Find a Lawyer

MST. SHAMA versus STATE

ection Section 176 (2) dead Session Court Deadline Elections The court dismissed the magisterial order deciding to remove the body of the deceased child without any apparent reason for section 176 CCPC. Consult the magistrate to remove the body. This law can only be performed by a magistrate. No specific limit was provided under the law. Registration of the information of the first information was not unnecessary to initiate an investigation because of a suspicious death. No post-proof proof was required. In the relevant terms of the law it was necessary to attend to a situation where the cause of death was determined to be something other than natural. The late X-ray film suffered from severe asthma and dependence on the film, and some prescriptions were in the absence of any medical opinion to prove this point. Beyond reasonable doubt as to the cause of death, at least warranty and investigative investigations into the positive evidence, allegations of illicit contact and possible involvement of the accused (mother of the child) that were only possible through forensic analysis of the body. The dispute, which is likely to escalate to the present time, offered itself a proposed exercise of about two years because it was deemed unnecessary because of the possible decomposition of the body, which was easily described but as a result. It had to be lenient from any experimental basis - the autolysis would be established immediately after the last breath, after which various stages had to be determined. We, forensic analysis of possibility was not even fully stages. After skeletalization ar strength due to dry clay or more saline

P L D 2017 Lahore 337

Before Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J

Mst. SHAMA—Petitioner

versus

STATE and 3 others—Respondents

Criminal Miscellaneous ,483-M of 2016, decided on 15th November, 2016.

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)—

—S. 176(2)—Exhumation of dead body--- Court of Session set aside Magisterial order declinging exhumation of dead body of deceased child who passed away without any apparent cause-- subsection (2) of S.176 Cr.P.C did not put any clog of locus standi to approach a Magistrate for exhumation of dead body; it could be carried out by Magistrate on his own-- No specific period of limitation was provided under the law-- Registration of First infÓrm;ation Report was not a sine qua non to launch a probe into cause of a suspicious death-- Existence of some postitve proof was not required as relevant provision of law was ment to attend situation where cause of death was inferred other than being natural-- Contention deceased was suffering from acute asthma and reliance upon an x-ray film and some prescriptions to substantiate the position was beside the point in absence of any medical opinion about cause of death-- Dependant upon positive proof deyond reasonable doubt, accusation of illicit liaison and possible involvement of accused(mother of chlid) at least warranted and investigative probe which was only possible through forensic analysis of the corpse-- Further contention that flux of time spanning ove a period of almost two years had by itself rendered proposed exercise as being inconsequential in view of possible decomposition of corpse, though ingeniously articulated was nonetheless conclusory being devoid of any empirical foundation—Autolysis would set in immediately after the last breath, followed by different stages of putrefaction, however, possibility of a forensic analysis was not entirely eliminated even at stages subsequent to skeletonization—Instances of natural mummification owing to arid soil or with high salinated contents were not that rare—Asphyxial death due to strangulation invariably left its symptoms on hyoid bone detectable even at skeletonized stage and same was the case with the remains of poisonous contents even in decomposed viscera; arsenic was possibly detectable not only in hair but also in the soil where the dead body was buried, therefore, to deny a probe on this ground would render the provisions of law as nugatory—Court of Session rightly reversed the decision taken by the Magistrate—Application was dismissed accordingly, [pp. 340, 341] 

Muhammad Ramzan and others v. The State and others 1987 SCMR 272 rel.

(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) —

—S. 176(2)—Exhumation of dead body—Scope—Subsection (2) of S.176 Cr.P.C, did not put any clog of locus standi to approach a Magistrate for exhumation of dead body; it could be carried out by Magistrate on his own—No specific period of limitation was provided under the law. [p. 340] A

. Muhammad Ramzan and others v. The State and others 1987 SCMR 272 rel.

(c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) —

f —S. 176(2)—Exhumation of dead body—Scope—Registration of

First InfÓrm;ation Report was not a sine qua non to launch a probe into cause of a suspicious death nor there was any legal compulsion for existence of some positive proof as relevant provision of law was meant for to attend situation where cause of death was inferred as other than being natural, [p. 340] B

(d) Medical jurisprudence—

-—Forensic analysis of dead body—Scope—Possibility of a forensic analysis of dead body could not entirely eliminate even at stages subsequent to skeletonization, [p. 341] D

(e) Medical jurisprudence—

____Asphyxial death due to strangulation—Asphyxial death due to

its symptoms on hyoid bone 341] E

even in decomposed in hair but also in soil

strangulation would invariably leave detectable even at skeletonized stage, [p.

(f) Medical jurisprudence— —Poisonous contents—Poisonous contents viscera; arsenic were possibly detectable not only where dead body was buried, [p. Tariq Mehmood Dogar for Petitioner.

Mehr Nazar Abbas Chawan, AAG and Mirza D.P.G with Muhammad Saleem, DSP.

Abid Majeed Rana Umer Daraz for Respondents.

jobs for fresh advocates from Talhur lawyer