further submits that PW-1 Ramesh Kumar, PW-2 Prem, PW-3 Prakash, PW-5 Kalpana, PW-6 Nanga and PW-7 Chaman Singh have not supported the prosecution version. It is alleged against the appellant that during the course of quarrel between two families, appellant used firearm, resulting into death of deceased Sarman. Learned counsel further submits that there was no intention on the part of appellant to cause murder of the deceased. The prosecution story also alleges that one Yogesh Jat also sustained firearm injury. It is apparent from the statements of PW-1 Ramesh Kumar, PW-2 Prem, PW-3 Prakash, PW-5 Kalpana, PW-6 Nanga and PW-7 Chaman Singh that they did not see the accused-appellant firing, resulting into the death of deceased Sarman. The appellant is in custody since long and further trial of the case may take considerable time, therefore, the appeal filed on behalf of the accused-appellant may be allowed. 3. Per contra , learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant vehemently oppose the present appeal. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that PW-4 Yogesh, in his Court statement has categorically stated that appellant Rajveer opened fire, resulting into injury to deceased Sarman. It is specifically stated that accused-appellant Rajveer fired at Tikam, which ultimately hit to deceased Sarman, resulting into his death and appellant also opened fire at Yogesh who also sustained injuries. Further, material eye-witnesses Bheem Singh, Tikam, Kuldeep, Sher Singh, Kartar Singh and Yogendra Singh are still to be examined. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that appellant was not involved in the alleged act. He also argues that at the instance of appellant, firearm was recovered. The
