2004 SCMR 1348

MUHAMMAD AFZAL Versus THE STATE

Citation2004 SCMR 1348

CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan

Judge(s)Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, C.J., Javed Iqbal and Abdul Hameed Dogar

NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, C.J.--- Petitioner, Muhammad Afzal, seeks review of this Court's judgment, dated 19-9-2003 delivered in Criminal Appeals Nos. 321 and 322 of 2001, which were dismissed with the following observations:---

12. In view of unimpeachable evidence of the prosecution in the shape of ocular account, motive, corroborative evidence and medical evidence, Mr. Muhammad Zaman Bhatti, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the appellant, at the outset stated that he would not challenge the conviction; but only submitted that, under the circumstances, death penalty could not be awarded to the appellant. According to him, the appellant on the day of occurrence was minor and it being so the death penalty was unjustified. He submitted that according to birth certificate issued by concerned union council, the date of birth of the appellant is 17-11-1976, as such, he was child/minor at the time of commission of the offence, within the meaning of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 and in view of provisions of sections 299/306, P.P.C. death sentence could not be awarded.

Above plea for lesser punishment was neither raised before trial Court nor before High Court nor there is sufficient material on record to substantiate it. On the, contrary, irrefutable evidence is available on record to indicate that at the relevant time he was major. The appellant in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. himself gave his age as 27 years. This statement was recorded on 17-1-1993. Again, in his statement recorded under the same section for an offence punishable under section 13 Arms Ordinance, 1965, he gave his age as 27 years. Irrefutable evidence is available on record to indicate that he was major at the time of occurrence. Learned counsel in support of his contention, cited Umar Hayat v. Jahangir and another 2002 SCMR 629 and Ziaullah v. Najeebullah and others PLD 2003 SC 656. Suffice it to say that above cases are distinguishable and the rules laid down therein are not attracted to the instant case. The appeal is also time-barred by 51 days for which no plausible explanation has been offered. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No. 321 of 2001 is dismissed."

2. Criminal Appeal No. 322 of 2001 was also dismissed with the observations that the findings recorded by High Court were in accordance with the material available on record and no interference was justified.

3. We heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

4. The points now raised were considered thoroughly and repelled as discussed in the impugned judgment. The review is not meant for rehearing of the matter. No interference is warranted. In consequence, the review petition is dismissed.

N.H.Q./M-76/S Petition dismissed.