Pakistan Case Law
2006 SCMR 1468

AMEER AFZAL BAIG vs AHSAN ULLAH BAIG and otherss

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2006 SCMR 1468
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No,1991-L of 2003
Date2004-06-21
Judge(s)Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan and Falak Sher
Authored bySardar Muhammad Raza Khan
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the decision of an Additional Sessions Judge to permit the exhumation and post-mortem examination of a deceased person. The petitioner challenged the exhumation order, which had been initially granted by a Judicial Magistrate, subsequently suspended, then declined by a successor Magistrate, and finally restored by an Additional Sessions Judge in revision. The core legal question was whether the exhumation and post-mortem of a deceased person, sought by legal heirs based on suspicion of foul play, should be permitted as part of the investigative process. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that the lower courts' decisions were logical, fair, and just. The Court affirmed that legal heirs possess a right to have suspicions regarding a death investigated. It established that exhumation and post-mortem examinations are essential tools of investigation that should not be interrupted, provided there is a preliminary basis for the request, as they do not inherently implicate any individual unless the subsequent medical report confirms foul play.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Do legal heirs have a right to seek the exhumation and post-mortem of a deceased person based on suspicion of foul play?
  • Are exhumation and post-mortem examinations considered tools of investigation that should not be interrupted without sufficient cause?
  • Does an order for exhumation and post-mortem inherently implicate a specific individual before the medical report is finalized?
exhumationpost-mortem examinationcriminal investigationlegal heirsjudicial discretionsuspicion of foul play

' SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.--- Ameer Afzal Baig has challenged the order, dated 17-7-2003 of Lahore High Court and leave is sought there against.

2. One Muhammad Anayat Baig, the father of Ahsan Ullah Baig respondent died on 17-3-2002. The son nourished suspicion that Karam Fatima, the wife of the deceased had killed him by administering poison for a given motive. On 17-12-2002, he filed an application to the Judicial Magistrate for exhumation and thereafter post-mortem examination of the dead body. The Special Judicial Magistrate on 22-1-2003 after making some preliminary inquiry ordered the exhumation prayed for. Before that the order could be implemented, the Magistrate himself suspended the same on 25-1-2003. On account of a transfer application the matter came before another Judicial Magistrate who, on 3-4-2003 declined exhumation. This order was challenged in revision, heard by a learned Additional Sessions Judge who accepted the same and restored the order, dated 22-1- 2003 of exhumation. The petitioner filed a writ petition which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court on 17;7-2003 and hence this petition.

3. We have gone through the detailed reasoning given in the impugned order and observed that the same was quite logical, fair and just. In the circumstances of the present case at least the legal heirs had a right to get the suspicion removed, more particularly, when the exhumation by itself could never lead to the involvement of someone unless the post-mortem is conducted and the report is positive. When report is positive, the persons involved certainly require to be proceeded against. Exhumation and thereafter the post-mortem are mere tools of investigation which, in the ordinary course, would not be interrupted. It may be recalled that after preliminary inquiry, the Magistrate in his first order had found the exhumation to be justified. The learned Additional Sessions Judge as well as the learned High Court is of the same opinion and hence any interference by this Court would be totally uncalled for. The petition is hereby dismissed and leave to appeal refused.

Cited by 7 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.