The state argued that Mr Pistorius had had an argument with Ms Steenkamp, after which he deliberately shot her dead.

The judge ruled this had not been proved, as there was only circumstantial evidence of an argument - uncorroborated witnesses' statements.

She also dismissed witnesses who said they had heard Ms Steenkamp scream before the shots were fired, or before the final shot.

"The state has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of premeditated murder," she said. "There are just not enough facts to support such a finding."

The judge found that he consistently said he had fired in the belief there was an intruder and she had no reason to disbelieve him.

This means there was no intention to kill but the actions were negligent and not in keeping with a reasonable person.

Judge Masipa was critical of Mr Pistorius' actions, saying that he had ample time to call for help, rather than going to confront a perceived intruder with a loaded gun.

"The accused had reasonable time to reflect, to think and conduct himself reasonably.

"The accused knew that there was a person behind the door, he chose to use a firearm which was a lethal weapon, was competent in the use of firearms as he had received training," she said.

The judge also took time to reject the defence arguments that Mr Pistorius is more likely to confront danger because of his disability - both his legs have been amputated.

"Vulnerability is not unique - There are many