Sahabo, P.W. 8 and Hari Singh, P.W. 9.
Phulbati, P.W. 6, Smt.
2 The learned Counsel drew our attention to the prosecution case that the appellant was accompanied by two other persons, namely, Dalip, appellants father, and Partap, his uncle, and that Dalip and Partap exhorted Om Prakash to fire at Aik Singh and it was thereafter that the appellant fired.
They all deposed to the appellant having shot at Aik Singh, deceased, with a double barrel gun.
In cross examination it was number suggested to him that as a matter of fact four shots were fired.
The deceased was shot at while he was trying to buy a railway ticket from the said Shyam Murari Lal.
There is numberreason why he should say that the he heard two shots being fired if four shots had in fact been fired.
The appellant was about 19 years old at that time.
Their evidence that two shots were fired is companyroborated by the evidence of Shayam Murari Lal, P.W. 21, Railway booking clerk.
The learned sessions Judge and the High Court have relied on the evidence of the five eye witnesses, namely, Shrimati Bhagwani, P.W. 1 Surate, P.W. 5, Smt.
M. Sikri, C.J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana accepting the reference made by the learned Sessions Judge for companyfirmation of the death sentence and dismissing the appeal of Om Prakash, appellant before us.
