کیس کی کہانی
یہ کیس محمد اعجاز نامی ملزم سے متعلق ہے، جس نے اپنے ساتھیوں کے ہمراہ مدعی سہیل اکرام کو ضلع کچہری راولپنڈی میں تشدد کا نشانہ بنایا۔ سہیل اکرام وہاں گواہی دینے کے لیے موجود تھا۔ اس حملے کے نتیجے میں سہیل اکرام کو متعدد زخم آئے، جن میں ناک کی ہڈی کا فریکچر بھی شامل تھا۔
ابتدائی میڈیکل رپورٹ:
وقوعہ کے فوراً بعد سہیل اکرام کا میڈیکل معائنہ کیا گیا، جس میں چار زخم درج کیے گئے اور ناک کی ہڈی کے فریکچر کی تصدیق کے لیے سی ٹی اسکین کروایا گیا۔
سی ٹی اسکین رپورٹ نے ناک کی ہڈی کے فریکچر کی تصدیق کر دی، اور ابتدائی میڈیکل رپورٹ میں واضح طور پر بتایا گیا کہ زخم اصلی اور حقیقی ہیں، کسی خودساختہ چوٹ یا دھوکہ دہی کا امکان نہیں ہے۔
دوبارہ میڈیکل معائنہ کی درخواست:
ملزم محمد اعجاز نے کچھ دن بعد عدالت میں درخواست دی کہ پہلی میڈیکل رپورٹ جھوٹی اور جعلی ہے اور زخم خودساختہ ہیں۔ عدالت نے میڈیکل بورڈ کو دوبارہ معائنہ کرنے کا حکم دیا۔
میڈیکل بورڈ نے دوبارہ معائنہ کے بعد اپنی رائے دی کہ:
"Possibility of fabrication/fall cannot be ruled out"
یعنی "یہ امکان رد نہیں کیا جا سکتا کہ زخم خودساختہ یا گرنے سے ہو سکتے ہیں"۔
عدالت عظمیٰ کا فیصلہ:
سپریم کورٹ نے اس میڈیکل بورڈ کی رائے کو مسترد کر دیا اور واضح کیا کہ:
- پہلی میڈیکل رپورٹ کو آئینی اور قانونی تحفظ حاصل ہے، اور مفروضاتی بیانات اس کو ختم نہیں کر سکتے۔
- میڈیکل بورڈ نے پہلی رپورٹ اور سی ٹی اسکین کی تصدیق شدہ تفصیلات کو نظر انداز کر دیا، جو کہ قانونی طور پر غلط ہے۔
- عدالت نے ملزم کی ضمانت کی درخواست کو مسترد کر دیا اور یہ اصول طے کیا کہ مفروضاتی رائے کو ٹھوس اور واضح شواہد کے خلاف استعمال نہیں کیا جا سکتا۔
کیس کا حتمی نتیجہ:
سپریم کورٹ نے ملزم محمد اعجاز کی درخواست برائے ضمانت کو مسترد کرتے ہوئے کہا کہ میڈیکل بورڈ کی مفروضاتی رائے قابلِ قبول نہیں ہے اور مقدمہ میرٹ پر چلایا جائے گا۔
میڈیکل بورڈ کی تشکیل اور اسکی زخم کے بارے میں رائے کہ
"Possibility of fabrication cannot be ruled out "
کی قانونی حیثیت کے بارے میں سپریم کورٹ آف پاکستان کا انتہائی اھم فیصلہ
The first medical examination was protected by statutory presumption of being genuine under Article 129(e) of the Qanun-e-Shahdat Order, 1984as well as under Article 150 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Such formidable statutory protectionscannot be summarily dismantled on the whims of an accused struggling to ward offconsequences of criminal prosecution, therefore, a Magistrate must insist for tangible and sufficient grounds to plausibly justify exposure of a person already wronged to the inconvenience and embarrassment of a re-examination,
Even otherwise, observation By Medical Board that possibility of fabrication/fall cannot be ruled out is a judgment resting upon the brink of hypothetical possibilitythat by itself cannot override positive findings earlier unanimously recorded by the medical officerswho attended the injured; possibilities are infiniteand cannot dislodge proof.The opinion is also devoid of any objective finding and, thus, we do not feel inclined to receive the half-cookedhypothesis of fabrication/fall as a fresh ground in circumstances.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(AppellateJurisdiction)
PRESENT:
Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed
Criminal Petition No.540 of 2020
(Against the order dated 20.05.2020 passed by the Lahore High Court Rawalpindi Bench Rawalpindi in Crl. Misc.No.719-B/2020)
Muhammad Ejaz...Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State& another...Respondent(s)
For thePetitioner(s):Mr. Ghulam Farooq Awan, ASC
Mr. Muhammad Sharif Janjua, AOR
For theRespondent(s):N.R.
Date of hearing:07.07.2020.
ORDER
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.-Accompanied by co-accused, the petitioner thrashed Sohail Ikram PWwithin the precincts of District Courts Rawalpindi, where he was present to record his statement as a witness against the assailants; he endured multiple injuries that included a nasal fracture. Petitioner’s plea for bail was withdrawn and dismissed as such on 2.4.2020. After his failure throughout, the petitioner again approached the Court for admission to bail on the ground that findings recorded by a medical boardhad furnished him a new groundfor release on bail as the injury suffered by the complainant was viewed as possibly fabricated.
2.Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a medical board comprisingfour experts unanimously opined as under:
“After having gone through examination the Board is of unanimous opinion that regarding injury No.4, possibility of fabrication/fall cannot be ruled out”
The above unanimity of opinion according to the learned counsel not only constituted a fresh ground but also squarely brought petitioner’s case within the remit of further probe.
3.Heard. Record perused.
4.Occurrence took place on 10.12.2019 and the injured was examined same day when the medical officer notedas many as four injuries on his personand categorically ruled out possibility of their fabrication; he kept the injuries under observation and referred the examinee for radiographic examinationwherefrom he was further referred for CT scanwhich confirmed fracture of nasal bone. The accused, however,moved learned Area Magistrate on 18.1.2020 for re-examination of the injured on the grounds that“medical report 2564/19 is totallyfalse and fake and is being obtained by the complainant and other person while in connivance with medical officerand if, there is any injury on the body of the abovementioned person then the same is result of self-fabrication and concocted one”. The learned Magistrate without taking the injured on boardor recording argument of ADPP, marked present during the proceedings, directed medical examinationby the Standing Medical Board. It is in this backdrop, the Board assembled on 4.3.2020 to re-examine the complainant. It evaluated the nature of injuries on the basis of opinion recorded by the Radiologist Dr. Umm-e-Kalsum whom the injured was referred for C.T. Scan by Dr. Rida Arshad CMO and it ison the basis of findings recorded by the above medical officers that the Board rendered its opinionbeing relied upon by the petitioner.
We have gone through the entire record of the case. The first medical officer has unambiguously ruled out possibility of any foul play,however,the learned Magistrate readily obliged the defence without affording opportunity of hearing to the injured; even the Law Officer is shown present as a silent spectatorto the proceedings. The application moved on behalf of the accused is not only stereotype and slipshod but also self-destructiveas well; on the one hand,it is asserted that the impugned medical report was totally false and fake with the alternate allegation of injuries being self suffered and fabricated in case these are noted during examination by the Board. There was no occasion for the learned Magistrate to hurriedly exercise ex-parte jurisdiction to the detriment of prosecution/injuredin the face of allegationsvague and non-specific.The first medical examination was protected by statutory presumption of being genuine under Article 129(e) of the Qanun-e-Shahdat Order, 1984 as well as under Article 150 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Such formidable statutory protectionscannot be summarily dismantled on the whims of an accused struggling to ward off consequences of criminal prosecution, therefore, a Magistrate must insist for tangible and sufficient grounds to plausibly justify exposure of a person already wronged to the inconvenience and embarrassment of a re-examination, a consideration conspicuously missing in the present case.While an accused is certainly entitled to “Due Process of Law”and a meaningful opportunity to contest indictment with a view to vindicate his position, the prosecution and its witnesses alsodeserve protection of law so as to prosecute the case with least inconvenience and without unnecessary hardship; equality before law without equal protection is a travesty; scales must be held strictly in balance.Performance of medical board is no less dismaleither.It miserably failed to take stockof findings recorded by Dr. Rida Arshad, CMO, reproduced as below:
“Suspicious radiolucencyis seen on nasal surface. Medico legal C.T. scan nasal bone is suggested.
No bony injury is seen in (L) orbit and face.”
She referred the examinee for C.T. scan conducted by Dr. Umm-e-Kalsum that conclusively confirmed fracture of the nasal bone; her findingisreproduced below:“
Fracture nasal bone viewed.”
The members of the medical board not only ignored the above findings, they went a step further in their inconsequential opinion to add the possibility of a fall as well, a case never agitated even by the accused. Even otherwise, observation that possibility of fabrication/fall cannot be ruled out is a judgment resting upon the brink of hypothetical possibilitythat by itself cannot override positive findings earlier unanimously recorded by the medical officerswho attended the injured; possibilities are infiniteand cannot dislodge proof.The opinion is also devoid of any objective finding and, thus, we do not feel inclined to receive the half-cookedhypothesis of fabrication/fall as a fresh ground in circumstances. Petition fails. Leave declined. Observations being issue specific will not cast their shadows upon the outcome of trial to be settled essentially upon the strength of prosecution evidencealone, expected to be concluded with all convenient dispatch.
Islamabad, the7thJuly, 2020
No comments:
Post a Comment