Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 188,13(a),9,14,4,25,37(e)

Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 302(b),57

Law: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898

Section: 367(5),403

Law: Pakistan Prisons Rules, 1978

Section: 140,198(b)

JUDGMENT Salahuddin Panhwar, J.– (Crl. Misc No. 1292 of 2025) For reasons set out in the application, the same is allowed. Office is directed to allot number to this Criminal Review Petition in Criminal Appeals No. 229 & 230 of 2021. (Crl. Review No. NIL of 2025) Through the instant review petition, the petitioners seek review of the judgment dated 25.02.2025 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeals Nos. 229 and 230 of 2021, whereby their appeals were dismissed and the conviction and sentence of death awarded by the Courts below were maintained. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners advanced submissions falling broadly in two categories. First, he assailed the judgment under review on factual grounds, including the alleged weakness of motive, minor inconsistencies in the ocular account and certain aspects of appreciation of evidence. Secondly, and principally, he invoked the doctrine commonly described as the principle of expectancy of life. It was contended that petitioner Muhammad Latif was arrested on 31.10.2007, whereas petitioner Sher Afzal was arrested on 10.09.2012, and that Muhammad Latif has by now undergone incarceration of approximately eighteen years. On such basis, it was urged that the sentence of death may be converted into imprisonment for life. Conversely, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and the learned Additional Prosecutor General submitted that the judgment under review suffers from no error apparent on the face of the record. The offence was found to be premeditated and executed with extreme brutality. They relied on Zafar Iqbal v The State (PLD 2015 SC 307) and reiterated that expectancy of life is not a universal rule and this court declined the application of this rule, since there was cold-blooded premeditated murder of five persons. They maintained that the sentence awarded and maintained by this Court is fully justified in view of the gravity, manner and brutality of the offence, namely the murder of five members of one family. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their able assistance. At the very outset, it is necessary to restate the settled scope of review…