JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus directing the second respondent to issue death certificate certifying the death of petitioner’s husband Velakkayala Satyanarayana in Gowthami Express Train Accident, which occurred on 31.7.2008, after getting DNA Test Reports from Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad or alternatively direct to issue certificate basing on prima facie evidence of travel of petitioner’s husband as per travel/reservation chart and approval of TTC confirming travel of petitioner’s husband and consequently direct the first respondent to grant ex gratia to the petitioner on par with the dependants of victims of Train accident and also direct the third respondent to release Insurance amount to the petitioner under AUM AADMI LIFE INSURANCE SCHEME covered to the deceased. 2. According to the petitioner, her husband Velakkayala Satyanarayana boarded S-10 Coach of Gowthami Express Train on 31.7.2008 at Secunderabad for Kakinada by purchasing ticket. When the train crossed Kesamudram moving towards Dornakal, near Tallapusulapally, fire erupted in S-10 coach and the same was spread to S-9, S-11 and S-12 coaches also. One lady passenger ran into S-11 coach and informed the eruption of fire in S-10 coach to on duty RPF (Railway Protection Force) Head Constable. The Constable immediately alerted and pulled the alarm chain. Passengers in the coach panicked and rushed towards vestibules for safety, but they were unable to get down from the train due to non-opening of doors. In the tragedy 30 out of 54 passengers traveling, were gutted to ashes and two lady passengers who were rescued from the bogie died on the way to hospital. None of the passengers traveling in S-9, S-11 and S12 coaches suffered injuries and they de-boarded from the train safely. In the said fire accident, entire S-10 coach was burnt into ashes. Petitioner’s husband who was handicapped, after attending a capacity building programme organized at Hyderabad was on his return journey and this tragedy occurred and he was burnt alive and only ashes of his mortal remains left. A case in Crime No.191 of 2008 was registered as Fire Accident and investigation was taken up under Section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code by RPS/Warangal. Police summoned the clues team and requested the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory to send their team to the scene of offence. Both the teams collected 48 samples at the scene of offence. Later they deposited the samples in FSL, Hyderabad vide receipt No.425/CHE/2008. Police summoned the clues team and requested the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory to send their team to the scene of offence. Both the teams collected 48 samples at the scene of offence. Later they deposited the samples in FSL, Hyderabad vide receipt No.425/CHE/2008. They also conducted panchanama over the dead bodies of 32 persons in the presence of six Tahsildars, whose bodies were charred beyond recognition. The Forensic Directors of Kakatiya Medical College, Warangal issued 32 PME Reports and recommended 16 samples for DNA Test after, excluding six identified bodies. The second respondent vide letter dated 19.9.2008 has given the entire details of incident on the application of one of the dependant of victim under Right to Information Act. The second respondent confirmed that petitioner’s husband had traveled in S-10 coach and died/gutted in the fire accident. As per the request of second respondent, parents of petitioner’s husband gave their blood samples to the FSL authorities for DNA profiling. According to the petitioner, her husband was covered under Indira Life Insurance Scheme (Aum Aadmi Insurance Scheme) vide application No.151818 valid from 1.4.2008 to 31.3.2009. When the petitioner submitted application to third respondent to release the insurance amount, she was informed to submit death certificate of her husband. According to the petitioner, though she ran from pillar to post, no death certificate was issued nor any ex-gratia was granted, whereas the first respondent granted ex-gratia to the dependants/relatives of victims who were identified. Hence this writ petition. 3. Detailed and individual counter affidavits have been filed by respondents. 4. The first respondent-General Manager, South Central Railway, in his counter, denied all the averments made by the petitioner and stated that the Railway authorities immediately after noting fire, sprung into action and separated Coach No.10 from the main train and then the team of Doctors was called. The forensic experts conducted postmortem and collected samples for DNA test. So far 16 dead bodies were identified and certified and those bodies are handed over to their respective relatives and the identification of remaining bodies is in progress with Government Railway Police, Kazipet. He further stated that the name of petitioner’s husband was not traceable in the statement showing missing persons of Gowthami Express train on 31.7.2008. So far 16 dead bodies were identified and certified and those bodies are handed over to their respective relatives and the identification of remaining bodies is in progress with Government Railway Police, Kazipet. He further stated that the name of petitioner’s husband was not traceable in the statement showing missing persons of Gowthami Express train on 31.7.2008. It is also stated that the Railway Administration will not delay the process of claim once it is filed before the Railway Claims Tribunal, the forum to deal all such cases. 5. Whereas in the counter filed by second respondent-Superintendent of Police, Government Railway Police, it was stated that on the intervening night of 31.7/1.8.2008 the Train No.2738 Gouthami Express bound to Kakinada from Secunderabad met with fire accident in between Kesamudram and Tallapusalapalli Railway Station. During the incident, after due investigation it came to light that (27) persons were missing. Out of these, (16) persons were identified as dead basing on various processes including DNA profiling test by A.P. Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad and all the efforts made to establish the identity of remaining (11) persons proved futile and there is no use of keeping the body remains in Kakatiya Medical College mortuary for about six months and there is no hope of establishing their identity. The second respondent further stated that as per the Reservation Chart, 10 persons namely (1) V.Satyanarayana (husband of petitioner herein) (2) Ethakota Mangayamma (3) V.Anantha Lakshmi (4) Sathi Chandra Sekhar (5) R.Satyanarayana (6) Chitrapu Santha Kumari (7) Peretla Gollabai (8) Peratla Satya Prabhavathi (9) Dr.Ravi Kumar and (10) Smt.N.Seethamahalaxmi are still missing. So far the body of the husband of the petitioner namely V.Satyanarayana was not identified, hence the question of issuance of death certificate to the petitioner does not arise. 6. In the counter filed by third respondent-District Collector, East Godavari, it is stated that the petitioner has submitted a claim application for payment of insurance amount under Aum Admi Bhima Yozana (AABY) scheme on 28.6.2009 and he forwarded the same to “Society for Elimination of Rural Poverty (SERP), Hyderabad” on 2.7.2009, which was returned to the petitioner on 18.7.2009 for want of documentary evidence i.e. Copy of First Information Report, Post Mortem Report, Panchanama Report and Proof of travel and so far the petitioner has not submitted the same. It was further stated that it may be true that the petitioner’s husband died in the fire accident that occurred in Gouthami Express, but to issue a certificate, there shall be some proof. As per the version of the General Manager, South Central Railway, in the passengers chart of S-10 coach, the name of petitioner’s husband does not figure and therefore, without there being any proof, the District Collector cannot further process the claim for payment of insurance amount. 7. The fourth respondent-Tahsildar, Kesamudram also filed counter stating that in the instant case, the Railway authorities have identified (16) passengers died for which he had issued death Certificates, but the Railway authorities have not identified other passengers as dead for which he has not issued death certificates. He further stated that unless and until identification is made by the Railway authorities with regard to death, he is not competent to issue death certificate. He also stated that so far he has not received any report from the second respondent regarding the death of petitioner’s husband. 8. Though there is some inconsistency in the counters filed, the fact that the petitioner is the wife of one V.Satyanarayana, whose name was found in the reservation chart of 10 persons and the District Collector, East Godavari forwarded the claim of petitioner to “Society for Elimination of Rural Poverty (SERP), Hyderabad” on 2.7.2009, was not denied. Further, in the panchanama conducted by both the teams, 48 samples were collected and the same were deposited in Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad. The Forensic Directors of Kakatiya Medical College, Warangal issued 32 PME Reports and recommended 16 samples for DNA Test after excluding identified bodies. The second respondent furnished further details of incident on the application of one of the dependant of victim under Right to Information Act. 9. The second respondent confirmed that petitioner’s husband had traveled in S-10 coach and died in the fire accident and even the parents of petitioner’s husband gave their blood samples to the FSL authorities for DNA profiling. However, according to the FSL authorities, the bodies were charred to such an extent that they became invalid for the purpose of DNA Test. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that it cannot be said that the husband of the petitioner not died in the said Train accident. However, according to the FSL authorities, the bodies were charred to such an extent that they became invalid for the purpose of DNA Test. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that it cannot be said that the husband of the petitioner not died in the said Train accident. All the above available concrete facts would drive for a definite presumption that the husband of the petitioner died in Gautami Express Fire accident. Therefore, it must be deemed that he is no more. 10. In this context, it is appropriate to notice Section 114 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which reads as under: “Court may presume existence of certain facts: The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to facts of the particular case.” 11. Presumption of fact is nothing but logical inference of the existence of one fact drawn from other proved or known facts, without the help of any artificial rules of law, and they are always rebuttable. The legal consequence of drawing a presumption is to cast on the opponent the duty of producing contrary evidence. A presumption upon a matter of fact, means that common experience shows the fact to be so generally true that courts may notice the truth. The presumptions of fact are in truth but mere arguments of which the major premise is not a rule of law. They depend upon their own natural force and efficiency in generating belief or conviction in the mind, as derived with those connections, which are shown by experience, irrespective of any legal relations. The effect of this provision is to make it perfectly clear that courts of justice are to use their own common sense and experience in judging of the effect of particular facts. Perhaps the most important rule as to presumptions is that they must be based upon facts and not upon inferences or upon other presumptions. No presumption can with safety be drawn from another presumption. The fact presumed should have direct relation with the fact from which the presumption is drawn; but when the facts are established from which presumptions may be legitimately drawn, it is the province of the Court to deduce the presumption or inference of fact. No presumption can with safety be drawn from another presumption. The fact presumed should have direct relation with the fact from which the presumption is drawn; but when the facts are established from which presumptions may be legitimately drawn, it is the province of the Court to deduce the presumption or inference of fact. If the connection is too remote or uncertain, it is the duty of the court to exclude either the testimony from which the presumption is sought to be deduced or to instruct the Court that the evidence affords no proper foundation for any presumption. Where the fact, giving rise to a presumption under Section 114, is undisputed and no explanation negativing the presumption is offered, the Court is justified in laying the onus proper where, but for the presumption, the onus could not be laid. 12. Coming to the facts of the present case, as noticed above, absolutely there is no scope for drawing conflicting presumptions or there is any scope for a second opinion. The only presumption in this case, necessarily to be drawn, is that the husband of the petitioner died in Gowthami Express Train Accident, which occurred on 31.7.2008, and burnt to such a level that his body was not valid even for the purpose of DNA Test. Further, it is not the case of the respondents that the husband of the petitioner is missing since a longtime and she has taken a wrong plea for a wrongful gain or the husband of the petitioner is alive and he is hiding himself somewhere, therefore no death certificate can be issued. 13. None of the respondents entertained even an iota of suspicion as to occurrence of death of husband of the petitioner in the train accident. Further, no conflicting presumption or second opinion can be arrived at on the facts of the case. This is nothing, but an inference/presumption requires to be drawn from common course of natural events. Further, the respondents have neither doubted nor denied the death of husband of petitioner in the Train accident, except opposing the petition for opposition sake. There is no concrete rebuttal evidence placed before the Court by the respondents to disbelieve the statement of the petitioner. Further, the respondents have neither doubted nor denied the death of husband of petitioner in the Train accident, except opposing the petition for opposition sake. There is no concrete rebuttal evidence placed before the Court by the respondents to disbelieve the statement of the petitioner. The series of facts, as noticed above, in the common course of natural events, would lead to an irrebuttable presumption of fact that the husband of the petitioner died in the Train accident. 14. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that it must be presumed, under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, that the husband of the petitioner V.Satyanarayana died in Gowthami Express Train Accident on 31.7.2008. 15. For all the above reasons, the writ petition is allowed with the following directions: 1. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to issue a Certificate to the effect that the husband of the petitioner V.Satyanarayana died in the Gowthami Express Train Accident occurred on 31.7.2008. 2. On the basis of the Certificate issued by respondent Nos.1 and 2, respondent No.4 is directed to issue Death Certificate to the effect that the husband of the petitioner V.Satyanarayana died in Gowthami Express Train Accident on 31.7.2008. 3. The respondent No.3 is directed to act upon such Certificate without any further delay for the purpose of granting exgratia/ compensation/insurance claim etc., as the case may be. 4. Further, the respondents, as an abundant caution, may insist upon execution of an indemnity bond by the petitioner for the amount of compensation/exgratia paid. 5. There shall be no order as to costs.