Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Review Petition No. 9‑R of 1976 in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 50‑R of 1976, decided on 30th March, 1977.
(On review from the order of the Court dated 31‑5‑1976 in P. 50‑R of 1976).
----Art. 188‑Review‑Scope of Review in criminal matters‑Confined to an error of law on face of record‑Court in review, held, cannot enter upon fresh examination of evidence‑Circumstances of case however necessitating reduction of sentence and State Counsel having no objection to adoption of such course‑Sentence reduced to period already undergone‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 376.‑
Azlz Ahmad Bajwa, Advocate and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Malik Muhammad Jaffar, Advocate for the State.
Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for the Complainant.
Date of hearing : 30th March, 1977.
.‑The facts of the case and the proceedings leading up to this review are adequately dealt with in the judgment dated 31‑5‑1976 of our. brother Muhammad Gul, J., in the petition for special leave, and we need not recapitulate them.
The learned counsel for Irshad, petitioner, has referred us to the evidence on record from which it emerges that Muhammad Riaz, acquitted accused, was the main actor of this deplorable incident and that the only part attributed to the present petitioner was the statement of the prosecutrix Mst. Rafiqan, that he also raped her.
It is stated that Mst. Rafiqan and Muhammad Riaz had previously developed friendly relations and that a marriage between them had been proposed by her maternal uncle and mother. This proposal was successfully opposed by Mst. Salma, sister of Muhammad Riaz. It is further contended that Irshad petitioner was implicated because he is a brother of Muhammad Riaz.
The medical evidence leaves no doubt that Mst. Rafiqan was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse and according to her both Riaz and Irshad were the culprits. Nevertheless' it was contended by Mr. Aziz Ahmad that Muhammad Riaz was the real culprit and Irshad is paying for the crime committed by his brother.
As the scope of review in criminal matters is confined to an error of law on the face of the order, we cannot enter upon fresh examination of evidence as desired by the learned counsel. However, in the circumstances of the case, we reduce the sentence awarded to Irshad to the period already undergone on both the counts. The State Counsel has no objection to our adopting this course.
Order accordingly.
Petition dismissed but sentence reduced.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer