IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 2291 of 2022 Decided on 24th March 2025 Leelawati and others …Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners: Mr. Vivek Singh Attri, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Singh, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking re-investigation/ further investigation by some independent agency relating to the alleged murder of the brother of the petitioners. 2. Their case is that on 30.06.2021, petitioner No.1 received a missed call from her brother in the wee hours at around 3:45 A.M. As this caused suspicion in the mind of petitioner No.1, she immediately called back his brother, who was breathing heavily and who allegedly told his sister that he 2 had been attacked and someone was running after him. He apprised her that he had given a phone call on number 108. Petitioner No.1 asked the deceased as to who was chasing him, but the phone got disconnected. Thereafter, on the same day at around 11:50 A.M., the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Hadaboi informed the police that Sh. Devinder Kumar, S/o Sh. Uchhav Ram, i.e. the brother of the petitioner had committed suicide by hanging himself. In the meanwhile, petitioner No.3 is stated to have reached the house of the deceased. The body of the deceased was lying on the floor. He was also informed that the clothes of the deceased had been changed. 3. To cut the controversy short, the suspicion of the petitioners is that the deceased did not commit suicide and he was in fact murdered. 4. According to the petitioners, the petitioner was first strangulated and then hanged, so as to create an impression that he had committed suicide. The deceased was married and was also having children. Incidentally, the wife of the deceased has not preferred this writ petition. Though not so pleaded, they are the suspects as was argued on behalf of the petitioners. 3 5. Be that as it may, the postmortem, which was conducted and copy whereof is on record as Annexure P-4, demonstrates that the deceased unfortunately died due to hanging. On the last date of hearing when the case was heard, this Court felt it proper to ask the Professor of the Department of Forensic Medicine, IGMC Shimla, who had conducted the postmortem to assist the Court as to whether the unfortunate death was really on account of strangulation or was it a result of hanging. Dr. Piyush Kapila, Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, who conducted the postmortem, is present in person in the Court. He has submitted that there is a lot of difference between a death caused by strangulation and a death caused by hanging. He further stated that if someone is strangulated and thereafter hanged, this can be easily ascertained in the course of postmortem. After going through the postmortem report, he stated in the Court that the cause of death in the present case was not strangulation followed by hanging, but it was a case of hanging only. Regarding injuries on the body of the deceased, which stand referred to in the postmortem report 4 are concerned, he submitted that these injuries were simple in nature and they were not the cause of death. 6. This writ petition was filed in the month of April, 2022 and today, we are in the end of the month of March, 2025. No iota of material has been placed on record by the petitioners from which it can be inferred that the postmortem report does not depict the true picture. In fact, nothing prevented the petitioners from placing on record opinion of an expert to the contrary. In these circumstances, as this Court has no reason to disbelieve the contents of the postmortem report and further it has no reason to disbelieve the Doctor, who has conducted the postmortem and who is present in the Court today to assist the Court and further as this Court finds no reason to continue with the writ proceedings, the same are closed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge March 24, 2025 (Vinod)