IRSHAD vs The STATE
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a review petition arising from criminal proceedings. The core legal question concerns the extent and scope of the Court's jurisdiction in a criminal review petition, specifically whether re-evaluation of evidence is permissible, and the appropriateness of the sentence imposed upon the petitioner, Irshad, who was convicted alongside his brother for rape based on the statement of the prosecutrix. The Supreme Court held that the scope of review in criminal matters is strictly confined to an error of law on the face of the order and does not permit a fresh examination of evidence. However, considering the circumstances of the case and with no objection from the State Counsel, the Court reduced the petitioner's sentence to the period already undergone. The key principle laid down is that criminal review cannot be used as an avenue to re-examine evidence, though sentence modification may be considered under mitigating circumstances when consented to or unopposed by the State.
- What is the scope of review in criminal matters before the Supreme Court?
- Can the Supreme Court enter upon a fresh examination of evidence in a criminal review petition?
- Under what circumstances can a sentence be reduced to the period already undergone?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, C. J.-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.
2. 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.
3. Rafiqan, that he also raped her.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Order accordingly.
Cited by 1 case
- SIKANDAR HAYAT Versus State 2020 PLD 559