Find a Lawyer

Criminal Review Petition No. 1 of 1975 in Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 329 of 1974.

(Petition for review of the judgment of this Court, dated 14‑11‑1974).

---- O. XXVI‑Review‑Order XXVI of Supreme Court Rules confined to correction of error apparent on face of record‑No error appearing on face of record‑Contention regarding doctor's opinion having not been correctly reflected in judgment factually incorrect‑Other matters canvassed duly considered in judgment hence, not liable to be reagitated in review‑Petition besides being barred by 16 days, for which no explanation furnished; having also nothing to commend itself on merits Legal sentence having been awarded, question, held, cannot be reopened in review.‑[Review].

Iftikhar Ali Sheikh, Advocate and Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate‑on- Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for the State.

Date of hearing: 8th November 1976.

In this petition Muhammad Sarfraz petitioner seeks review of this Court's judgment dated 14‑11‑1974 by which leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court confirming the sentence of death awarded to him‑ on conviction on charge of murder was refused.

Having heard the learned counsel quite at length, we are satisfied the besides being barred by 16 days, of which no explanation whatever has beep furnished, the review petition has nothing to commend itself on merits within the limited scope of Order XXVI of the Supreme Court Rules which is only confined to the correction of an error apparent on the face of the record.

Learned counsel in vain tried to point out that in paragraph 8 of the judgment which dealt with the question of punishment alone, the doctor's opinion had not been correctly reflected. This is factually incorrect. A reference to the doctor's statement clearly shows that he had held the' fatal injury of the deceased to be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and this is precisely what is mentioned in paragraph 8. Learned counsel then referred to the cross‑examination of the doctor who admitted that timely medical aid could possibly have saved the life of the deceased. This aspect of the matter was duly considered in the judgment and cannot be allowed to be reagitated in review. Towards conclusion, learned counsel submitted that at the time of the occurrence the petitioner was merely 19 years of age and that the solitary injury which proved fatal was on a non‑vital part of the deceased and therefore, justifiably called for the award of a leeser penalty. We regret to observe that this contention was also duly considered by us as clearly mentioned in the judgment. Having already awarded a legal sentence, this Court cannot reopen this question of sentence in a review petition and the matter could alone be considered by the Executive Authorities in exercise‑of their Constitutional, jurisdiction. With these observations, the petition is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.