Case Details

Citation(s)
2026 SLG 4053 = 2026 SLD 4053
Islamabad High Court
W.P. No. 3020 of 2020
Presented By: ARBAB MUHAMMAD TAHIR
Petitioner by :   Mr. Zahid Riaz Chaudhry, Advocate.
Respondents by : Mr. Muhammad Khan Nazar, Advocate  for respondents 3 & 4. Mr. Sohail Khurshid, State Counsel with Muhammad Hassan ASI, P.S. Sihala, Islamabad. Date of hearing : 25.02.2022   ======  

  Muhammad Siddique

VERSUS

Additional District Magistrate (Rural),& 5 others. ====

Law: Pakistan Penal Code (PPC),1860

Section: 337-F(iii), 148, 149, 452

Summary The petitioner challenged the order refusing his request to constitute a Medical Board for re-examination of the injured in a cross-version criminal case. He alleged that the injured's Medico-Legal Report (MLR) was false and sought a second medical examination to challenge its authenticity. The Court held that the first Medico-Legal Report carries a statutory presumption of correctness under Article 129(e) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 and Article 150 of the Constitution. A second medical examination cannot be ordered merely on the accused's request without strong evidence of mala fide or misconduct by the Medical Officer. Since the petitioner sought re-examination after more than one and a half months, when the injuries had already healed, and failed to establish exceptional grounds, the Court upheld the impugned order and dismissed the writ petition. Legal Core Points Issue: Whether a Medical Board should be constituted for re-examination of the injured's injuries. Petitioner's Argument: The original Medico-Legal Report was false and required verification through a second medical examination. Court's Findings: The first MLR enjoys a statutory presumption of genuineness under Article 129(e) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 and Article 150 of the Constitution. Re-examination cannot be ordered without strong, tangible evidence of mala fide or misconduct by the Medical Officer. The request was made after an unexplained delay of over 1½ months, making meaningful reassessment of superficial injuries impossible. The Criminal Justice System does not ordinarily permit constitution of a second Medical Board at the instance of an accused. Legal Principles: The first Medico-Legal Report has presumptive evidentiary value. A second medical examination is an exceptional remedy, not a routine right. Investigation must remain fair, and in appropriate cases the Investigating Agency may seek re-examination through the Public Prosecutor if genuine suspicion exists. Outcome: Writ petition dismissed; refusal to constitute a Medical Board upheld. JUDGMENT SHEET ARBAB MUHAMMAD TAHIR, J: The instant writ petition impugns the order dated…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register