( 2025:HHC:25616 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No.673 of 2022. Reserved on: 23.07.2025 Date of Decision: 01.08.2025 Ramesh Kumar @ Ramesh Chand ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ...Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Mr. Tarun Pathak, Deputy Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition against the order dated 02.07.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mandi, District Mandi (H.P) (learned Trial Court), vide which the applications filed under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC), 1973, to get the mobile tower location of the complainant and deceased with their CDR and Section 173(8) of Cr.PC, 1973, for further investigation into the matter were dismissed. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 ( 2025:HHC:25616 ) 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the police presented a challan against the petitioner/accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was asserted that the police received information that one person had committed suicide in village Chatrour by hanging. They went to the spot and found that one person, Jiwan Ram, had committed suicide. His dead body was lying on the spot. One check muffler and a crepe bandage were found tied to his neck, and his dead body was lying parallel to the bed. One wing of the fan was found tilted towards one side. The police found a suicide note during the investigation, which was sent for comparison to the Handwriting Expert. The Handwriting Expert stated that the suicide note matched the sample handwriting of the deceased. The Medical Officer stated that the deceased died from asphyxia caused by ante mortem hanging. The police filed a charge sheet against the petitioner/accused before the learned Trial Court. 3. The petitioner/accused filed an application under Section 173(8) of Cr.PC, asserting that a thorough investigation is required in respect of the blatant attempt of the police to give 3 ( 2025:HHC:25616 ) the colour of suicide in the present case, the police had not impartially investigated the matter. There was no evidence, except the suicide note, showing that the deceased had committed suicide. It was not a case of suicide but a cold- blooded murder by putting some object to the mouth to strangulate the deceased. The total height of the room from roof to floor is 8 feet 11 inches, and it was not possible to commit suicide by using a muffler. The length of the cord (excluding the neck bandage) is 4 feet 6 inches. Only a single blade/wing of the ceiling fan was slightly bent, but the ceiling fan was in its normal position. There was tampering in the scene of crime; hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and direction be issued for further investigation. 4. The petitioner/accused also filed an application under Section 91 of Cr.PC for issuing direction to the Investigating Officer to get the mobile tower location of the complainant and deceased with their call detail record and preserve it. It was asserted that the call detail record and mobile tower location are important. No prejudice would be caused to the other party; hence, it was prayed that a direction be issued. 4 ( 2025:HHC:25616 ) 5. Learned Trial Court held that there was sufficient material on record to, prima facie, conclude that the deceased had committed suicide. There was no material to point out that the investigation was not conducted properly. No fruitful purpose would be served by preserving the call detail record. Hence, the applications were dismissed. 6. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the present petition has been filed asserting that the learned Trial Court erred in dismissing the application. The deceased could not commit suicide. The call detail record and mobile tower location of the petitioner and the deceased would help in determining whether the deceased was murdered or had committed suicide. There are many doubts in the prosecution’s version. The State failed to file a proper reply to the application. The deceased was the petitioner’s father, who had love, care and affection with the petitioner. There was no reason for the petitioner to compel him to commit suicide; therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. 5 ( 2025:HHC:25616 ) 7. The petition is opposed by filing a reply reproducing the contents of the FIR and the investigation conducted by the police. It is submitted that a suicide note was recovered from the pocket of the deceased, which was handed over to the police by the son-in-law of the deceased. The same was sent to the SFSL, Junga, for comparison. The report of the handwriting Expert shows that the Handwriting of the deceased matched the handwriting on the suicide note; therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 8. A rejoinder denying the contents of the reply and affirming those of the petition was filed. 9. I have heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Tarun Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State. 10. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the circumstances on record create a serious doubt regarding the prosecution’s case that the deceased had committed suicide. Learned Trial Court erred in dismissing the application for further investigation and preserving the call detail record. No prejudice would be caused 6 ( 2025:HHC:25616 ) to the other side; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. 11. Mr. Tarun Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State, submitted that there was sufficient material on record to connect the petitioner with the commission of the crime. He is trying to stall the proceedings pending against him by filing such an application; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 12. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 13. Section 173(8) of Cr.PC empowers the police to carry out the investigation in respect of an offence even though the report under Section 173(2) of Cr.PC has been submitted to the Court. The petitioner claimed that the circumstances on record were suspicious and further investigation was necessary to determine whether it was murder or suicide. He did not produce any material on record to substantiate this plea. The Medical Officer clearly stated that the cause of death was asphyxia caused by hanging, which ruled out the theory propounded by 7 ( 2025:HHC:25616 ) the petitioner that the death was caused by strangulation or putting the pillow on the face of the deceased. Further, the police had found a suicide note which was found to be in the handwriting of the deceased. Merely because death can be caused in a hundred ways does not mean that all the ways are to be ruled out when the circumstances on record, prima facie, point towards suicide. Prof. Glanville Williams explained in The Proof of Guilt, The Hamlyn Lectures, seventh series (Stevens & Sons Ltd. 1955) that unlikely contingencies happen sometimes, but ignoring them does not lead to the miscarriage of justice. It was observed at page 133 as under: - “It is then a question of degree; some risk of convicting an innocent person must be run. What this means in terms of the burden of proof is that a case need not be proved beyond all doubt. The evidence of crime against a person may be overwhelming and yet it may be possible to conjecture a series of extraordinary circumstances that would be consistent with his innocence by supposing that some stranger of whose existence there is no evidence, interposed at a crucial moment and committed the crime when all the evidence points to the fact that accused was alone on the spot, or by supposing in a charge of murder that the deceased died of heart failure the moment before the bullet entered his body. The fact that these unlikely contingencies do sometimes occur so that by neglecting them there is, on rare occasions, a miscarriage of justice cannot be held against the administration of law which is compelled to run this risk.” 8 ( 2025:HHC:25616 ) 14. Therefore, further investigation could not have been ordered simply because there is an unlikely possibility of murder, which is not supported by any material on record. The learned Trial Court was justified in dismissing the application, and no interference is required with the order passed by the learned Trial Court. 15. Another application was filed under Section 91 of the CrPC for issuing a direction to the investigating officer to preserve the location and call detail record of the deceased. Section 91 of the Cr.PC provides that a person in whose possession a document or thing is believed to be can be directed to produce the document or thing. It is nowhere pleaded that the call detail record or the location details were in the possession of the investigating officer, and he could not have been directed to preserve them. The application was misconceived to begin with, and the learned Trial Court had rightly dismissed it. 16. It was submitted that the deceased mentioned in the suicide note that his pension was stopped and he was being harassed, which is not correct because the pension was being disbursed to the deceased. It is a matter of trial, and this plea is 9 ( 2025:HHC:25616 ) not to be adjudicated by this Court exercising the inherent jurisdiction. It will be open for the petitioner to raise this plea before the learned Trial Court, which shall decide the same as per the law. 18. No other point was urged. 19. In view of the above, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed. 20. The observations made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 01st August 2025 (Shamsh Tabrez)