Case Details

Citation(s)
2022 SLG 1136 2022 SLD 1136 2022 SCMR 946
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Petition No. 577 of 2021, decision dated: 11th November, 2021, hearing date: 11th November, 2021 (Against the order dated 20.04.2021 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi passed in Criminal M. No. 555-B of 2021)
MAQBOOL BAQAR, JUSTICE, SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, JUSTICE
Syeda Hifza Bukhari, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Mirza M. Usman, Additional P.G. for the State.

MST. LUBNA BIBI

VS

AZHAR JAVED ABBASI AND ANOTHER

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 497(5),498

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1962

Section: 185(3)

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 337-A(ii),337-A(iv),147,148,149

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 497(5) ,  498---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 337-A(ii), 337-A(iv), 147 ,  149---Shajjah-i-mudihah, shajjah-i-munaqqillah, rioting, unlawful assembly---Petition for cancellation of pre-arrest bail, dismissal of---Possibility of fabrication of injury---Discrepancy between opinion of doctor who first examined the injured and the subsequently constituted Medical Board comprising of senior and better qualified doctors---Preference to be given to opinion of Medical Board---Held, that a ‘Three Tier Structure’ for conducting medico legal work had been established in the Province by the Provincial Health Department---Hierarchy of the medical examination as notified by the Health Department clearly reflected that against the opinion of the initial medical officer, the Medical Board would be constituted---Prior to the constitution of the said Medical Board, a judicial order had to be passed by the Magisterial Court---In the present case, according to the Medical Board, the injured witness was re-examined by four doctors including a Medical Superintendent, fully equipped with knowledge and expertise and also better in experience than the earlier expert who examined the injured witness soon after the occurrence---Argument of the complainant side that preference had to be given to the earlier examination by the medical officer could not be agreed with because the expert’s opinion depended upon many factors including, physical examination, qualification, experience and finally collective wisdom of the members of the Board---In the report of the Medical Board, which comprised of four senior doctors having superior qualification and experience, it had been observed that the Board was of unanimous opinion that regarding the subject injury, the possibility of fabrication could not be ruled out---When there was conflict in opinions of the medical experts, the expert having better qualification, insight, experience, and more particularly the joint consensus of richly equipped members had more weightage, hence it had to be given precedence over the first examination conducted by a…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492