IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
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 the Petitioner(s): 
Mr. Ghulam Farooq Awan, ASC 
 
Mr. Muhammad Sharif Janjua, AOR 
 
For the Respondent(s): 
N.R. 
 
Date of hearing: 
07.07.2020. 
 
ORDER 
 
              Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Accompanied by  
co-accused, the petitioner thrashed Sohail Ikram PW within 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withdrawn and dismissed as such on 2.4.2020.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 board had 
furnished him a new ground for 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 comprising four 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. 
Criminal Petition No.540 of 2020  
2
4. 
 
Occurrence took place on 10.12.2019 and the injured was 
examined same day when the medical officer noted as many as four 
injuries on his person and categorically ruled out possibility of their 
fabrication; he kept the injuries under observation and referred the 
examinee for radiographic examination wherefrom he was further 
referred for CT scan which 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 totally false and fake and is being obtained by the complainant and other person 
while in connivance with medical officer and 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 board or 
recording argument of ADPP, marked present during the proceedings, 
directed medical examination by 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 is on the basis of 
findings recorded by the above medical officers that the Board rendered 
its opinion being 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 spectator to the proceedings. The 
application moved on behalf of the accused is not only stereotype and 
slipshod but also self-destructive as 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/injured in the face 
of allegations vague 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 protections cannot 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 
Criminal Petition No.540 of 2020  
3
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 also deserve 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 dismal either. It miserably failed to take stock 
of findings recorded by Dr. Rida Arshad, CMO, reproduced as below: 
“Suspicious radiolucency is 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 
finding is reproduced 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 
possibility that by itself cannot override positive findings earlier 
unanimously recorded by the medical officers who attended the 
injured; possibilities are infinite and cannot dislodge proof. The opinion 
is also devoid of any objective finding and, thus, we do not feel inclined 
to receive the half-cooked hypothesis 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 evidence 
alone, expected to be concluded with all convenient dispatch.  
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
7th July, 2020 
Not approved for reporting 
Azmat/- 
