2026:HHC:5584 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P. No. 4023 of 2025 in Cr. Appeal No. 13 of 2025 Date of decision: 03.03.2026. _____________________________________________________________________________ Vijay Lamba @ Vijay Lama ...Applicant. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent. ____________________________________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 _____________________________________________________________________________ For the Applicant. Mr. Ramesh Chand Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Pawan Nadda, Additional Advocate General. __________________________________________________________ Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge This application has been filed by the applicant for suspension of sentence, who is serving his sentence of life imprisonment, for commission of offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. 2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no direct evidence to establish involvement of the applicant in commission of offence and the doctor, who examined the dead body has 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:5584 Cr.M.P. No. 4023 of 2025 admitted that injuries found on the body of the deceased can be caused by way of fall. 3. Further, that DNA profile found on the hammer and axe, has been found of the accused only, but not of the deceased and, therefore, it has not established involvement of commission of offence by the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that deceased was found under influence of alcohol and alcohol in her blood was found to be 289.92 mg%. 5. Admittedly, deceased was wife of the applicant, who was found dead on the bed and blood of the deceased was also found on the bed. Though, it has been argued on behalf of applicant that the deceased had died because of fall, referring the admission of the doctor that injuries found on the body of the deceased, could have been caused because of fall, however, there is nothing on record to suggest that from where and from which height the deceased had fallen and, if she had fallen, then how she was found dead in the bed. 6. Otherwise also, opinion of the Medical Officer, who has conducted the postmortem, regarding the cause of death in this case is head injury as mentioned in injury No. 1; caused by multiple blunt forceful 3 2026:HHC:5584 Cr.M.P. No. 4023 of 2025 impacts, which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. 7. It is also apt to record that three injuries were found on the scalp of the deceased. First injury was on left parietal region, second injury was on mid occipital region and third injury was on right occipital region. Such injuries on three sides of head cannot be caused by fall, unless head of falling person is smashed with the surface thrice by changing his position. Rather, these injuries are suggestive that the prosecution’s story is believable that head injuries received by the deceased was caused by the hammer. 8. It also apt to note that it has come on record that there is always possibility of presence of DNA profiling of accused on the weapon of offence used by him for commission of offence. Therefore, presence of DNA profiling on hammer and axe also goes against applicant. 9. Presence of alcohol in the body of the deceased is of no help to the applicant, as it was husband and wife, who were in the room and there was no third person in the room at the time of the death of the deceased and, cause of death is not consumption of alcohol, but the head injuries received by her and, therefore, this fact is of no help to the applicant, particularly when such alcohol was not found in the blood of applicant. 4 2026:HHC:5584 Cr.M.P. No. 4023 of 2025 10. For aforesaid material available on record, we are of the considered opinion that it is not a case, where prima-facie fair chance of acquittal is made out for the grounds argued by counsel for applicant and, therefore, applicant is not entitled for suspension of sentence, as advocated. 11. In alternative, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant has served more than four years sentence, whereas prosecution’s case is based only on the basis of circumstantial evidence, which have not been proved on record and, thus, there is fair chance of acquittal of the applicant and he is entitled for suspension of sentence, at this stage. 12. As the applicant has been found guilty of commission of offence under Section 302 of IPC and has been sentenced for life imprisonment, therefore, four years imprisonment cannot be any basis for suspending his sentence, particularly in the light of the aforesaid evidence on record. Application stands disposed of. (Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge. (Ranjan Sharma), Judge. 3rd March, 2026 (Susheel)