A.H. SAIKIA, J. - This Criminal Appeal has been brought from the impugned judgment dated 4.11.1992 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Manipur West in Sessions Trial No. 75/90/34 of 90 by which the appellant was convicted under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 7 (seven) years. 2. Unfurling the prosecution case, the facts, as stated in the F.I.R., are that one Rajen Singh, PW 7 lodged an F.I.R. with Yairipok Police Station alleging that on 5.10.85 at around 8.45 P.M. while he was having his dinner with one Modhu Singh PW 3 inside his room, the accused/' appellant came shouting that his salary of Rs.1250/- (Rupees one thousand two hundred fifty) which was put inside his trouser was lost. On being told to go out of the room and to talk later saying that he might have misplaced the money, the appellant shot his service Rifle hitting the right knee and right arm of PW 7, Mr. Modhu PW 3 also sustained bullet injuries around his knee joint by deliberate shot from the gun with the intention to kill them under such circumstances that if he, by that act, caused death, he would have been guilty of murder. 3. Pursuant to the FIR, a case was registered u/s 307/324 IPC and an investigation ensued. Police charge-sheeted the appellant under Section 307 IPC. 4. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 11 (eleven) witnesses including the victims namely, Shri M. Modhu Singh, PW 3 and Shri N. Rajen Singh, PW 7 alongwith other two alleged eye-witnesses namely, Shri Ph. Haridash Sharma, PW 2 and Shri L. Yaima Singh, PW 6. The Doctor, Shri H. Borajao Singh who examined the victims i.e. PW 3 and PW 7 was also made a witness as PW 4. 5. From perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the learned Addl. District Judge after consideration and appreciation of the evidences available on record, found the appellant guilty of the offences u/s 307 and sentenced the appellant as noted above. In arriving at the decision of the conviction, the learned Judge relied mainly on the testimonies of the victims i.e. PW 3 and PW 7 which were found to be corroborated with those depositions of the alleged eye-witnesses PW 2 and PW 6. 6. Heard Mr. G. Khupchinpao, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. In arriving at the decision of the conviction, the learned Judge relied mainly on the testimonies of the victims i.e. PW 3 and PW 7 which were found to be corroborated with those depositions of the alleged eye-witnesses PW 2 and PW 6. 6. Heard Mr. G. Khupchinpao, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. K. Jagat, learned Amicus Curiae and also Ms. Ch. Bidyamani Devi, learned P.P. for the respondent. 7. Let us take the evidence of PW 2 ano!\PW 6 who were accepted by the learned Judge as eye witnesses. PW 2 deposed that both Head Constables Rajen Singh (PW 7) and Constable Modhu Singh (PW 3) had a common room in the barrack within the Yairipok Police Station. According to him, at about 8.45 P.M. on 5.10.85 while he was inside the Police Campus of YPK P.S. he saw the accused person namely Kama Paite going towards the said room of PW 7 and soon after, he heard some exchange of words from inside the room regarding certain money "as far as his knowledge goes". After that he heard the sound in the nature of loading bullet in the Rifle and soon after that he heard the sound of gun shot inside the said room. It was also stated by him that the distance between the place where he stood and the said room would be about 6/7 fts. After hearing the sound only he rushed inside the room and he found the appellant and PW 7 in such a manner of snatching service Rifle each other. He categorically deposed that he found PW 7 sustaining bleeding injuries on his right arm and right knees and also bleeding injuries on his left leg just below his knee. He also joined in the act of snatching Rifle and then PW 3 also joined him and accordingly, all three of them snatched away the Rifle from the hand of the accused/appellant. Soon after some staff members (not named) rushed inside the room and the appellant was taken away. Both PW 7 and PW 3 were examined in primary Health Centre, Yairipok. In cross, this witness admitted that the appellant used to live with PW 7 in the said room when the occurrence took place. Soon after some staff members (not named) rushed inside the room and the appellant was taken away. Both PW 7 and PW 3 were examined in primary Health Centre, Yairipok. In cross, this witness admitted that the appellant used to live with PW 7 in the said room when the occurrence took place. He also said that so far his knowledge went, injuries sustained by both PW 3 and PW 7 were caused by pieces of broken floor which was hit by the bullet. But simultaneously he denied that the floor ' was seen to be broken on the spot. 8. Another eye witness as mentioned by the learned Sessions Judge, PW-6 deposed that while he was sitting on the stairs of their Barack easing himself in fresh air taking his meal, at about 8.45 P.M., he heard exchange of heated words from the room of PW 7. According to him, the voices were of PW 7, 3 and the appellant. Soon after that he heard a bullet sound firing in that room of PW 7. Hearing the sound, this witness deposed that they (without making anybody who were they) rushed inside the room and found PW 7 bleeding on his right leg whereas PW-3 sustained black marks or tatooing marks of camphors of bullet on his left side of the leg. He further told that the appellant was holding his service Rifle inside the room and the same was forcibly taken by the other constables. This witness, taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be eye witnesses as shown by the prosecution. It was his deposition that he rushed inside the room only after hearing gun shot. Nowhere in his deposition, the witness deposed that he saw the appellant's attempt to inflict such injury to cause his death. He has simply said that on entering the room he found the appellant and PW-7 snatching the service Rifle each other. He never stated that the injury suffered by PW 7 was bullet injury. On the other hand, he categorically stated in his cross examination that according to his knowledge the injuries sustained by PW 3 and 7 were caused by pieces of broken floor which was hit by the bullet. In the same breath this witness testified that he could not see any floor broken on the spot. On the other hand, he categorically stated in his cross examination that according to his knowledge the injuries sustained by PW 3 and 7 were caused by pieces of broken floor which was hit by the bullet. In the same breath this witness testified that he could not see any floor broken on the spot. He also found one steel cup being broken by the bullet and floor was found to be broke. This witness further went ahead by saying that on enquiry he came to know that there was a quarrel as regards the fact that the PW 7 and 3 had taken away a sum of Rs.1250/-. But on further search the said amount was recovered from the trousers worn by the accused before he were the uniform. This witness also, on the basis of the deposition, cannot be accepted as eye-witness. In his cross, it is denied that PW 7 and that the appellant live together in the same room to the contradiction of the statement made by PW 7. He also failed to say whether the appellant went inside the room for having joint meal with PW 7 and PW 3. The depositions of those witnesses also carry a complete silence of the intention of the appellant for commission of an offence u/ s 307 IPC. 9. Now let us see whether the evidences of PW 2 and PW 6 have corroborated the testimonies of the victims i.e. PW 3 and PW7. 10. PW 3, Modhu Singh clearly stated that on the date of occurrence they had arranged a joint dinner for three persons namely PW-7 and appellant including himself. It was deposed that during 8 PM to 10 PM the appellant was in the sentry duty. Since the appellant was doing sentry duty, according to this witness, the appellant was asked to come into their room for having joint meal. While he was taken about 2/3 morsels of food, he found penetration of a Rifle Barrel through the main door of the room aiming towards them and then a sudden firing of the said barrel was made. Therefore, only, he came to know that it was the present appellant who fired the shot with the service rifle. It was deposed by him that he found PW-7 sustained bleeding injuries on his right arms when he also suffered certain minor injuries. Therefore, only, he came to know that it was the present appellant who fired the shot with the service rifle. It was deposed by him that he found PW-7 sustained bleeding injuries on his right arms when he also suffered certain minor injuries. Soon after the incident, some police personnel rushed inside the room and the Rifle was snatched away from the accused. This witness did not mention the names of those police personnel. In cross, this witness specifically mentioned that he had no quarrel with the appellant at any point of time earlier to this incident, and the bullet fired by the appellant hit the steel cup which was kept on the floor in their front and as a result of which the floor of the room was also broken. It was the specific case of the PW-3 that they got injuries by the broken pieces of the floor. This vital witness who was one of the important witnesses, did not subscribe any intention of knowledge of the appellant for commission of an offence to be convicted u/s 307 IPC. 11. PW-7, Shri Rajen Singh who was the other victim deposed that on that fateful day, PW-3 and himself had a joint meal in his room and accordingly at about 8.45 PM where PW-3 was not starting to take meal but he was taking for about 2/3 morsels of food, the appellant with his service Rifle entered inside the room and told them that he had lost the money. PW-3 told the appellant that he might have misplaced the said money and he asked the appellant to remain on sentry duty stating that he should enquire about the money on the next day. At this, the appellant became furious and told that his money might have been taken by them. Soon after he heard the sound of a click like loading bullet in the chamber and out of suspicion he jumped towards the accused and pushed down the barrel of his rifle downwards with his left palm. The distance between the end of the barrel and the place where he was sitting was about 2 fts. The barrel of the rifle was pointing towards him by the time when the accused loaded the bullet in the chamber. The distance between the end of the barrel and the place where he was sitting was about 2 fts. The barrel of the rifle was pointing towards him by the time when the accused loaded the bullet in the chamber. As soon as he pushed down the barrel, a firing came out from the barrel and the bullet hit the steel cup on the floor. As a result, the floor was broken into pieces and the same caused injury on his right knees and elbow. It was also deposed that the floor was broken by the bullet of the gun and some of the nearby constables rushed to the spot. The service rifle of the accused was forcibly taken out of the appellant. He clearly mentioned that he could not remember all those constables due to lapse of time but^PW 2 and 6 amongst those constables. In cross, this witness categorically admitted that the appellant had been living with him in the same room for the last 4/5 months prior to the occurrence. It was also deposed that they had no quarrel with the accused. Such deposition of PW-7 goes to show the contradiction with the deposition of PW-2 who deposed that in the act of snatching Rifle from the appellant, he also joined with PW 3 and PW 7. It was clear deposition of the PW 7 that he did not remember who are the persons except PW 2 and P W 6 who acted in taking the service rifle out of the accused. This witness also negated the deposition of PW 3 as regards the factum that on that day all three of them had a joint dinner as stated by PW 3. According to him there was a joint dinner only between PW 3 and himself. His case was that the appellant came only to enquire about missing of his money. As per deposition of PW 7 it also appears that it was he who first jumped towards the appellant out of suspicion as he heard the sound of click like loading of bullet and pushed down the barrel of the Rifle .downwards. Perhaps that bullet was shot due to such scuffle. 12. As per deposition of PW 7 it also appears that it was he who first jumped towards the appellant out of suspicion as he heard the sound of click like loading of bullet and pushed down the barrel of the Rifle .downwards. Perhaps that bullet was shot due to such scuffle. 12. A bare perusal of the Medical evidences as perused by PW 4 goes to show that PW 3 suffers following injuries: "Multiple burnt marks blackening tatooing on the upper l/3rd of left leg and lower 1/3 of left thigh, simple injury caused by gun powder." and PW-7 was having the following injuries : " 1. One incised wound middle of the right knee joint seized 1/2 inch in length 1/2 inch in breadth. 2. One incised wound 1 and 1/2 inches away to the first wound on the lateral aspect. 3. One incised wound 2" away to the first wound medially. 4. Multiple burnt marks i.e. blackening and tatooing on the whole of the right upper arms and upper 1/3 of right fore-arm. All injuries are simple." In cross, the Doctor adduced that the injuries might have been caused by blunt weapons. He also stated that in his report he had not mentioned about the gun powder and denied the suggestion that injuries could not be caused by gun powder. The medical evidence also corroborated with the testimonies of the victims namely, PW-3 and PW-7 that their injuries were not caused by the bullet. But surprisingly PW-7 at the time of lodging FIR clearly stated that he himself and PW-3 suffered bullet injuries due to the shot fired from the Rifle of the appellant. 13. Mr. G. Khupchinpao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that contradictions and discrepancies are writ large in the evidences of PW-3 and PW-7 and those are wholly not trustworthy for taking into consideration for the present conviction. That apart, he has also stated that the PW 2 and PW 6 were not at all eye witnesses inasmuch as they did not have the occasion to witness the occurrence personally. 14. Defending the impugned judgment Ms. Ch. Bidyamani Devi, learned P.P. has vehemently argued that all the eye witnesses above mentioned have corroborated in bringing home the case of the prosecution. It is clear case of attempt to murder PW-3 and PW 7 and the learned Addl. 14. Defending the impugned judgment Ms. Ch. Bidyamani Devi, learned P.P. has vehemently argued that all the eye witnesses above mentioned have corroborated in bringing home the case of the prosecution. It is clear case of attempt to murder PW-3 and PW 7 and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge correctly and right convicted the appellant u/s 307 of the IPC and passed adequate sentence. Admitting certain discrepancies and contradictions in the deposition of the witnesses, Ms. Bidyamani Devi, learned P.P. has contended that those discrepancies and contradictions be treated as minor discrepancies and those at no circumstances can dislodge the prosecution case which was proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of the corroborated evidences of witnesses. To clinch this point, the learned P.P. has referred to a decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1985 SC 48 ; (State of U.P. appellant -Vs- M.K. Anthony, respondent) wherein the Apex Court held that if the evidence is found to be generally reliable, much importance should not be given to minor discrepancies and technical errors. There is no second opinion on these principles of law settled down by the Apex Court. Minor discrepancies and contradictions cannot come to halt the conviction in a criminal proceeding which has been properly founded on the basis of material evidences on record. This does not happen in this case. 15. From proper appreciation of the evidences of the aforesaid witnesses and also after having gone through the impugned judgment I am of the view that the learned Addl. District Judge lost sight of the essential ingredients of Section 307 IPC vis-a-vis of the vital discrepancies and contradictions of the witnesses namely FW-3 and PW-7 as well as PW-2 and PW-6 who have been accepted by him as eye witnesses. On perusal of the depositions of these witnesses i.e. PW-2 and PW-6, this Court does not find the reason to accept them to be eye witnesses. That apart, there is a gross discrepancies in the disposition of PW-3 and PW-7 who are the victims except the version that both of them have no enmity at any point of time with the appellant. 16. In order to rope the appellant in an offence u/s 307 it is the duty to find out at the outset whether the essential ingredients of Section 307 is very much in existence of not. 16. In order to rope the appellant in an offence u/s 307 it is the duty to find out at the outset whether the essential ingredients of Section 307 is very much in existence of not. To bring the accused within the ambit of Section 307, it must be shown that the appellant acted in such intention and knowledge and to such circumstances thatif he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder. In other words the intention and knowledge to commit murder must exist. In the instant case the existence of such intention and knowledge as claimed by the prosecution is a far cry. Medical evidence also clearly adduced that the injuries are very minor and those are of blunt weapons. It is not the case that the victims PW-3 and 7 were injured by the bullet injuries. The entire facts and circumstances of the case goes to show that the appellant had not intention or knowledge to commit murder of those victims. From their own witnesses namely PW-3 and 7 it appears that the appellant came to their room to make an inquiry about his money which he had lost at that stage, the PW-3 and PW-7 asked him to go out of the room and to make inquiry about the whereabout of the money next day. At that stage as deposed by the witnesses, the appellant was reported to have loaded his Rifle but nowhere it was adduced that the appellant had tried to shot them. It has come on the evidence that the bullet was fired due to mis-handling of the Rifle by the appellant. It is also the case of the prosecution that the bullet hit the floor breaking the steel cup and the broken pieces of this particular cup caused injury to the PW 3 and PW 7. 17. The learned Addl. District Judge in arriving at the conclusion of the conviction held that: "Had the bullet hit the victim, it would be on the upper part of the victim and the upper part of a human body is the vital part." It is merely a presumption, and such presumption is not punishable in criminal jurisprudence. There is no clear and specific indication from the evidence of PW-3 and 7 that there was an attempt to fire on them by the appellant. There is no clear and specific indication from the evidence of PW-3 and 7 that there was an attempt to fire on them by the appellant. It also clearly appears from the evidence of these victims/witnesses mainly PW-7 that the appellant acted in that situation in the heat of the moment as some of his money was lost. That being the position, considering the factual situation of the instant ca.se, I am of the opinion that there is complete lack of intention on the part of the appellant to commit an offence to rope him under Section 307. 18. On consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and also on proper appreciation of the evidences on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that the prosecution could not make out the case to justify conviction u/s 307IPC. In the present case the material witnesses failed to depose as regards the intention which is one of the essential ingredients of .Section 307 IPC on the part of the accused to commit murder. Be it also mentioned herein that there is nothing on record to show that the accused was having any criminal record. 19. Accordingly, I find that the conviction and sentence of the appellant is not tenable in law. Accordingly, the same is set aide. Bail Bond furnished earlier be discharged accordingly. In the result appeal is allowed.