SIKANDAR ZULQARNAIN SALEEM, J.---Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that instead of mentioning the order dated 11.6.2014 passed by the learned Ilaqa Magistrate inadvertently due to typographical mistake the same has been mentioned as 20.05.2014, which may be corrected accordingly. In this view of the matter, office is directed to number this petition and fix the main petition for hearing as with the concurrence of both the learned counsel for the parties this petition is being decided today.
'MAIN CASE
2. The petitioner Mst. Fouzia Shabnam submitted an application to the learned Civil Judge-Cum- Judicial Magistrate, Multan seeking, disinterment of her deceased brother Bashir Ahmad on the ground that he was murdered by giving poison and after strangulation by respondents Nos.3 to 6 on the instigation of respondents Nos. 7 to 9. After recording her statement, notices were issued to the respondents and SHO concerned was asked to submit his detailed report regarding, the matter in question and the learned Magistrate by an order dated 11.06.2014 dismissed the application of the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order preferred revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan which was also dismissed through the order dated 15.12.2014, hence, this writ petition before this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that orders passed by both the courts below are absolutely illegal, unwarranted and result of misconception of law; that it is the right of real sister of the deceased to know the actual cause of death of her deceased brother so that her apprehension is laid to rest once and for all; that Bashir Ahmad deceased was died an unnatural death and there was reasonable suspicion that he was administered poison by respondents Nos.3 to 9 which can only be dissolved through disinterment and conducting of exhumation, hence, this writ petition may be accepted and the orders passed by both the courts below may be set aside.
4. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General opposes this petition on the ground that the death of Bashir Ahmad deceased had taken place to normal course and there were no such circumstances as could raise a reasonable suspicion that some other person had committed an offence. It is next contended that a number of persons had recorded their statements before local police and particularly the person who gave bath to the dead body of the deceased expressly and categorically stated that there was no such sign of injury as claimed by the petitioner. It was further contended that the application moved by the petitioner was purely mala fide and she only wanted to blackmail, harass and pressure the legal heirs of Bashir Ahmad deceased as the petitioner contracted a runway marriage due to which she was having, clashes with her family and for a long time she did not contact her family and the petitioner did not bother to come even on her mother's death, hence, the orders passed by both the courts below do not suffer from any illegality and call for no interference by this Court, therefore, this writ petition may be-dismissed.
5. Although it cannot be denied that disinterment of the dead body is not as simple as legal process in our social atmosphere where such a process is generally actuated with humiliation of the legal heirs and disrespect to the deceased person yet the process of law cannot be over thrown only because of the apprehension of humiliation and disrespect, if the case is otherwise within the ambit of section 174(1), Cr.P.C. And an action is necessitated in terms of section 176, Cr.P.C. In the instant case, versions of both the sides were brought on record by the learned Magistrate but then he proceeded to dilate upon the veracity of the contention of the parties regarding the inheritance of the deceased. This was essentially beyond the scope of the authority of the learned Judicial Magistrate. The sensitive and intricate matters of inheritance or the endeavours of the parties to achieve their objectives in that behalf could 13 not be determined in the course of the investigation under sections 174/176, Cr.P.C. The question of exhumation has to be decided only keeping in view the circumstances relevant to clause (a) or (b) or (c) of subsection
(1) of section 174, Cr.P.C. There should either be an indication that the information relates to the commission of suicide or regarding the killing of a person by another person or by an animal or by machinery or by an accident. The other aspect relevant for disinterment is the existence of the circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person has committed an offence in relation to the death of the deceased required to be disinterred.
6. The petitioner being the real sister of the deceased had all the genuine cause to dispel the suspicion of unnatural death of her deceased brother. The scope and intent of section 176, Cr.P.C. Is to discover the actual cause of death of a deceased person. Subsection (1) of section 176, Cr.P.C.
Makes a provision for conducting an inquiry into the cause of death either instead of or in addition to the investigation held by the police if the case is covered by subsection (1) of section 174, Cr.P.C.
Even the registration of an F.I.R. Is not an impediment for holding an inquiry into the cause of death of deceased person under section 176, Cr.P.C. In the wake of a specific allegation and apprehension of unnatural death of the deceased, brother of the petitioner, the requirements of section 174 read with section 176, Cr.P.C. Could not be ignored or kept aside by deriving certain conclusions regarding the interests, whether bona fide or mala fide, of the parties. The only thing that had to be considered by the learned Judicial Magistrate was whether the death had taken place under the circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person had committed air offence; which in the light of the statement of the petitioner could not brush aside. Further, it is the right of real sister of the deceased to know the actual cause of death of her deceased brother so that her apprehension is laid to rest once and for all. It may be noted that an application for disinterment can be moved on the ground of suspicion only and it is in the interest of justice that an order for exhumation of dead body is passed in such case. It is constant view of the Superior Courts that exhumation of dead body could be ordered on the request of or on the information even a stranger for the purpose to know the actual cause of death so that criminal machinery be set in motion. In the present case, applicant is closely related (real sister) to the deceased and she is justified in making an application for exhumation of dead body of the deceased to know the cause of death.
7. Irrespective of the revision petition or the question of its maintainability and in addition to the findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, a perusal of the application of the petitioner certainly gives arise to the circumstances falling within the ambit of clause (c) of subsection (1) of section 174, Cr.P.C. The exercise of writ jurisdiction being an equitable relief, this Court can validly look into the matter even for the ends of justice. I am, therefore, of the view that disinterment of the dead body of Bashir Ahmad deceased was inevitable to determine the cause of his death or at least to inquire into the allegations and suspicions of the petitioner. This writ petition is, therefore, allowed, both the orders dated 11.06.20014 and 15.12.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Multan and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, respectively, are set aside, directing the learned Judicial Magistrate to manage the disinterment of the body of the deceased for the purpose of ascertainment of cause of death.