ISLAMABAD- The Supreme Court today sought complete record of Mukhtaran Mai rape case from the trial court while hearing rape victim’s review petition.

After the passage of more than three years, the three-judge bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Mian Saqib Nisar, took up Mai’s review petition against the trial court’s April 21, 2011 verdict regarding acquittal of the accused.

Presently, in her review petition, filed through her counsel Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan under Article 188 of the Constitution read with Order XXVI, Rule 1 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1980, she has pleaded that the court review and recall the judgment under review in the interest of justice and grant relief to Mai as prayed in the titled criminal appeal.

Mai has also requested the court to constitute a larger bench to hear her review petition, contending that she was aggrieved of and dissatisfied with the findings of the court, whereby the aforesaid appeal was dismissed and judgment passed by LHC’s Multan bench upheld.

According to reports during the hearing, Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan stated that certain errors were made in the court’s judgment and he would prove it through evidence. He added that there were nine pieces of evidence which were not taken into account by the court in its judgment.

Her counsel Barrister Ahsan submitted that if she was found credible and a person of good character and deeds, her testimony alone, without more and without requirement of any corroboration, would be sufficient to sustain a conviction.

Barrister Aitzaz contended that “in addition to whatever has been stated herein before, some of the legal findings and conclusions based thereon of the majority judges are not sustainable and contrary to the settled law; hence they are liable to be reviewed.”

He further submitted that Hazoor Bakhsh and Ghulam Hussain, being close relatives of the petitioner-complainant, could not pass the test of independent witnesses; therefore, the recovery of the pistol should be disbelieved. “Such a finding is against the settled law that a ‘factum of recovery’ cannot be ignored simply because the witness of memo of recovery is related to the victim,” Ahsan contended.

He submitted that the majority judges had upset the settled law by holding that even where a prosecution witness is not produced, his or her statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC could still be used and that too under Section 172 (2) of the CrPC and that inference could be drawn from it for the purposes, or under Article 129(g) of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984.

“The observation of majority judges that suggestions during cross-examination could be considered against the accused only if he/she had taken a statutory defence is contrary to the settled law on this point, especially when there is no ‘statutory defence’ to the offence of rape”, Aitzaz said.

The learned counsel contended that the facts stated by complainant that holding of the ‘panchayat’ were ‘hearsay’ goes against the settled principle that all facts, whether seen or perceived, would be stated in the court as direct evidence of the event.

The bench, however, said that the record had been sent back to the trial court. The apex court then summoned all the record of the case and adjourned the hearing for an indefinite period.