1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. M.P. (M) No.634 of 2008 Date of decision: 27.6.2008 ____________________________________________________________ State of H P. Appellant. -vs- Gulab Singh Respondent. ___________________________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, J. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? For the appellant : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General with Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondents : _________________________________________________________ Surjit Singh, J. (oral). Respondent was put on trial for allegedly murdering his son Virender on the night intervening 13th and 14th January, 2004. It appears from the record that the deceased was a drunkard and un-employed. Per statement of PW4 Devinder Singh, deceased had a grouse against his father that he did not allow him to work at his shop as barber nor did he arrange for his marriage even though he had crossed the marriageable age. On the fateful night, deceased was in the company of PW4 Devinder Singh up to 10.00 or 11.00 P.M. Next morning at 2.00 P.M, respondent sent Roshan Lal PW2 to his house to wake up the deceased. Roshan Lal came back, after sometime and told the respondent that despite his having shouted the name of the deceased repeatedly, he got no response. Then the respondent accompanied by PW2 Roshan Lal went to his house. Door was opened and it was found that the deceased was lying on his cot and his body was covered with a quilt. On removing the quilt, it was noticed that he had injuries on his back. The body was lying with face Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? 2 down-wards. When the front side was turned up-ward, respondent is alleged to have declared instantaneously that he was dead. Respondent was arrested on 23.1.2004 on suspicion. He made a disclosure statement, leading to the discovery of a Danda, which according to the Doctor could have been used as weapon of offence to cause injuries on the head and back of the chest of the deceased, which were noticed during the course of post-mortem examination and which according to the Doctor, were ante mortem and could have caused the death. Prosecution tried to connect the respondent with the commission of crime by two circumstances, namely the conduct of the respondent in declaring immediately on the turning of the dead body that he was dead and the recovery of the danda. We do not think that the conduct or the behaviour of the respondent in declaring that the deceased was dead is abnormal. It is a matter of common knowledge that the parents are though the best well wishers of their children, at the same time, they entertain worst fears about their well being. Recovery of danda alone cannot be said to be sufficient to connect the respondent with the commission of the crime. Prosecution ought to have adduced some more evidence indicating that in fact, the danda got recovered by the respondent was used in the commission of the crime and that he had used the said danda to cause the injuries. In view of the above discussion, we see no merit in the petition for grant of leave to appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. (Surjit Singh) Judge. (Surinder Singh), Judge. June 27, 2008. (bm) 3