MUHAMMAD NAZIR vs The STATE
This matter arises from a review petition filed by Muhammad Nazir against the order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan refusing to grant special leave to appeal. The core legal questions involve whether discrepancies in evidence warrant a re-appraisal of testimony in review, how injuries sustained by an accused during an incident are considered, and whether a plea of sudden fight and self-defence can be sustained in the absence of corroborative recoveries such as the weapon used. The Court held that contentions relating to the re-appraisal of evidence do not furnish a ground for review, and that the trial evidence conclusively established the petitioner's guilt without material effect from minor discrepancies, while the plea of self-defence and failure to consider injuries were properly addressed and dismissed. The key principle laid down is that a review petition cannot be used to re-evaluate evidence or revisit concurrent factual findings of guilt when the trial record conclusively supports the conviction.
- Can a review petition be maintained on the ground that the evidence was discrepant and ought to be re-appraised?
- Whether injuries sustained by an accused during an occurrence can form the basis for review when duly considered by the courts below?
- Does the absence of motive and the occurrence of a sudden fight automatically entitle an accused to the right of self-defence without supporting recoveries?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, J.-No one appeared for the petitioner but we have examined the petition on merits which is against our order dated 29th of March 1977, refusing to grant special leave to appeal to him.
2. The points taken in the petition are that on the same evidence which was discrepant and not accepted against the co-accused, the petitioner was nevertheless convicted; that the injuries on the petitioner which were stated to have been caused by a stick were not given proper consideration; and that in the absence of motive it was a sudden fight and the petitioner was entitled to act in self-defence. These contentions relate to re-appraisal of evidence which cannot furnish ground for review and suffice it to so that the evidence led at the trial conclusively pointed to the guilt of the petitioner which conclusion was not materially affected by the discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses. Even the injuries on the petitions received due consideration by this Court and the same opinion, as held by the Courts below, was expressed as the Danda alleged to have been used was not secured from the spot nor was the petitioner able to make out case of self-defence for the knife alleged to have fallen from the hand of the deceased was not seized. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Cited by 6 cases
- SARFARAZ KHAN KHILJI Versus PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO CHIEF MINISTER BALOCHISTAN, QUETTA 2025 CLC 1836
- Commissioner Inland Revenue Z-III, Corporate Regional Tax Office, Tax 2023 SCP 150, 2023 PTD 964, 2023 SCMR 1011
- Mst. Bisma Noureen vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry 2023 CLC 110
- Toba Saeed through her Father vs Chairman Admission Committee 2021 MLD 520
- Messrs Abaseen ORE through Azmat Khan vs Director General (Licensing 2021 PLJ Quetta 196, 2021 PLD Balochistan 9
- NASRULLAH KHAN and 2 others vs STATE 2010 PLJ SC 881