1992 PLP 1703 (SCMR)

‑‑‑‑O.XXVI, R.1‑‑‑Review of Supreme Court judgment‑‑‑Facts peculiar to case had been taken note of and plausible conclusions were drawn from evidence recorded, keeping in view safe administration of criminal justice where benefit of all reasonable doubts was extended to accused and not to prosecution‑‑ Review of judgment was thus, not warranted in circumstances. Ijaz Hussain Batalvi, Senior Advocate instructed by Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for the Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 12th April, 1992. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioner seeks review of our judgment dated 18‑8‑1991 whereby criminal appeals 54, 55 and 56 of 1988 were disposed of by a consolidated judgment. It resulted in the acquittal of three (respondents Nos.3 to 5) while maintaining the acquittal of respondent No.l and the conviction and sentence of only one respondent/convict Muhammad Tufail (Respondent No.2). The grounds taken up for moving this review petition are numerous.

2. The first ground with regard to the misreading of the record concerns the observation of the Court that Abdul Hameed (P.W.14) was an interested witness for the reason that he happened to be the brother of Murad Ali (P.W.4) whose son‑in‑law Shaukat was involved, in the earlier case. It is correct that there has been a slight misreading of evidence because Abdul Hameed (P.W.14) is shown to be the son of Kharati while Murad Ali (P.W.4) is shown to be the son of Qaim Din. Such a relationship as was taken to be existing between them did not in fact exist. However, the interested character of this witness is nevertheless established from an admission made by him as hereunder relatable to the earlier occurrence in which son of Qasim Ali acquitted accused of the present case was murdered:‑‑ "It is incorrect to suggest that I made false deposition in case of murder of Rashid, son of Qasim Ali. Again said I appeared as witness, in the challan which was sent by Sarfraz Inspector. In that challan Muhammad Tufail and others were accused. It is correct that during occurrence of murder of Rashid, Khurshid daughter of Shari was injured by bullet."

3. On the‑ same subject, another witness Muhammad Arshad (P.W.12) the complainant in the case had also admitted in his statement as hereunder:‑‑ "It is correct to suggest that Abdul Hamecd and Ashiq appeared as witnesses in the case of murder of Rashid but they appeared on behalf of the complainant Muhammad Shafi. I, Muhammad Sharif deceased, Hanif P.W. and my grandmother Fateh Bibi also appeared as prosecution witnesses in that case."

4. The conclusion drawn by the Court is sustainable on this material though not on the material which was referred to in the judgment and. which, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the, petitioner, is the result of misreading.

5. As regards the infliction of injuries, their being ante‑mortem or post mortem, and the involvement of the other accused, charged for that, these are matters intricately concerned with the appraisement of evidence on facts. The expert's opinion is not decisive on such matters and the Court has to form an independent opinion on material that has come on the record. Of course, assistance can be sought from the expert's opinion. We are not, therefore, inclined to reappraise in review the entire factual evidence with a view to come to the conclusion to which the learned counsel for the petitioner would like us to arrive.

6. While appraising the evidence we have not laid down in the judgment any principle of law of general application such as may require reconsideration: The facts peculiar to the case have been taken note of and plausible conclusions drawn from evidence recorded, keeping in view the safe administration of criminal justice where the benefit of all reasonable doubt is extended to the accused and not to the prosecution.

7. In the circumstances, we find no merit in this review petition and the same is dismissed. A.A./M‑1650/S Review dismissed