' SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, the petitioner has challenged the vires of order dated 14.2.2015, whereby learned Judicial Magistrate, Pakpattan Sharif dismissed an application, moved by her under sections 174 and 176(2), Cr.P.C. For exhumation of the dead body of Mst.Sumaira Bibi so as to ascertain cause of her death. She has also assailed herein the order, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pakpattan Sharif, on 27.2.2015, whereby criminal revision filed by her against the order of the learned Magistrate was dismissed.
2. Precisely, the relevant facts of the case are that Mst. Sumaira Bibi was allegedly murdered by her husband Abid Hussain and others, at 7.30 a.m. On 7.1.2015; the motive behind the occurrence was ihat Abid Hussain suspected the deceased-lady's father of the murder of his father; the postmortem examination of the dead-body of Mst. Sumaira Bibi was conducted by doctor Sabira Sultana, woman medical officer, DHQ Hospital, Pakpattan Sharif on 7.1.2015 and she recorded her remarks in the necropsy report that injury No.1-(a) had been caused by firearm and it was sufficient to cause her death in ordinary course of nature. She noticed injury No.1-(b) as the exit wound of injury No.1-(a) and declared the other injuries Nos.2 to 7 as blunt-weapon-trauma; the petitioner firstly moved an application for disinterment of grave of the deceased-lady and then filed the revision-petition, which were dismissed through the impugned orders. Hence, the instant petition.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that the deceased-lady Mst. Sumaira Bibi was the daughter-in-law of Mst. Manzoor Elahi (petitioner), who was allegedly murdered by her husband Abid Hussain and others at 7.30 a.m. On 7.1.2015 at her residential house, within the view of her brother Muhammad Tufail, Muhammad Liaqat and Farman.
The matter was reported to the police by Muhammad Tufail, which led to registration of case FIR No.4/2015, dated 7.1.2015, under sections 302, 148, 149 P.P.C. At Police Station Fareed Nagar, Pakpattan Sharif. According to the allegations, all five accused tortured Mst. Sumaira Bibi before she was fired at and killed by her husband Abid Hussain. The autopsy on the dead body of the deceased-lady was performed by doctor Sabira Sultana, the said woman medical officer at 8.45 p.m. On 7.1.2015, who found two firearm injuries, 1-(a) and 1-(b) on the sides of her head and six blunt weapon injuries on other parts of her body, including the neck. The skull-bone was found fractured and brain-matter damaged during the postmortem-examination. The lady doctor categorically recorded her opinion that firearm entry wound 1-(a) was sufficient to cause death of the deceased- lady. It was an unambiguous opinion, which hardly left anything to speculate about the cauk of death in some other terms. The purpose of holding an inquest into the cause of death of the slain-lady stood unequivocally served by the said opinion.
4. The police can conduct more than one investigation in the same case, of course, depending upon the circumstances of each case justifying such an extra-ordinary act. If more than one investigation can be done, then the inquest being a part of the investigation can also be conducted more than once, provided the circumstances would justify it. The magistrate can exercise powers under sections 174 and 176, Cr.P.C. To make an order for more than one postmortem examination and resultant inquests in the same case, if new circumstances emerged for exercise of such authority. The police officer has not been prohibited by the law from conducting the inquest. The magistrate can pass such an order, which might supersede the order already passed by the police officer relating to postmortem examination of a dead body, provided some new facts and circumstances justified such an extraordinary action. It would amount to some extent the supervision and control of the inquest conducted by a police officer, by a magistrate under section 174(5) read with section 176(1), Cr.P.C. The investigating officer took into possession the dead body of Mst. Sumaira Bibi and prepared the injury statement, wherein he mentioned two firearm injuries on her head. The skull bones were fractured and brain matter had been damaged by the bullet. He also prepared the inquest report on 7.1..2015 and despatched the dead body of the ill-fated lady to the mortuary for postmortem examination, which, discussed as earlier, was conducted at 8,45 p.m., the same by the said woman medical officer. The cause of death, as recorded by the lady doctor unequivocally related to the head injuries (1-a and 1-b). She, however found eight injuries in all on the dead body, six out of which had been caused by the blunt-weapon. These injuries did not, however subscribe to the death of the deceased.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that second postmortem examination of the dead body of the deceased was necessary and it was not open to the learned magistrate nor to the learned Additional Sessions Judge to hold otherwise; Mst. Sumaira's father Muhammad Farooq, her paternal uncle Muhammad Iftikhar had been awarded death sentence and her maternal uncle Muhammad Yasin, imprisonment for life in the murder case of father of Abid Hussain, real son of the petitioner-lady and they were all confined in Central Jail, Sahiwal as convicts; Mst. Sumaira Bibi consistently persuaded her husband Abid Hussain to compound the offence with her father, paternal and maternal uncles but he refused to accept her demand due to which she was under tremendous pressure and she occasionally threatened to commit suicide; Mst. Sumaira Bibi could not sustain the pressure of her family members and she committed suicide on the fateful day; the parental family members of the deceased fabricated a fake event, won over the woman medical officer and got incorporated six blunt weapon injuries in the postmortem examination report, as against two mentioned by the investigating officer in the injury statement and the inquest report, which necessitated the exhumation and re-postmortem examination of the dead body.
6. Mr. Saif Ullah Khan, advocate appeared on behalf of the complainant Muhammad Tufail (respondent No.5), together with the learned Assistant Advocate General Punjab and submitted that there was no doubt with regard to the cause of death and that at present stage the dead body must have putrefied to an advance stage, therefore, no useful purpose would be served now even by directing disinterment and postmortem examination thereof. They vehemently argued that the learned magistrate as well as the learned Additional Sessions Judge were competent under sections 174/176, Cr.P.C. To deny the request of the petitioner or that of the police for repeated postmortem examination of the dead body.
7. It has been provided in subsection (1) of section 176, Cr.P.C. That the power of the magistrate to hold inquest in cases other than those in which the person dies in the custody of the police is "either instead of, or in addition to the investigation held by the police officer". This investigation is provided in subsection (1) of section 174, Cr.P.C. And it is in the nature of an inquest and it is why, when the investigating officer in the process of the said investigation draws a report of apparent cause of death describing wounds, fracture(s), weapon(s) etc., the process is described as inquest.
Thus the investigation under section 174(1) or inquiry under section 176(1), Cr.P.C. Is in reality, the inquest. The power to get the postmortem examination done emanates from the power of the police officer to conduct investigation in the nature of inquest. The magistrate would have at least the same powers in this regard, if not more as the police officer has under section 174, Cr.P.C. It would be legitimate to spell out a power from the same provision to direct otherwise, not to hold the postmortem examination again after having it been done by the police under section 174, Cr.P.C.
8. It transpires from the record that the deceased lady's father and paternal uncle had been convicted and sentenced to death and her maternal uncle, to imprisonment for life for the charge of murder of her husband's father, but she persistently stayed in the house of her in-laws and delivered two children, a son and a daughter, there. She had been married to Abid Hussain about four years before her death and her close relatives, noted as above, had been sentenced in a case, which was registered in year 2012. Her continuous stay at the house of her husband indicates that she had, most probably, left her parents and other family members far behind. Hence, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that she was under tremendous mental strain and she committed suicide in a state of hopelessness did not look convincing. The record does not support in any manner the theory of committing suicide by her.
9. Mere fact that the investigating officer mentioned two firearm injuries on the head of the deceased-lady in the injury statement and the woman medical officer mentioned six other blunt weapon injuries on various parts of her body did not mean at all that the postmortem examination report had unscrupulously been drawn by the lady doctor. The blunt weapon injuries were merely some scratches on or around the neck with a couple of abrasions and contused swellings on such parts of her body, which were covered under her dress, hence, could not have been examined by the investigating officer as the morality would not permit it. The woman medical officer was in a far better position to examine the dead body from all sides and whatever she noticed in this process, she mentioned it in the necropsy report. She did nothing wrong. The so-called discrepancy in the injury statement prepared by the investigating officer is nothing but a hollow argument of the learned counsel.
10. She was buried on 7.1.2015 and her body might have been reduced to a skeleton by now. The exhumation of her dead body would be an exercise in futility. Such a power as envisaged by sections 174 and 176, Cr.P.C. Cannot be exercised merely on the whims of a person. The inquest held by the police in the earlier instance and the postmortem examination report leave nothing to speculate about the cause of death, as it stood unequivocally established. It is, therefore, held that the impugned order passed by the learned magistrate on 14.2.2015 prohibiting the second postmortem examination was within his competence. The other impugned order, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in revisional jurisdiction is equally unexceptionable.
11. The instant petition is devoid of any merits, which is accordingly dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.