JUDGMENT SANJAY KAROL, J (Oral). State has filed the instant appeal assailing the judgment dated 2.4.1994, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, in S.T. No.29/91, titled as State vs. Shakti Chand alias Platu. In terms of impugned judgment, accused stands acquitted of having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Mr. Vikram Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, assails the judgment on the ground that conduct of the accused, prima facie establishes his guilt. 3. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the record, we are of the considered view that there is neither any illegality nor any perversity in the findings returned by the Court below. There is no error apparent on the face of record either. 4. Briefly stated, prosecution case is that on 29.1.1990, Smt. Dharmi Devi (deceased), wife of accused Shakti Chand was brought to the hospital after she sustained burn injuries. She was medically examined by Dr. A.R. Raghu (PW-9), who issued Medico Legal Certificate (Ext.PW-9/A) recording that the injured sustained 82% burn injuries. Unfortunately, Dharmi Devi expired the following day, i.e., on 30.1.1990. Matter was brought to the notice of police and FIR No.33 of 1990 dated 30.1.1990 (Ext.PW-7/B) was registered at Police Station, Balh. 5. Investigation prima facie revealed complicity of the accused in the crime, as such, Challan was presented in the Court for trial. 6. The accused was charged for having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 7. In order to establish its case, in all, prosecution examined 16 witnesses and statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also recorded, in which, he took up the following defence: “Smt. Dharmi Devi set herself on fire at about 11 P.M. when I was asleep. I got up and tried to put off the fire. My hands were also burnt in the process. So I raised alarm on which people collected and took her to hospital. When many people had come to the spot they started pushing me around. So I ran away towards Sarkaghat out of fear of the local public. Then I got myself admitted for treatment in the Referral Hospital, Sarkaghat on 30.1.90. So I raised alarm on which people collected and took her to hospital. When many people had come to the spot they started pushing me around. So I ran away towards Sarkaghat out of fear of the local public. Then I got myself admitted for treatment in the Referral Hospital, Sarkaghat on 30.1.90. The Medical Officer there was asking me to bring an attendant, but since I had none, I left the hospital on 6.2.90. Thereafter, I had been taking medicines privately from Dharampur in Tehsil Sarkaghat. Thereafter, I left for Sujanpur Tihra my native place, where I had been working as labourer to earn my livelihood. When I came to my village I was informed by my cousin brother that I was required by the police. So I went to P.S. Hamirpur alongwith my cousin. Thereafter I was arrested in the present case on 15.11.1990.” 8. Having gone through the record carefully, we are of the considered view that there is no evidence whatsoever, showing complicity of the present accused in the alleged crime. 9. Independent spot witnesses S/Sh. Gian Chand (PW-3) and Nag Raj (PW-4), who arrived first at the scene of occurrence, have deposed that accused was present at the time when they reached the spot. They, in one voice, have deposed that deceased herself informed them that she had set herself on fire. We find that Beli Ram (PW7), another spot witness, has deposed that even he was informed by Dharmi Devi that she had set herself on fire. These witnesses are reliable and their testimony, worthy of credence. 10. There is nothing on record to even remotely suggest that accused and the deceased were having strained relations or that attitude and conduct of the accused was hostile to that of the deceased. 11. Dr. A.R. Raghu (PW-9), who examined the deceased, has also deposed that at the time of medical examination, deceased was conscious and she did not disclose any cause of fire. He clarifies that though he had inquired about the cause of fire from the deceased, but she did not disclose anything. Her attendant also did not inform him about the cause of fire. 12. Smt. Suhago Devi (PW-1), mother of the deceased, has not deposed anything against the accused, which would even prima facie, reflect his guilt. 13. He clarifies that though he had inquired about the cause of fire from the deceased, but she did not disclose anything. Her attendant also did not inform him about the cause of fire. 12. Smt. Suhago Devi (PW-1), mother of the deceased, has not deposed anything against the accused, which would even prima facie, reflect his guilt. 13. The defence taken by the accused stands probablised, as it has come on record through the testimony of ASI Daya Nand (PW-16), who conducted the investigation that Beli Ram and Gian Chand informed him that number of persons had gathered on the spot at the time of the incident. This witness categorically does not deny the fact that the accused had run away as there was threat to his life. 14. Simply because the accused ran away from the spot, this fact itself is not an incriminating circumstance, clearly pointing out finger of his guilt, in the absence of any other material on record to establish the same and there being evidence to the contrary. 15. Thus, in view of the discussion above, we find that there is no evidence against the accused in relation to which he is charged. It cannot be said that prosecution has been able to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt, proving the guilt of the accused. The judgment passed by the Court below cannot be said to be illegal or perverse. In fact, entire material stands considered and appreciated by the Court below, in its correct perspective. 16. The accused has had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Mohammed Ankoos and others v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, (2010) 1 SCC 94 , it cannot be said that the trial Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice. No interference is warranted in the instant appeal. 17. As such, we dismiss the appeal. 18. We find that the accused, who was declared as a Proclaimed Offender, in the instant appeal, was arrested on 31.7.2013 and is currently lodged at Sub Jail, Kaithu Shimla. As such, he be set free forthwith, if not required in any other case. Records of the Court below be immediately sent back.