Mst. HAFEEZ BIBI vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a review petition filed by Mst. Hafeez Bibi against a Supreme Court judgment that upheld her conviction for the murder of two minors. The petitioner sought to re-argue the merits of the case, alleging that the lower courts failed to properly appreciate discrepancies in the testimony of eye-witnesses and ignored the defense's claims regarding police enmity. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had demonstrated sufficient grounds for a review of the previous judgment, specifically regarding the appreciation of evidence. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was attempting to re-argue the case on merits, which is impermissible at the review stage. The Court found no evidence of misreading, non-reading, or misappreciation of evidence by the lower courts. The key principle laid down is that a review petition cannot be utilized as a forum to re-argue the merits of a case or to re-examine evidence that has already been conclusively adjudicated, absent a clear showing of error in the record.
- Can a review petition be used to re-argue the merits of a case already decided by the Supreme Court?
- Is a re-examination of evidence permissible at the review stage if there is no proof of misreading or non-reading of the record?
- Does the failure to nominate an accused in the F.I.R. automatically discredit the prosecution's case when explained in a supplementary statement?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 394, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 397, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 6-A, Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
- Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, C J.---Petitioner, Mst. Hafeez Bibi, seeks review of this Court's detailed judgment dated 25-9-2003, whereby in its paragraphs Nos. 18 and 19, the following was observed: (18)Learned High Court while dealing with the case of Mst. Hafeez Bibi, observed as follows:- ' In our view, it was Mst. Hafeez Bibi, who had played the major role in the instant case, as she was maidservant in the house of the complainant for the last 5/6 months. She knew the financial position of the complainant party. There was no need of identification parade of Mst. Hafeez Bibi, as she was named by the complainant in the supplementary statement and also in the statements of the eye-witnesses."
(19)Learned counsel for the appellants rigorously argued that according to F.I.R., four unknown persons had committed this crime, while later on it was alleged that, in fact, there were three culprits, who had committed said crime. It is difficult to understand the mental agony of the complainant when he had seen his two minor children being slaughtered and killed before him, besides himself having sustained injuries on his vital parts of his body. Under such circumstances, normally a person could not keep cool and narrate the entire incident with minute details. It was the result of the mental shock; he had immediately after the occurrence. It appears that for the same reasons Mst. Hafeez Bibi was not nominated in F.I.R. The fact, however, remains that the complainant in his supplementary statement explained the factual position. Neither above grounds falsify the prosecution's version nor jointly or collectively are enough to discredit the testimony of the complainant, his wife and son Husnain.
2. F.I.R. Of this case having No,297 of 1999 was registered at Police Station Cantt. Sargodha under sections 392/302/394/397/337-L(b) 337-F(2)/411, P.P.C. Read with section 6-A of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. There were five accused in this case namely, Muhammad Asghar, Mst. Hafeez Bibi, Ahmed Sher, Falak Sher and Mst. Sughran Bibi. Trial Court convicted and sentenced Ahmed Sher, Falak Sher, Muhammad Asghar and Mst. Hafeez Bibi and awarded them death penalty under sections 302/34, P.P.C. For committing Qatal-e-Amd of Bilal Parvez aged about 8 years and Iqra Parvez aged about 9 years and also fined them. High Court maintained the convictions and sentences awarded to them.
3. Heard Pirzada Noor Ali Shakoori learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
4. Above named minors were brutally murdered in presence of their parents viz. Parvez Iabal Malik and Mst. Kaneez Zuhra. The crime was also witnessed by Husnain Ali brother of the deceased.
5. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the entire evidence brought on record was not examined in its true perspective inasmuch as that the discrepancies appearing in the statement of eye-witnesses were not properly appreciated, that defence version needs to be re-examined, that there was enmity between the petitioner's father and the local police and it escaped the notice of the Courts below.
6. It is significant to mention that the conviction of the petitioner was maintained, but the death sentence awarded to her was altered to life imprisonment with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
There is irrefutable evidence on record to show that the petitioner, as a maidservant of the complainant, played a major role in the murder of said minors. Learned counsel for the petitioner wants to re-argue the matter on merits, which is not permissible at review stage. It is not a case of misreading, non-reading or misappreciation of the evidence brought on record. Under the circumstances, no interference is warranted.
7. In consequence; the review petition is dismissed.