SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---The petitioners, who make one family, feel aggrieved of order dated 14.2.2015, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pakpattan Sharif allowed a revision filed by Ajmal Hussain (respondent No.3) against the order (dated 27.9.2014) of learned Judicial Magistrate section 30, Pakpattan Sharif qua dismissal of an application under section 176, Cr.P.C. For exhumation of the dead body of Mst. Fauzia Kiran, buried in the graveyard of Baba Taj Din Sarkar, Chishtian (Bahawalnagar) and directed the learned Judicial Magistrate section 30 to make arrangement for the exhumation of dead body of the deceased-lady.
2. Precisely, the facts of the case are that Mst. Fauzia Kiran, a graduate, real sister of Ajmal Hussain (respondent No.3) had been married to Muhammad Hanif (petitioner No.1) about 19-1/2 months before she met the eventuality on 27.11.2012; she was shown to have taken poison and committed suicide, as told by her husband and other in-laws, to respondent Ajmal Hussain, who along with some other family members reached the house of his sister and found her violence-stricken dead body lying there; the police shifted the dead body of the ill-fated lady to DHQ hospital Pakpattan Sharif, where Dr.Samreen Faisal, WMO performed autopsy on it on 27.11.2012; she did not find any marks of violence all over the dead body but she took out all internal viscera therefrom for despatching them to the office of the Chemical Examiner for chemical analysis, so as to detect poison therein; the lady doctor deferred her remarks as to cause of death of the deceased-female till receipt of report from the Chemical Examiner; the dead body, after postmortem examination, was received by her parental family members through police and took it to Chishtian, where they buried it in the graveyard of Baba Taj Din Sarkar; Ajmal Hussain (respondent No.3) approached the local police for registration of a case against Muhammad Hanif, Muhammad Ramzan, Mst. Parveen Bibi and Mst. Naziran Bibi (petitioners herein), but failed; he moved a petition under section 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. In this context before the ex-officio justice of peace, Pakpattan Sharif on 4.12.2012, which was disposed of on 4.1.2013 with a direction to the S.H.O., police station Malka Hans, to record statement of Ajmal Hussain under section 154, Cr.P.C. It is how, FIR No.13/13, dated 17.1.2013, under section 302/34, P.P.C. Was registered at police station Malka Hans, district Pakpattan Sharif against the petitioners; thereafter, respondent Ajmal Hussain moved a petition under section 176, Cr.P.C. On 14.1.2013 for exhumation of the dead body of his deceased sister, with the allegation that the private-respondents, as mentioned therein, had tortured her to death besides, they did not participate in her last rituals, therefore, her dead body might be disinterred for another postmortem examination; this petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 2.2.2013; Ajmal Hussain (respondent No.3) moved another petition under section 176, Cr.P.C. For the same purpose on 30.4.2013, which was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate section 30, Chishtian on 10.7.2013 with the observation that it had been moved prematurely as report of the Chemical Examiner was still awaited; Ajmal Hussain instituted a revision petition against the said order, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 26.11.2013 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chishtian (Bahawalnagar) for the same reason as to non-availability of the Chemical Examiner's report; respondent Ajmal Hussain did not call it a day and he moved another petition of alike nature on 6.6.2014, which was dismissed through a lengthy order on 27.9.2014 by the learned Judicial Magistrate section 30; Pakpattan Sharif; Ajmal Hussain (respondent No.3) filed a revision petition against the said order, which was allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pakpattan Sharif on 14.2.2015 at the cost of the magisterial order with the direction that the learned Magistrate section 30 should make arrangements for the exhumation of the dead body of Mst. Fauzia Kiran.
Hence, the instant petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that Mst. Fauzia Kiran had committed suicide by taking poison herself as she felt mentally depressed; the petitioners made every possible effort to save Mst. Fauzia Kiran and they immediately shifted her to a hospital but she could not be saved due to toxicity of the poison; the woman medical officer did not find any marks of violence on the dead body when she performed autopsy on it, which fact may be verified from the postmortem examination thereof; the dead body was buried years before and it may not be possible to locate any mark of violence even if it was dug out from the grave; learned Magistrate section 30 passed a well-reasoned order, denying the exhumation of the dead body but learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pakpattan Sharif undid the said order on flimsy ground, which is not sustainable; the impugned order has been passed without any cogent reason or plausible argument, therefore, it may be set aside.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3, Ajmal Hussain has vociferously argued that the contention of the petitioners as to taking poison and killing herself by Mst. Fauzia Kiran has been negated by the Punjab Forensic Science Agency's report, which is in negative as to presence of poison/drug in the internal viscera of the deceased; the woman medical officer has failed so far to record any cause of death about the deceased-female; the contention of respondent No.3 that his sister had been tortured to death could only be verified by causing exhumation of her dead body and reexamining it posthumously; mere fact that the dead body was buried about 2-1/2 years ago could not be a reason for disallowing its disinterment and re-postmortem examination thereof; the cause of death is still shrouded in mystery, which should be brought to a daylight and it was only possible if theimpugned order would remain effective.
5. Learned Assistant Advocate General Punjab looked convinced that exhumation and re- postmortem examination of dead body of the deceased-lady was the only answer to settle the dispute as to cause of her death.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that Mst.
Fauzia Kiran admittedly died unnaturally, as it has been contention of both the sides. The plain allegation levelled by respondent No.3 is that his sister Mst. Fauzia Kiran did not lead a pleasant and peaceful matrimonial life, as she often bore brunt of her in-law's unkindness/cruelty and she perished as a sequel thereof. It only showed that she died in an unnatural way. The stance of the petitioners, on the other hand, is that she died due to toxicity of the poison, she took herself, which again means that she did not die naturally. The postmortem examination report of the deceased- lady, prepared by Dr. Samreen Faisal on 27.11.2012 reveals that she had been informed by the police that it was a case of poison intake, so she most probably dealt with the matter, overwhelmingly bearing in mind that it might be a case of self-immolation. She might have shown some lethargy in minutely examining the dead body and in the process, overlooking marks of violence on it. She extracted or completely took, out some internal viscera of the deceased for transmitting them to the office of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency for chemical analysis, so as to detect poison therein and she kept the cause of death undeclared. The report of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency has categorically concluded that no drug of abuse or poison was detected in liver and stomach contents, which being in negative ruled out the possibility of the deceased-lady having committed suicide. The woman medical officer recorded her final opinion as to cause of death on 8.4.2015 as under:- "Vide PFSA Report No.I6 (27.11.2012), Agency Case No.PFSA2012-23705, no drug of Abuse/Poison is detected in liver and stomach contents in Item #01. Keeping in view the postmortem findings and report of chemical examiner, the cause of death remains unknown."
The consistent claim of the petitioners that Mst. Fauzia Kiran committed suicide has gone to winds with the receipt of negative PFSA's report. By ' lodging the said claim, they categorically told Ajmal Hussain (respondent No.3) and others that Mst. Fauzia Kiran had died in an unnatural way and so is the claim of the other side, but with the difference that, according to them, she had been murdered by her in-laws. The woman medical officer could not find any traces of pathology during the process of autopsy nor she found any signs of mal-functioning of the heart, which led to a strong probability that her death was not a, natural phenomenon. In such a situation, the provisions of section 174, Cr.P.C. Would come into play, as inquest has to be taken to ascertain the cause of the death of the deceased-lady. The first exercise of postmortem examination has gone unconcluded, as cause of death continuously remained unknown. The mystery hovering over the death of the ill- fated lady has to be resolved, which could only be made possible, if her dead body was allowed to be disinterred and re-examined by a team of doctors for evaluating the reasons, leading to her death.
7. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly observed in the impugned order that no time limit has been fixed by the law for disinterment of a dead body to determine the cause of death. The requirement of section 174, Cr.P.C. Has not been fulfilled, as cause of death of the deceased-lady, despite petitioners oft-repeated but abortive claim of committing suicide by her, has not been determined as yet. So exhumation of dead body in order to discover the cause of her death can be ordered, in the attending circumstances of the case, even after years. The process of knowing the cause of death cannot and should not be left in the middle. It must be taken to its logical end. Who knows that the disinterment of the dead body may conclusively establish the cause of death and it may help the hidden truth see the daylight.
8. For the discussion supra, it is held that the impugned order has been passed on cogent and plausible reasons, which needs not to be interfered with by this court. Dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.