of holding any test identification parade in this case. 7. The learned counsel then contended that the prosecution story was highly improbable. According to him the rickshaw puller carried three assailants and a dead body through the bazars of Ludhiana for 2/3 hours and came across some persons on the way but he did not tell anyone about the occurrence. He further contended that at the time when injuries were being inflicted on the person of Chhinda, his hue and cry, must have attracted the residents of the area to the spot. We see no force in the contention. The learned Special Judge has fully examined this aspect of the case. According to him the occurrence took place at mid-night in the month of February. The possibility of the happenings in the rickshaw having not been noticed by the mid-night walkers cannot be ruled out. In any case the eye-witness account of Ashok Kumar as corroborated by Manjit Singh and Jogi Ram proves the guilt against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. 8. We agree with the reasoning and the conclusions reached by the Special Judge. 9. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Appellant Bhushan Kumar is on bail. He is directed to surrender to his bail bond to undergo the remaining sentence of imprisonment. Appeal dismissed. For Citation:  1993 Cri. L.J. 1800 Vikas Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.