2011 PLP 2616 (YLR)

RAUF AHMAD SHAIKH, J.--The petitioners have assailed the vires of order dated 2-4-2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmadpur Sial, whereby a criminal revision filed by respondent No.4 against order dated 19-3-2011 passed by the learned Magistrate Section 30, Ahmadpur Sial, was accepted and the application for disinterment of the body of Mst. Asia Parveen wife of petitioner No.1 was allowed.

2. It was stated that Mst. Asia Parveen was married to petitioner No.1, who did not treat Mst. Asia Parveen properly and he used to turn her out of the house but respondent No.4 used to send her back on intervention of the respectables of the area. Few days prior to her demise, she came to the house of respondent No.4 and informed her that the attitude of petitioner No.1 was very cruel but petitioner No.2 again sent her daughter back. On 6/7-3-2011 at about 10-00 a.m. different persons informed her that her daughter died but petitioner No.1 had not given any such information. When she arrived there dead body had been given the bath. Mst. Sahiba Bibi wife of Malik Riaz Khokhar told her that the dead body had injuries on the palms of hands and blueish marks on the neck. In the revision petition she contended that the women present there were whispering that Mst. Asia Parveen had been murdered. She prayed for disinterment of the dead body, medical examination of the same and determination of the cause of death. This application was dismissed by the learned Magistrate.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that when the husband and the father of the deceased had opposed the application, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had no authority to pass an order for disinterment of the dead body and, as such, the order is not sustainable under the law. It is also urged that the, application was moved with an inordinate delay with malice and the disinterment of the dead body would be against the religious feelings of the husband and father of the deceased. In support of his contention learned counsel has placed, reliance upon 2005 PCr.LJ 736.

4. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. The application was submitted by respondent No.4 just after three days of the demise. There is no inordinate delay in submission of the application. It is an admitted fact that Mst. Asia Parveen did not die a natural death. According to respondent No.4, she was murdered whereas the petitioners have contended that she lost her life due to electric shock: In these circumstances, the determination of the cause of death was necessary to arrive at the just conclusion. Section 176(2), Cr.P.C. gives vast powers to the Magistrate regarding disinterment of the dead body of a person whose death occurs in suspicious circumstances in order to determine the actual cause of death. The learned Magistrate, in view of the specific allegation, had failed to exercise powers vesting in him under the law so the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction has rightly rectified the irregularity committed. In this respect reliance is placed upon Mst. Ghazala Begum and others v. The District Magistrate, Khanewal and others (1996 PCr.LJ 389) and Ghulam Hussain v. District Magistrate, Muzaffargarh and 3 others (1992 PCr.LJ 1870). This order passed by the Court of competent jurisdic tion, which is otherwise in accordance with law, cannot be called in question in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan; 1973. In the case law cited by at the bar the application was moved after eleven months of the demise and deceased was ailing for considerable time but in the present case the petitioners and respondent No.4 do not dispute the unnatural death of the deceased so the case law cited at the bar by learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable on the facts of this petition.

5. For the reasons supra, the impugned order does not suffer from any irregularity. The writ petition is without merits and the same is, therefore, dismissed in limine. M.H./G-26/L Petition dismissed.