Pakistan Case Law
1984 SCMR 1033(1)

BASHARAT KHAN vs THE STATE

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1984 SCMR 1033(1)
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Criminal Review Petition No, 10-R of 1983 Criminal Petition No, 165-R of 1982
Date1983-12-10
Judge(s)Nasim Hasan Shah, Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Aslam Riaz Hussain
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter concerns a review petition filed against a judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 25-5-1983 in a murder case. The core legal question addressed by the Court was whether the grounds presented in the review petition justified a re-examination of the previous judgment. Upon hearing the petitioner's counsel at length, the Court determined that the petition was frivolous. The Court held that the petitioner's arguments essentially sought a reappraisal of evidence and a re-evaluation of factual findings to achieve a different conclusion, which is not a permissible ground for review. The Court reaffirmed that the impugned judgment had already been carefully considered in light of the contentions raised during the original hearing and that the case did not warrant a reappraisal of evidence. Consequently, the Court dismissed the review petition, establishing the principle that a review jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely to re-argue questions of fact or to seek a reappraisal of evidence already adjudicated upon by the Court in its final judgment.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can a review petition be maintained solely to seek a reappraisal of evidence?
  • Is a request to reach a different conclusion on questions of fact a valid ground for review?
  • Does the Supreme Court have the authority to re-examine factual findings in a review petition?
review petitionreappraisal of evidencecriminal appealmurder casefrivolous petitionfactual findings

ORDER

1. ' ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-This is a Review Petition against the judgment of this Court dated 25-5- 1983 in a murder case.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner at length we find that it is a frivolous petition because the grounds of review themselves show that all that the petitioner's counsel requires this Court to do was merely to reappraise the evidence and to reach a different conclusion on questions of fact, to suit him. We have, however, already observed, after gain through the impugned judgment in the light of the contentions raised by the petitioner's counsel at the time of the hearing of the main petition, that this was not a fit case for reappraisal of evidence.

3. ' The petition is consequently dismissed.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.