This appeal by the State of Manipur is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 31.3.1998 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Manipur East in Sessions Trial No.9/1996. The learned Sessions Judge after elaborate discussion of the evidence on record and the report of the forensic expert acquitted the accused of the charge framed under Section 302 IPC for intentionally causing death of Shri Shangreiyo, Head Constable of Police within the compound of Ukhrul Police Station on 8.3.1990 at about 11.30 P.M. 2. We have heard Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. None appeared for the respondent. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor very fairly submitted that there is no eye witness in the instant case. The only eye witness, namely, Nandalal Sharma, died before his statement could be recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. However, the learned Public Prosecutor argued with all vehemence to bring home the prosecution case. Relying upon the expert report Ext.P/18, the learned public prosecutor submitted that the evidence on record clearly establish that the Rifle Ext.-A/3 was allotted to the accused for sentry duty and the expert opinion reveals that eight shots were fired from the same rifle. The cartridges were also linked with this rifle. It is for this finding of the expert the public prosecutor submits that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the charge against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. 4. In view of the above submission on limited grounds, we may refer to the expert report. The report tendered in evidence by P.W. 18, the Investigating Officer is quoted in verbatim for better appreciation :- “RESULT OF EXAMINATION 1. Ex.No.A was a bolt action rifle of .303” caliber, Modle No.3 UK 3* made by G.R.I. in 1950. The rifle Ext.No.A was found to be serviceable. 2. Ext.N.B was a fired, deformed .303 rifle bullet. Test .303 rifle cartridges were fired through the rifle Ext.No.A and bullets recovered. The class characteristics such as no. of lands/grooves and direction of twist of the rifling in the bullet Ext. No.B were found to be similar to those present in the test bullets fired through the rifle Ex.No.A. The bullet Ext.No.B was compared with the test fired bullets under a Comparison Microscope. The class characteristics such as no. of lands/grooves and direction of twist of the rifling in the bullet Ext. No.B were found to be similar to those present in the test bullets fired through the rifle Ex.No.A. The bullet Ext.No.B was compared with the test fired bullets under a Comparison Microscope. The result of comparison was inconclusive due to insufficient data and it is not possible to state, whether or not, the bullet Ext.No.B was fired through the rifle Ex.No.A. 3. Test .303 cartridges were fired through the rifle Ex.No.A and the empty fired test cartridges cases, thus obtained, were compared with each of the nine cartridges cases Ext.No.C1 to C9 under a Comparison Microscope. As a result of comparison, the firing pin impressions present in each of the eight cartridges cases Ext. Nos. C1 to C8 were found to match with those present in the test fired cartridges cases. It is, therefore, concluded that the eight cartridges cases -Ex.Nos. C1 to C8 were all fired through the rifle Ex.No.A. The firing pin impression in the cartridges case Ex.No.C9 was non-characteristic in nature and the result of comparison were inconclusive. Hence it is not possible to state whether the cartridges case Ex.No.C9 was fired through the rifle Ex.No.A.”. 5. The report submitted by the Senior Forensic Officer indicates that because of insufficient data it was not possible for him to state, whether or not, the bullets Ext.B was fired from the rifle Ext.No.A. The report further shows that the eight cartridges cases -Ex.Nos. C1 to C8 were all fired through the rifle Ex.No.A. The firing pin impression in the cartridges case Ex.No.C9 was non-characteristic in nature and the result of comparison were inconclusive. On such finding, the expert opined that it is not possible to state that Ext.C9 was fired from the Rifle Ext.A. 6. The learned Sessions Judge has dealt with this matter in para-24 which is quoted herein below :- “24. On the basis of the information of the Expert market Ext.P/18 and the letter forwarding the Expert opinion marked Ext.P/13, it is ascertained that it is not possible to state that if the deformed projectile said to have been extracted from the dead body was fired through the said .303 rifle. In the opinion of the Expert 8 out of 9 fired empty cases were fired through the said rifle.” 7. In the opinion of the Expert 8 out of 9 fired empty cases were fired through the said rifle.” 7. It would appear from above that the learned Sessions Judge has correctly appreciated the report of the expert. His finding reflects that the cartridges could not be linked with the rifle Ext.A allotted to the accused. The deformed projectile recovered from the dead body also could not be linked with the concerned rifle. We do not find any reason to have a view different from that arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge. 9. The point canvassed by the learned public prosecutor that the accused may be convicted on the basis of the expert report, in our opinion, is not acceptable for reasons ex-facie available on the report itself. In all eventualities this appears to be a case of at-least benefit of doubt. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment under appeal. 10. In the result the appeal is dismissed.