GHULAM SARWAR AND Another vs The STATE
The petitioners sought a review of the Supreme Court's order dismissing their criminal petition for special leave to appeal, contending that the majority opinion failed to properly evaluate the quality of corroborative evidence and that the injuries sustained by the victims did not support the firing of more than three shots. The core legal question was whether the appraisal of evidence regarding corroboration can be undertaken within the narrow scope of review jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the assessment of corroboration is inextricably linked with the appraisal of evidence, which falls outside the permissible realm of review jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that attempting to reopen findings of fact affirmed by both the trial court and the High Court is impermissible in review, and consequently dismissed the petition.
- Whether the quality of corroboration and appraisal of evidence can be examined in review jurisdiction?
- Can a petition for review be used as an appeal to re-examine factual findings and evidence?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, J.-The petitioners seek review of the order of this Court dated 20th of September, 1977, by which Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 23-R of 1977 was dismissed on the ground that the majority opinion did not advert to the quality of the corroboration necessary to bring home the guilt to the petitioners.
2. Elucidating his stand the learned counsel further submitted that the injuries suffered by the four deceased, Dilawar Khan and one Rakhima Jan, a neighbour, could not furnish material to establish that more than three shots were fired. In this connection the learned counsel invited our attention to the minority opinion in which a counter view was taken that only three shots were fired and that too from the gun with which the crime empties bad matched; and that the injuries did not establish the firing of more than three shots. In support of his contention that the injuries could not lend corroboration to partisan evidence, the learned counsel relied on Ashraf v. The Crown (PLD 1956 FC 86), Rehmat v. The State (PLD 1959 SC (Pak.) 109), Machia v. The State (PLD 1976 SC 695) and Shahzado v. The State (PLD 1977 SC 413).
3. We may observe that the trial Court believed the testimony of Dilawar Khan and Muhammad Hayat after applying the rule of caution and so did the High Court which further held that the part assigned to the petitioners was corroborated by the injuries sustained by the deceased and others ; and that having regard to the number of shots fired, the participation of the petitioners was consistent with it. The High Court also rejected the plea that only one gun was used and that too by the deceased Muhammad Hayat. Having excluded the possibility of false implication, the High Court proceeded to convict the petitioners. The majority opinion accepted the conclusion of the High Court and dismissed the petition. The petitioners now seek to reopen the case as if it was in appeal by recourse to the appraisal of evidence as essentially corroboration is a matter which is interwoven with it. This is beyond the realm of review jurisdiction.
4. Accordingly, we see no merit in this petition and dismiss it.
Cited by 7 cases
- Muhammad Ayub & another vs The Member (Judicial-III), BOR, Punjab, Lahore, etc 2021 MLD 2110, 2021 LHC 2018
- SIKANDAR HAYAT Versus State 2020 PLD 559
- SAJJAD HUSSAIN and another vs The STATE and another 2014 MLD 400
- ZEESHAN AHMED vs THE STATE and anothers 2012 P Cr. L J 700
- NASRULLAH KHAN and 2 others vs STATE 2010 PLJ SC 881
- MANAGER, AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN BUREWALA, DISTRICT VEHARI and another vs ABDUL GHANI and 4 others 2004 YLR 741
- VIK10 vs ABDULLAH AND ANOTHER 1980 P Cr. L J 602