SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Review Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Gulzar Ahmed 
Mr. Justice Mushir Alam 
Mr. Justice Maqbool Baqar 
 
 
Criminal Review Petitions No.15 to 18 of 2011 
[For review of common Judgment dated 21.04.2011 passed by this Court in 
Criminal Appeals No.167 to 170 of 2005] 
 
 
Mst. Mukhtar Mai d/o Ghulam Farid 
Meerwala, Tehsil Jatoi, Muzaffargarh 
 
[in all cases] 
…Petitioner(s) 
VERSUS 
 
Abdul Khaliq & others 
[in Cr.R.P.15&18] 
Faiz Muhammad & another 
[in Cr.R.P.16] 
Muhammad Aslam & others 
[in Cr.R.P.17] 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Petitioner(s) 
[in all cases] 
: Ch. Aitzaz Ahsan, Sr. ASC 
Mr. Gohar Ali Shah, ASC  
 
  
For the Respondent(s) 
[in all cases] 
: Malik Muhammad Saleem, ASC 
 
  
For the State 
: Syed Ahmed Raza Gillani, Addl.P.G. 
 
  
Date of Hearing 
: 13.06.2019 
 
  
 
  
J U D G M E N T 
 
GULZAR AHMED, J.— These Criminal Review Petitions have 
been filed seeking review of common judgment of this Court dated 
21.04.2011 passed in Criminal Appeals No.163 to 171 of 2005 and 
SMC No.5 of 2005.   
2. 
Brief facts of the matter are that FIR No.405 dated 
36.06.2002 was got registered by the petitioner with Police Station 
Jatoi, District Muzaffargarh under Section 10(4) of the Offence of 
Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 (the Ordinance 
1979) read with Section 109 of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (PPC). 
1-Crl.Review Petitions No.15 to 18 of 2011.doc 
- 2 - 
 
 
 
Subsequently, Section 19 of the Ordinance 1979 was added along 
with Sections 354-A, 217, 119 and 342 PPC so also Section 7 of 
the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (ATA).  The trial was conducted, on 
conclusion whereof the trial Court passed its judgment dated 
31.08.2002 on the basis of which, out of 14 accused persons 8 
accused were acquitted while the remaining 6 accused were found 
guilty and were convicted and sentenced, as noted the said 
judgment.  However, all the accused were acquitted of the charge 
under Section 354-A PPC.  Both the complainant as well as the 
State filed criminal appeals before the Lahore High Court 
challenging judgment of the trial Court.  The acquittal appeals 
were dismissed by the High Court while the appeals filed by the 
convicted accused were accepted except that of the convicted 
accused Abdul Khaliq, whose appeal was partly allowed and his 
capital punishment was converted into imprisonment for life with 
benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C.  Criminal Appeals were filed 
against judgment of the High Court dated 03.03.2005 by the State, 
by the Complainant and also by the convicted accused Abdul 
Khaliq, while Suo Motu Case No.5 of 2005 was also registered by 
this Court.  The criminal appeals as well as the SMC were heard 
together by a 3-Member Bench of this Court, which through the 
judgment under review dismissed the appeals and discharged the 
SMC. 
3. 
The learned Sr. ASC for the petitioner while arguing the 
criminal review petitions has made the following formulations: 
1) 
Whether any, and if so, what kind of corroboration is 
required for the testimony of rape victim; 
2) 
Whether a distinction can be drawn between a victim who 
is a virgin and one who is a divorcee in respect of her 
credibility in a prosecution for rape; 
3) 
Whether confessions made in cross-examination will not 
adversely affect the defence, particularly in a case wherein 
the accused has stated in his statement under section 342 
Cr.P.C. that his defence is the same as put in cross-
examination by his counsel; 
4) 
Whether the Charge under section 354-A PPC which relates 
to someone being paraded nude in public can be defended 
by the accused by merely stating that the victim was 
handed back her clothes; 
1-Crl.Review Petitions No.15 to 18 of 2011.doc 
- 3 - 
 
 
 
5) 
What is the effect of misreading and non-reading of 
evidence regarding the injuries on the body of the victim; 
6) 
What is the guilt of the persons forming part of an 
Akath/tribal Jirga/Panchayat who sit and join the same, 
as a result of which a gang rape is permitted/committed; 
7) 
How far modern technics like DNA can be insisted upon by 
the Court in crimes committed in a far-flung rural area 
where it is not easy to have access to these technics. 
 
4. 
We have brought to the attention of the learned Sr. 
ASC for the petitioner that the formulations made by him, as 
reproduced above, are such which require re-appraisal of the 
entire evidence and thereafter to take a view different from 
the one which has been taken by this Court in the judgment 
under review and that such course of action is not 
permissible under the law for that while exercising review 
jurisdiction the reviewing Court cannot go into the merits of 
the case and take altogether a different view, the learned Sr. 
ASC for the petitioner frankly conceded that he is aware of 
this legal obstruction but insisted that the Court may 
examine the above formulations made by him.   
5. 
We have considered the above formulations and have 
also gone through the judgment under review.  At the outset, 
we may note that all the formulations and submissions of 
the learned Sr. ASC, as noted above, appear to be based on 
the assumption that this Court is sitting as a court of appeal 
over the judgment under review, which jurisdiction obviously 
is not vested in this Court under Article 188 of the 
Constitution, as the Court hearing review cannot re-appraise 
the evidence to come to a conclusion different from the one 
adopted by the Court in the judgment under review.  All the 
1-Crl.Review Petitions No.15 to 18 of 2011.doc 
- 4 - 
 
 
 
formulations and submissions of the learned Sr. ASC are 
based materially on the evidence on record, meaning thereby 
that the Court, exercising review jurisdiction, is required to 
read the evidence, the very such exercise, in our view, is not 
permissible in law while sitting in review jurisdiction.  It is 
now well settled that the power of review stems from the 
possibility of judicial fallibility and is exercised in exceptional 
circumstances, in aid of justice, to avoid gross injustice and 
in view of the necessity to avoid perpetuating such illegality, 
which cannot be allowed to remain on the record.  A review 
is not synonymous with an appeal and does not include 
rehearing of the matter in issue nor will be warranted merely 
because the conclusion drawn is wrong or erroneous but is 
limited to eventualities where something obvious has been 
overlooked or where there is a glaring omission or patent 
mistake of fact or law, which is self-evident, manifest and 
floating on the surface, materially affecting the outcome of 
the adjudicatory process. Reliance in this behalf may be 
made to the case reported as Zakaria Ghani & 4 others v. 
Muhammad Ikhlaq Memon & 8 others [PLD 2016 SC 229]. 
6. 
The formulations of the learned Sr. ASC do not seem 
to attract any of the provisions under which the review 
jurisdiction could be exercised by this Court and thus, we 
are of the considered view that the present review petitions 
are not justifiable and are liable to be dismissed on this 
score alone.  Needless to observe that the formulations and 
1-Crl.Review Petitions No.15 to 18 of 2011.doc 
- 5 - 
 
 
 
submissions, as they appear, are such which can be raised 
and addressed by this Court in an appropriate proceeding in 
some other case attracting the same, however, in the instant  
case under the review jurisdiction, where this Court has 
already 
given 
its 
judgment, 
these 
formulations 
and 
submissions cannot be gone into.   
7. 
Thus, for the above reasons, the criminal review 
petitions are dismissed. Consequently, all the criminal 
miscellaneous applications filed in these criminal review 
petitions are disposed of. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
Bench-II 
ISLAMABAD 
13.06.2019 
APPROVED FOR REPORTING 
JUDGE 
 
*Hashmi* 
JUDGE