' JAVED IQBAL, J.--- The judgment impugned whereby the Criminal Appeal preferred on behalf of petitioner has been dismissed with certain modification in the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial Court and High Court has been assailed by means of this review petition.
2. Sardar Muhammad Khan, learned counsel entered appearance on behalf of petitioner and contended with vehemence that the evidence which has come on record has not been appreciated in its true perspective which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. In order to A substantiate the said contention it is argued that the entire prosecution case hinges upon the identification parade which could not be held in accordance with the relevant provisions of law and directions made time to time by the learned Lahore High Court and besides that common features narrated in the F.I.R. Make the entire exercise of identification ab initio, illegal and void. It is next argued that on the basis of momentary glimpse the question of correct identification does not arise which went unnoticed causing serious prejudice against the petitioners.
3. We have carefully examined the contentions as agitated on behalf of petitioners and perused the judgment impugned with the eminent assistance of learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioners. The question of identification has been dealt with in depth by scrutinizing the entire evidence which has come on record in a comprehensive manner and relevant portion of the judgment impugned is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:--- "According to statement of the complainant, Muzaffar, Zulfiqar Ali and Tasneem Aslam had also witnessed the occurrence and that complainant and other P.Ws. Could identify the assailants. The descriptions of the two accused who had entered into the room and resorted to firing was given in the statement. One of the accused was aged about 24-25 years, was of strong physique, was keeping beard his height was about 5 feet 7/8 inches and was wearing `Shalwar Kameez', the other accused was of the height of about 5 feet 6/7 inches, he was of whitish complexion, had a strong physique was aged about 20-25 years and was wearing `Shalwar Kameez'.
' It was also observed in the judgment impugned that "the identification test was conducted by P.W.30 Muhammad Tajamal Abbas Rana Magistrate. Perusal of his statement, on oath, reveals that the witnesses while identifying the accused had also described the role played by them.
Furthermore, all the P.Ws. Identified the accused before learned trial Court and also specified their roles. The argument of the learned counsel that no light was available at the time of occurrence is devoid of any force as it cannot be presumed that the Daras was being given in a room which had no lights."
4. The question whether the prosecution witnesses could have identified the culprits involves the appreciation of evidence which cannot be done at review stage. Even otherwise review cannot be granted on the ground that certain facts require re-appraisement by the Court. In this regard reference can be made to the following cases:--- ' Basharat Khan v. The State 1984 SCMR 1033(1), Muhammad Nazir v. The State 1979 SCM R 89, Kala Khan v. Misri Khan 1979 SCM R 347, Saghir Ali v. Mehar Din 1968 SCM R 729, Saeedur Rehman v. The State 1980 SCM R 271, Ghulam Sarwar v. The State 1979 SCM R 43; Muhammad Hassan v. The State 1979 SCM R 345 and Muhammad Suleman v. Muhammad Younis 1988 SCM R 350.
5. We may make it clear that a mere desire for rehearing of the matter does not constitute a valid cause and sufficient ground for the grant of review. In this regard we are fortified by the dictum laid down in the following authorities.
' Abdul Hameed Saqi v. Service Tribunal of Pakistan 1988 SCM R 1318, Ali Khan v. Shah Zaman 1980 SCM R 332, Abdul Majeed v. Chief Settlement Commissioner 1980 SCM R 504, Maqbool Ahmed Tabassum v. The State 1980 SCM R 907, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto v. The State PLD 1979 SC 741, Nawab Bibi v.
Hamida Begum 1968 SCM R 104, Muhammad Najibullah Khan v. Government of Pakistan 1968 SCM R 768, Muhammad Ghaffar v. The State 1969 SCM R 12, Ghulam Fatima v. Settlement Commissioner 1969 SCM R 5 and Feroze Din v. Allah Ditta 1969 SCM R 10.
6. The review petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.