IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No.69 of 1998 Decided on : February 25, 2010 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Raj Kumar @ Guddu …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. N.S. Chandel, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) State is aggrieved by the judgment, dated 1st July, 1997, of the learned Sessions Court, whereby respondent Raj Kumar alias Guddu, who was charged with and tried for offence of murder, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, for allegedly murdering Kanta Devi alias Khindi, has been acquitted. 2. Report was lodged with the police by Nikka Ram (PW-10), a son of the deceased, by making statement Ex. PW-10/A, under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As per this report, deceased Kanta Devi alias Khindi was having illicit relations with the respondent. On the night intervening 26th & 27th February, 1995, she was with the respondent in his cow-shed, when the cow-shed Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… was aflame. Kanta Devi died of burn injuries inside the cow-shed. Respondent went to nearby locality in totally naked state and informed the people that his cow-shed had caught fire, but did not inform them that the deceased was also in that cow-shed. Dead body was identified by PW-10 Nikka Ram. Police conducted inquest and got the postmortem of the dead body done. PW-14 Dr. N.K. Sankhayan conducted the postmortem and gave the opinion that the cause of death was neurogenic and hypovolumic shock caused by burn injuries and carbon monoxide poisoning. 3. Police challaned the respondent, on the basis of circumstantial evidence consisting of the following two circumstances: (a) Respondent was having burn injuries on his person, which indicated that he was present at his cow-shed, when it caught fire. (b) Respondent went to the nearby locality stark naked and informed the people that cow-shed was on fire. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate General as also the learned counsel for the respondent and gone through the record. 5. Even if it be assumed that the aforesaid two circumstances stand proved to the hilt, the same would not lead to even a remote presumption, leave alone a …3… conclusive hypothesis that the respondent set the cow-shed on fire, with an intent to kill the deceased. We have observed so, because it is prosecution’s own story, as per FIR and the testimony of PW-10 Nikka Ram, the son of the deceased, that she (the deceased) was having illicit relations with the respondent and would often stay with him in his cow-shed in the night, leaving her house on the pretext of going to her own cattle-shed to take care of the cattle for the night. It is quite likely that it was a case of accidental fire, especially when it is prosecution’s own case that the respondent was stark naked, when he went to the nearby locality to inform the people that his cow-shed was on fire. It appears that the deceased and the respondent were asleep when the cow-shed caught afire and the respondent managed to come out but the deceased could not. In view of the abovestated position, appeal is dismissed. ( Surjit Singh ), J February 25, 2010(sd) ( Rajiv Sharma ), J