Daily Times

ISLAMABAD: A detailed report on the judgment was issued by the Supreme Court on Wednesday, explaining the rejection of Mukhtaran Mai’s review appeal against the exoneration of 13 accused individuals for the case of gang rape.

The verdict stated, “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.”

Mukhtaran Mai’s case became known when an imam at a local mosque in Karachi spoke of Mai’s ordeal during a sermon at Friday prayers. He called for media attention, appealing to lawyers and journalists to restore justice.

A three-member bench of the Supreme Court led by Justice Gulzar Ahmed had announced the verdict of Mai’s appeal rejection in June. They stated, “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.”

13 suspects had been identified in Mai’s case, which resulted from a tribal dispute involving her brother having illicit relations with a girl from a rival tribe.

Out of the 13 suspects, six were awarded the death penalty, four were sentenced to prison on rape charges and two, who were part of the village council, were given capital punishment.

However, five of the above convicts received acquittal by the Lahore High Court, and the sixth had been sentenced with life imprisonment instead.

Mukhtaran Mai filed a review petition in 2011 where she pleaded the court to overturn their judgment. She was dissatisfied with the verdict and requested that a larger bench be set up to review her case.

Mukhtaran Mai was being represented by lawyer Aitzaz Ahsan.

In the five-paged long decision issued on Wednesday, Justice Gulzar stated, “Formulations and submissions of Mai’s attorney Aitzaz Ahsan are based materially on the evidence on record, meaning thereby that the [SC] 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.

The specific verdict was spelled out in the decision, “The formulations of Mai’s lawyer do not seem to attract any of the provisions under which the review jurisdiction could be exercised by this [SC] 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.”

The dismissal was stated where it said, “In the instant case under the review jurisdiction, where this court has already given its judgment, these formulations and submissions cannot be gone into. Thus, for the above reasons, the criminal review petitions are dismissed.”