A Landmark Judgment on Medical Board Opinions in Pakistan

 2021 SCMR 387

میڈیکل بورڈ کی تشکیل اور 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 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 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 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.

2021 SCMR 387: A Landmark Judgment on Medical Board Opinions in Pakistan

This case (Muhammad Ejaz vs. The State) from the Supreme Court of Pakistan deals with the legal weight given to medical board reports and the presumption of accuracy of the initial medical examination.

Key Points:

The initial medical report has legal privilege due to Article 129(e) of the Qanun-e-Shahdat Order, 1984 and Article 150 of the Constitution. This means it's presumed accurate unless strong reasons exist otherwise.

Magistrates shouldn't readily order re-examinations by a medical board just because the accused requests it. There must be a valid justification to put the victim through the inconvenience again.

A medical board's observation that injuries could be fabricated or caused by a fall is insufficient to override the initial, unanimous findings of the medical officers who first examined the victim. 

Vague possibilities shouldn't replace concrete evidence. The medical board's opinion lacked objective findings, and the court rejected their "half-cooked hypothesis."

In simpler terms:

The first doctor's report is generally considered reliable.

Accused parties can't simply demand a second opinion to weaken the case.

A medical board's opinion needs to be well-supported, not based on mere speculation. 

This judgment protects the credibility of initial medical examinations and prevents frivolous requests for re-examination.