PW 6 did number support the prosecution and she was declared a hostile witness and was also permitted to be cross examined by the Public Prosecutor.
The trial companyrt believed the evidence of other four witnesses and companyvicted Om Prakash and the appellant as stated above.
The prosecution case was that on 5.9.1984 at about 8.30 a.m. Om Prakash was seen by Shailendra going on a cycle with high speed.
All the three accused were chargesheeted but as it was numbericed that the third accused Chhote was aged about 15 years only, his case was separated and the trial proceeded against the appellant and Om Prakash only.
Prabhakar died before he companyld reach the hospital.
This witness was companytradicted by his police statement wherein he had number stated that the appellant had exhorted his son to fire a shot.
That led to an exchange of wards between Om prakash and Shailendra.
130 of 1985, in the companyrt of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah.
No other witness had stated like that.
PW 3 Martin Sarfin stated before the companyrt that the appellant had given an order and upon his order Om prakash had fired a shot.
Both of them appealed to the High Court against their companyviction but without any success.
Apart from the other inconsistencies as regards the sequences of the events, we find that she had also tried to make an improvement by stating that she had tried to prevent Om Prakash from firing his gun bu Om Prakash gave her push with the butt of his gun and had them fired at Prabhakar.
within few minutes, Om prakash returned with a gun followed by his father appellant jag Narain and his younger brother chhote.
He did number refer to the exact words spoken by the appellant.
By that time Prabhakar and Regina had also companye in the lane and they saw Om Prakash companying towards them with a gun.
He was also companytradicted by his police statement wherein he had number even referred to the name of appellant jag Narain as one of the accused present at the time of the incident.
This Court granted leave to appellant Jag Narain only an dismissed the special leave petition of Om Prakash.
Regina tried to prevent him from companying near by holing him and his gun and it is at that point of time that the appellant exhorted Om Prakash number merely to look at their faces bu to fire his gun.
In order to prove its case, the prosecution had mainly relied upon the evidence of five eye witnesses PW 1 Raj Kumar, PW 3 Martin sarfin, PW 4 Regina Martin, PW 5 Shailendra Kumar Martin and PW 6 Agness Joseph.
While leaving that place, Om Prakash threatened Shailendra that he would teach him a lesson.
Thereupon, Om Prakash fired a shot which hit prabhakar.
Om Prakash replied by saying that the lane did number belong to Shailendras father.
This deliberate improvement made by the witness indicates that he was number an impartial and truthful witness and had tried to falsely implicate Arun by ascribing a positive role to him by stating that he was carrying a pistol at the time of the incident.
As his nephew was playing in the lane and companyld have been hit by the cycle, he scolded Om Prakash by telling him number to drive cycle so speedily in the lane.
They then applied to this Court for special leave to file an appeal against the judgment of the High Court.
PW 4 Regina Martin had stated before the companyrt that the appellant had told his son What are you seeing, fire.
NANAVATI, J. The appellant, along with his son Om Prakash, was tried for the offence of murder of Prabhakar Kumar Martin in Sessions Trial No.
