Muhammad Ali-petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 03.04.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pakpattan Sharif and order dated 14.04.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pakpattan Sharif _ whereby his request for constitution of a special medical board for re- examination of the injuries of Muhammad Razzaq-Respondent No. 2, has been turned down.
2. The brief facts, leading to the filing of the instant petition are, that the petitioner and others were nominated accused in FIR 37/2010 registered on 24.03.2010, for offences under Sections 324, 148, 149 PPC, at Police Station Pakpattan Sharif, but subsequently, a cross version on the complaint of Riaz had been recorded under Sections 324, 148,149 PPC on 25.03.2010 against Respondents No. 1 and 2.
Liaquat Ali and Hota received firearm injuries as per allegations of cross version, at the hands of Khadim Hussain etc., whereas Razzaq received firearm injuries at the hands of Mehmood Ali and his co-accused. The petitioner moved an application before learned Judicial Magistrate Pakpattan Sharif for re-examination of the injuries of Razzaq-Respondent No. 2, which was dismissed on 03.04.2010; whereafter he filed a revision petition against the administrative order of the learned Magistrate, which was again dismissed on 14.04.2010 by the learned Sessions Judge Pakpattan.
Hence instant petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that both the impugned orders are fanciful which are based upon surmises and conjectures; that the impugned orders do not encompass all the legal aspects of the case and have been passed in an arbitrary and perverse manner; that the learned Judicial Magistrate as well as learned Sessions Judge, Pakpattan Sharif have erred in law by not exercising their judicial authority in favour of the petitioner; the medico legal report of Muhammad Razzaq-Respondent No. 2 indicates that the injuries mentioned therein were fabricated and doubtful, which required reexamination by the members of special medical board, Pakpattan Sharif but the request of the petitioner in this regard has been turned down by the said learned Courts injudiciously.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the MLR of injured Muhammad Razzaq, Respondent No. 2 and other documents, annexed with this petition. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that two persons had received grievous firearm injuries in the occurrence as alleged in the cross case and MLR of Hota, one of the injured PWs of cross case, showed a firearm entry wound on the frontal chest of the injured, but the MLR of Razzaq-Respondent No. 2, an injured PW of FIR case, did not show any firearm injury on a vital part of his body. He has further contended that MLR of Razzaq had been manoeuvred by the complainant side of FIR case, in connivance with the Medical Officer, and the police so, firearm injuries should have been re-examined by a team of medical officers constituting special medical board.
5. I have gone through the MLR of Razzaq, which shows one. firearm entry wound on outer side of right leg, 25 cm above the lateral mellectus. This wound was bleeding and going deep towards inner side and caused an exit wound (Injury No. 2) on inner of back of right leg, above the medial mellectus. The Medical Officer also found corresponding holes in the Shalwar of the injured. The above said entry wound does not bear any characteristics of close range firing or pointblank range firing as the description of Injury No. 1 does not show blackening, burning of edges, smudging of hair or tattooing etc. around the margins of the wound. In absence of any such features, Injury No. 1, according to the medical jurisprudence shall be deemed to have been caused from a distance, exceeding 3-4 feet. From none of the descriptions of the injuries mentioned in the MLR of Razzaq-Respondent No. 2, it can be found that these were fabricated injuries or caused with friendly hands. The medico legal report of an injured can, exhibit the number of injuries, seat of injuries, the weapon used for infliction of injuries, duration of injuries etc, but it cannot disclose the identity of the author of such injuries.
6. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Hota injured PW of cross case, had received two firearm injuries (entry and exit) on the front and back of his chest at the hands of Khadim Hussain etc., the accused of cross case, so Razzaq-Respondent No. 2 could not have been authored an injury on non-vital part of his body, therefore, his medical re-examination, in attending circumstances, was essential. This particular argument of the learned counsel for the. petitioner is hardly entertainable as it necessarily relates to deeper appreciation of the evidence which can only be done during the course of the trial by the learned trial Court. It is also observed that the impugned order, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate was an administrative order, not prone to revision under Section 435 Cr.P.C. still, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, who dismissed the same on 14.04.2010, deeming it as a revision petition, which should have been decided by the learned Sessions Judge on the solitary point of its maintainability, under the law.
7. For what has been discussed above, I do not find any merit in this petition, which stands dismissed in limine.