' NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, C J.---Petitioner, Mst. Hafeez Bibi, seeks review of this Court's detailed judgment dated 25-9-2003, whereby in its paragraphs Nos. 18 and 19, the following was observed: (18)Learned High Court while dealing with the case of Mst. Hafeez Bibi, observed as follows:- ' In our view, it was Mst. Hafeez Bibi, who had played the major role in the instant case, as she was maidservant in the house of the complainant for the last 5/6 months. She knew the financial position of the complainant party. There was no need of identification parade of Mst. Hafeez Bibi, as she was named by the complainant in the supplementary statement and also in the statements of the eye-witnesses."
(19)Learned counsel for the appellants rigorously argued that according to F.I.R., four unknown persons had committed this crime, while later on it was alleged that, in fact, there were three culprits, who had committed said crime. It is difficult to understand the mental agony of the complainant when he had seen his two minor children being slaughtered and killed before him, besides himself having sustained injuries on his vital parts of his body. Under such circumstances, normally a person could not keep cool and narrate the entire incident with minute details. It was the result of the mental shock; he had immediately after the occurrence. It appears that for the same reasons Mst. Hafeez Bibi was not nominated in F.I.R. The fact, however, remains that the complainant in his supplementary statement explained the factual position. Neither above grounds falsify the prosecution's version nor jointly or collectively are enough to discredit the testimony of the complainant, his wife and son Husnain.
2. F.I.R. Of this case having No,297 of 1999 was registered at Police Station Cantt. Sargodha under sections 392/302/394/397/337-L(b) 337-F(2)/411, P.P.C. Read with section 6-A of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. There were five accused in this case namely, Muhammad Asghar, Mst. Hafeez Bibi, Ahmed Sher, Falak Sher and Mst. Sughran Bibi. Trial Court convicted and sentenced Ahmed Sher, Falak Sher, Muhammad Asghar and Mst. Hafeez Bibi and awarded them death penalty under sections 302/34, P.P.C. For committing Qatal-e-Amd of Bilal Parvez aged about 8 years and Iqra Parvez aged about 9 years and also fined them. High Court maintained the convictions and sentences awarded to them.
3. Heard Pirzada Noor Ali Shakoori learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
4. Above named minors were brutally murdered in presence of their parents viz. Parvez Iabal Malik and Mst. Kaneez Zuhra. The crime was also witnessed by Husnain Ali brother of the deceased.
5. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the entire evidence brought on record was not examined in its true perspective inasmuch as that the discrepancies appearing in the statement of eye-witnesses were not properly appreciated, that defence version needs to be re-examined, that there was enmity between the petitioner's father and the local police and it escaped the notice of the Courts below.
6. It is significant to mention that the conviction of the petitioner was maintained, but the death sentence awarded to her was altered to life imprisonment with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
There is irrefutable evidence on record to show that the petitioner, as a maidservant of the complainant, played a major role in the murder of said minors. Learned counsel for the petitioner wants to re-argue the matter on merits, which is not permissible at review stage. It is not a case of misreading, non-reading or misappreciation of the evidence brought on record. Under the circumstances, no interference is warranted.
7. In consequence; the review petition is dismissed.