,t~,

IN THE COURT OF MR. MEHMOOD HAROON KHAN ADDITIONAL SESSIONS IUDGE SHORKOT. $essions Case No: 360f2013 Sessions Trial No: 30of2013 Date of Decision: 21Jl1FlQ.1J.

".~

ThcState

Versus 1- Haq Nawaz SID Allah Yar, Caste Karmuana RIO Mohalla Tauhced Abad, Waryam Wala, Tehsil Shorkot, Distt jhang, 2- Abdur Rehman SID Muhammad Hussain, Caste Lahar RIO Tauheed Abad, Waryam Wala, Tehsil Shorkot. Distt !hang. 3- Muhammad Umar SID Ahmad Yar, Caste Lahar RIO Waryam Wala,Tehsii Shorkot, Distt jhang. 4- Nisar Ahmad SID Muhammad Hussain, Caste !att RIO Qaim Bharwana, Tehsil Shorkot, Distt !hang. 5- Doctor Mazhar Kaleem SID Noar Ahmad, Caste Bhatti RIO, Waryam Wala, Tchsil 5harkot, Distt Jhang.
FIR No = 479 Dated = 30-05-2011 Offence U/S = 295-C, PPC PS = Shorkot Citv r!""")I., )IJ.h~ [/n the name of Allah, the most Gracious, the most Merciful] J.<S').J..t>..,JC~\"";

aI~o

~~
Co

1! ~~

:r."",g;

~~~

""O~:r:

'",,!,! ~-,;;

(Z5-28-..Jo)...,J"'!\~.~6-0..1i.;.Jl>.I.Ji<S.J"I..,J

Oh My Rabbi Open my heart, easy my tu.okund remove the impediments from my speech that they may understand what/say.

lODGMENT This criminal 05-2011 got-registered

case has emanated from FIR No 479, dated 30at Police Station Shorkot city,

by Mehr Nasir Abbas

District Jhang, under section 295-A of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, in which, local pc'i\ce pH~'P31eQa wa\lan am'! $ublTiMeam \'rIe c.oun. at learned Area, Nlagislra\e,

Meanwhile during the hearing of bail application it was observed by the

honour;;lble lahole High Court, Lahore that prima-fade provisions of section 295.
I

C of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 are also attractedto the~.?~~0, ttt~

hence, the challan was forwarded by the leamed Area Ma~lrte 10the Court ~ . ,'~> p'" ~~ i;~'1 j

'~~./t

\ ..'t.

Sessions Sessio:.s

as the offence under section

295-C

PPC was triable by the C<?urt of

2.

According

to the story of prosecution

said accused

persons

committed (peace denial

blasphemy

by givin9 derogatory

remarks about Holy prophet

Muhammad

be upon him), and by making denial of Hadith, denial of prayer (Namaz),

of "Meraj" and denial of funeral prayer, etc. They are promoting the ideas against

the tenets of Islam amongst the youth by distributing the pamphlets and other
literature, which amounts to defiling of Holy Our'an, Hadith and sacred name of

Holy Prophet. They have expressed

their profane ideas before Sheikh

Muhammad Hanif, Munir Ahmad and some other persons in clear words.
Therefore, complainant prayed for registration of case and proceeding against

them under section 295-C

B~

3.

Poli~ 'o,ti,,,y"9'''",d ,

J! ~

challan in the Court of learned Area Magistrate. Meanwhile during the hearing of '~3 ~iJ;1 a bail application honorable High Court observed that prima-facie section 295-C r.r.",j~ ~i}j is attracted, hence, in the light of this observation learned Area Magistrate c:> ,~ transferred the chaflan to t!'1eCourt of Sessions as 295-C, PPC was triable by the ~~ .,.,,..: ,,0: Sessions Court. Thereafter my fearned predecessor framed the charge under sections 295-C and 148, PPC against the accused on 03-02-2012, in which, accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial Hence, the pro">cution
witnesses were summoned

""

""doc

,,,ti,, 295-A. ,,'mitt,d "d

4.

In order to prove its case, the prosecution produced as many as seven

asunder: PW1-Mazhar Ii. !qbal 378/c (duty officer} witness) wit::s~~

witnesses

PW2- Noor Zaman (eye/recovery PW3- Hafiz Muhammad PW4- Muhammad

Iii. iv. v.

Wads (eye/recovery

Rafique S.!

, \r:)

~.

l--

'D

PW5- Nasir Abbas (eye witness)

~" '.,,-

'-'>~i~- e-,

IJ

PW6-Munir Ahmad (eye witness) PW7- Samar Abbas, S,I (Investigating Officer)

5.

In documentary

evidence complaint is EX.PA. FIR is EX.PN1,

permission

of the Government daied 15-07-2011

of the Punjab u/s 196 CLP_C is EX-PC, certified copy ot order passed by honorable Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in by

W_P.NO_16325~11 is EX-PE, certified copy of order dated 07-10-2011 honorable

Lahore High Court, Lahore in CRL.M_NO_9756-B-1 is EX-PF, certified its order dated 05-03-2012 passed by

copy of ICANO.732-2011alongwith Division Bench of honorable booKs are P1 to P11.

Lahore High Court, Lahore is EX-PG. Re~vered

6. ,.

PW1 Mazhar Iqbal 376/C deposed

that on 30-05-2011

he was posted as

Duty Officer at P.S. Shorkot City. On the same day he received complaint Exh:

,.-

.'

PA drafted by Samar Abbas SI through Aamir Abbas constable 16201C,On the

.

~ ~r
,:~

;:',::>;~\ " ~c,>,~ omisSion.

-~

basis of Exh: P.A he reC1:lrded formal FIR Exh: Al1 without any addition

or

7.

PW2 Noor Zaman deposed at Police

that on 12-06-2011 he joined the investigation During investigation, the complainant

of this case

Post Waryam,

produced three ,books before the l..0--titled as "Islam-kay-Mujrim" (i"-" cfo fj...,I) P.1, "Bulandi say Pasti Tak" (~t.ii4 ~ji Tareen Ghaar" (.)1<:. C'"' c.J4) P.2 and "Tasawuf Ka TareeK these

...s }..i'1.S P.3. The 1.0 took into possession """"""':;)

books through recovery memo Exh: r.B, which was attested Muhammad Waris. The 1.0 recorded his statement 26-05-2011 Abdul Rehman accused

by him and Hafiz

under section 161 CI.P.C- On persons present in the

I

and other accused

Court invited him, Nasir Abbas, Munir Ahmad, Sheikh Muhammad Muhammad Hafiz Irshad lIyas, Noor Zaman, and -other Hafiz Abdul Hakeem,

Hanif, Haji

Muhammad

,.-

Abdullah,

perSons at the shop of Abdul Rehm'8h at Rai~'mtion

~1:!j ~g: El~ I:;

,Waryam where accused

persons

preached

that translation

of Holy Ouran was

"

not known to Holy Prophrd Hazrat Muhammad (Peace be upon him), therefore, j .. ,,-yo~yare also unaware of this translation. Accused persons furth<:H s~id that . '.,/ Hazrat Muhammad(Peace be upon him) was illiterate person and Holy Ouran, which, you have, is not the original whereas the original Quran Pak is with the Iranians. They further stated that we had riot seen H<1zrat Muhammad (Peace be upon him) offering the prayer, thus how we can offer the prayer. Further stated that Hazrat Muhammad (peace be upon him) did not go to Meraj. There is no and there is no reality of 'Namaz-e-Jana~a'. The

authenticity of "Hoz-e-Kausar"

purpose of Masjid Nabwi was for meeting and not for prayers. We stopped the accused persons from saying such words about the Holy prophet (Peace consistent be

upon him), Holy Ouran and Arkan-e-Islam but they remained

in their

~'"

remarks. TIle accused persons delivered the books (P.1 to P.3) along with some other books and thereafter we left the place

~ ~i
.

.~.~ g~ ;
.:;~
.

"~

. """:~~

PW3 Hafiz Muhammad investigation complainant (~.?-4 cf of this case produced ~I)

Waris deposed

that on 12-06-2011

he joined the the

:2''''

at Police Post Waryam.

During investigation,

three books before the 1.0 tilled as "Islam-kay-Mujrim"

P.1, "Bulandi say Pasti Tak" (W ~.; Ghaar' (..;1&. ~.J~

~
;~)

c""

o.S~)

P.2 and

"Tasawuf ka Tareek Tamen into possession these

P.3. The 1.0 took

books through

recovery

memo

Exh: P.B, which was his statement and other

attested by him and HafIZ MuhammmJ Waris The 1.0 recorded under section accused 161 Cr.P.C. on 26-05-2011. Abdul Rehman

accused

persons present

in the Court invited him, Nasir Abbas, Munir Ahmad, Ilyas, Noor Zaman, Hafiz Abdul at the shop of stated that

Sheikh Muhammad Hakeem, Muhammad

Hanif, H<1jiMuhammad

Abdullah, HafIZ Irshad and other persons

Abdul Rehman at Railway station Waryam where accused translation of Holy Quran was not known to Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him), therefore, you arc also unaware

persons

Hazrat Muhammad I 9f, this-fran-sla~on:

E ;)
.,
. ~

A~cused personsfurthersaid that HazratMUha~mad{peace be upon~II

,"'~< -:-;:iJ
\,'-1

j..;.-

8-13

. illiterate person and Holy Quran, which, you have. is nol the original whereas

the

. 'original Quran PaK is with the Iranians. They further staled that we had not seen Hazrat Muhammad (Peace be upon him) offering the prayer, thus, how we can (peace be upon him) did and there is no reality

offer the prayer. Further slated that Hazrat Muhammad

not go to Meraj. There is no authenticity of "Hoz-e-Kausar" of :Namaz-e-Janaza". The purpose

of Masjid Nabwi was for meeting and not for

prayers. We stopped the accused persons from saying such words about the Holy prophel (Peace be upon him), Holy Quran and ArKan-e-lslam but they
remained consislent in their remarKs. The accused persons delivered the books

(P.1to P.3) along with some other books and thereafter we left the placo;!.

9.

PW4 Muhammad

Rafique deposed

that on 23-07-2011

he was posted as

Incharge Police Post Waryam

P.S. ShorKol City. On the same day he received

back the challan with the objection that approval of prosecution branch,

- ."",

~.go Government of the Punjab, is not attached. He moved application for such
approval and receive<llhe approval letter Exh: P.D on 23-07-2011 through post

ll ~!

';;~ Q'-'

N~WhiCh he annexed with the challan and submitted complete challan on 25-07:=~a 2;~i;.J2011.
.

<~
10.
PW5 Nasir Abbas deposed that on 26-05-2011 at 11.00/11.30 /...M. at the
the accused persons Haqnawz, Abdul Rehman, I Umar, Dr. Mazhar Kale~tl]. Nisar Ahmad along-with some unKnown committed blasphemy. They d~nied Hadith, "Namaz", "Meraj" The

shop of Abdul Rehman accused, Muhammad accued

pers~ns

and "Namaz-e-Janaza"

and in this way they committed

the said offence.

accused persons also distributed some pamphlets and literature containing

objecticnabie companions misleading Sheikh remarks (Sahabas), against Hazrat Muhammad (Peace be upon him), his

Ahl-e-Bait, Holy Quran and Hadith In this way they were persons made these remarKs in presence of ,I other persons. He moved

the youth. Accused Hanif,

.", n' ,pp';~tiO" E,h PA b,fo," th, 'och"go Police Po,l WO~~

Muhammad

Munir Ahmad

and

I' fOe',

J.;

. \-g- "';- ,3,-,ct

6 registration of the case against the accused persons, which bears his signature. complainant

,Umar Ali, Sufi Fazal Karim and Maulana Abdul Rauf also became
alongiith , (e'~~) him in this petition, P.4, "Haqeeqat-e-Salaf He also produced P5, c:"" "Dhaka wI) ~j) the books kyun" (~

"Haqeeqat-e-Haj' ,..s."..J) P.6, "Akhir ( ~\

Quran sy Jang Kyun" (u.J:!S~

P.?, "Ahsan-ul-Hadith"

~:i...'iI) P.B, "Hamarailm-e-Tafseer" (~

(!",Jk. wI)"";"';') P.10, and "Mahasan-ul-Islam"

rk-1.)~) P.g, Khilaf-e-Quran Aloom

(~'i\~) P.11, before the

1.0 on 30-05-2011 in presence of Sheikh Muhammad Hanif and Muhammad Munir. The accused persons present in the Court gave \I1ese books to him. On
12-06-2011 he also produced three books P_1to P,3 before the 1.0. He produced

these books in the presence of Noor Zaman and Hafiz Muhammad Waris. Therefore, the ~ccused persons have committed the offence.

::'J, =~ ~'~'
" '2,~,_.11. PW6 Munir Ahmad deposed that he knows accused persons present in ';:,:',?1he Court i-e. Haqnawaz etc. These accused persons CQmmitted the offence of L",-.'-' "inkar-e-Namaz", "inkar-e-Meraj Mustafa" (Peace 'i::~.~~ilblaSPhemy by "inkar-e-Hadith",

JJ
~4,
.

~~

be upon him) and "inkar-e-Namaz-e-Janaza".

They promoted their beliefs

through pamphlets and literature amongst the youth and committed blasphemy and inkar-e-Quran & Hadith. Their thoughts were listened by him and Sheikh Muhammad Hanif and some other persons. The complainant produced eight
books PA to P.11 to the 1.0 who secured P.D, which was attested reCQrded his statement these articles vide recovery Sheikh Muhammad memo Exh: 1.0

by him ac.d-Iate

Hanif. The

under section

161 Cr.P.C.

12.

PW7 Samar Abbas SI deposed that on 30-05-011 he was posted as

Incharge Police Post Waryam P.S. Shorkot city when complainant Nasir Abbas presented written application Exh: P A He recorded proceedif\js on this
application and sent the same to police station through Aamir Ab~~~, ",c.o~stable \)

416/C for registration of the case.

He recorded statements of witnesses under

'

"',

~ ". ..7:}:S-~
< ..

~~l3

section

161

CLP.C.
during

Eight the

books

(PA

to which memo On

P.11) he Exh:

were took P.D

also
into was he and Jhang.

produced

by the
through by Munir

complainant recovery ./ Ah;;;ad ".I

investigation Recovery

possession attested arrested Ahmad

memo and

Exh:

P.O.

Sheikh

Muhammad Abdul Rehman,

Hanif.

31-05-2011 Umar Legal,

accused on 07ollence Kaleem

persons Haqnawa~,
06--2011 under after

Muhammad from DSP

Nisar

obtaining 16 MPO,

legal

opinion

He added Dr. Mazhar

section

On 09-06-2011

he arrested

accused

after the cancellation accused produced

of his pre-arrest bail. He obtained physical Area Magistrate, On 12-06-2011 were taken

remand of that the complainant vide

from the leamed three books

P.1 to P.3, which

into possession,

recovery memo Exh: P.B. Noor Zaman recovery

and Hafiz Muhammad persons 01 the

Waris attested Ihe area joined the

memo. On 12-06-2011

several

investigation

and he recorded their statements

under sadion

161 CLP.C.

On 13-

"

~a

~.~

06-2011 accused Dr. Ma~har Kaleem was sent to Judicial Lock up. On 14-06and forwarded the

lJ ~~~"

"""::> 2011 he prepared the challan against the accused persons O ~.. :!\ ameto SHO concerned. ~= !W ~~= ,

1A? ~~ 13.

After

Ihe completion

of prosecution

evidence

statements

of accused

persons were recorded

under section 342 Cr.P.C,

in which,

they denied all the

allegations leveled against them and stated that they belong to the village of the complainant and there is rivalry between them and the complainant due to local

fraction and poBlica! affiliation. They have also differences of Islamic thoughts \ and due to this reason the complainant has lodged this false case against them. They opted l10t to appear
defence as their own witness or to lead any evidence in

14provided

Thereafter
an opportunity

trial was

concluded

and counsels

to submitthair

arguments

-[
~

-.

I'

U..-8..-13

15

Deputy District Public Prosecutor counsel

on behalf of the State duly assisted

by

'\ Mr. Asra~ Gujjm, Adv:learned

on behalf of the complaim:mt has opened

" his '~rg1rnents into two main heads I.e. "the law. and "the evidence" learned ,c;./ cOunsel has contended that in such like cases non-mentioning of date, time and place of occurrence in the FIR Is not fatal for the prosecution case because this

infidel ideology was propagated contended that according

on different times and occasions. made

He has further Lahore

to the observations bail application

by the honorable

High Court, Lahore while deciding in very loud expression made out. Permission obtained and annexed

of an accused

it was observed Penal Code, is

that prima-facie

section 295-C of Pakistan under section

of provincial Government

196 of Cr.P.C was condition

with the challan as EX. PC, hence,

mandatory

[;j
~i

r.;-"

for exercise

of jurisdiction is fulfilled.

nl -iJ ~~
~

L
learned counsel for the complainant persons have passed the well t.hat accused P,B.U,H :'~ derogatory remarks against prophet Muhammad and denied known and popular rituals of Islam such as Prayer, "Hajj", "Meraj" and "Namaz-eJanaza" recovery material awarded etc. Adverting to the other submissions of controversial to strengthen to the accused and derogatory the prosecution persons. learned counsel has urged that

Under the caption of "the evidence" ~; ;~16. , ,.~ ,-. . has argued th..t PWs have clearly deposed OJ.

literature case, hence,

1"-1 to 1"-11 is a supportive maximum punishment be in

Further contended are j9f1orable

that minor contradictions <'1nd statements when

Hie statements, sufficient

of the witnesses conviction

of PWs are and

to secure

of accused evidence

persons

duly supported

corroborated.by

the documentary

17. has

On the other hand, MR. Ameer Khan Rokhri. Advocate sUbmilted that Ihere are glaring contradictions

from defence

side of the

in the evidence

prosecution superior

which cannot be ignored by the Court. The obselVation

. IS not r""levant to the tnal and

m~de by any

.. Court at ball stage

conviction. ~.

Prosf'!cution

has to prove Its case through

c~a~~~t .f?m~ baC its own ev,~ Ie U

uf., <1S

6""-'3

y further submilted that the accused persons are Muslim by faith and c~nllot think

",ven about making derogatory r:l~gious commonly brought intolerance. and

remarks

about Prophet in expression

Muhamm<1d P,B.U,H, of opinions ideology.

It is

disagreement of an established

with those which has

held doctrines Ihe accused

and orthodox otherwise

persons

to the handcuffs.

they have commilled

no offence.

18.

I have

heard

the arguments

at considerable counsel available

length

stretching

on many

hours and with able assistance scanned every material

of learned

for the parties have thoroughly on record.

piece of evidence

19 r<' ~ p~ .

The allegations remarks

leveled against against our

the accused Prophet

are twofold. rirst allegation Muhammad P_B.U.H,

is and

derogatory

beloved

~i~~::::z~:-~::a::~i:ln:f

l:ae~lit:~::~~:~~~: :~

l;ilr:~t::c:II::a:i:::;:~:::::j~
to set the Iaw in
, ,

Jj
\(

B"::;

!~;i~em
n~

arks I have looked il1to the FIR, which is the basic document
_

'~~

l@~ mahan.

It is 110ticed that the rlate, time and place of occurrence Muhammad Hanif and Munir Ahamad

15 not mentlOl1ed as witnesses

in it. Sheikh under section

were recorded

161 Cr_P-C by the Investigating Waris and Noor Zaman eyewih1esses.

Officer, but iater on during the trial as eyewitnessos. as PWs, added

Hafiz Muhammad Complainant

wefe also produced while appearing

and these

however,

these three things.

Hence menti.oning

i-e, date, time and place of occurrence, in their statements

of date. time and place as PWs is an improvement in the witness box. Deposition of witnesses made by that is It has

the witnesses

while appearing

missing from their earlier statements been held in the case of "Saeed

uts 161 CLP_C is of no significance. Muhammad Shah Vs the Slate made by a witness

(1993 SCMR in the Court to

550)" that the improvements strengthen the prosecution

in the stalement

case are not worthy of reliance. ...'.'o I: -'

/ '.~b"D
13
,r

~~,

2-f/-()

10 20. Chapter XV of Paki~tan According Penal Code provides scheme sentences of this for the offences Section 295

, !relating.! ./
class

to blasphemy.

to the

chapter,

deals with the defiling of a place of worship, with intent to insult the religion of any
and provides punishment for such an offence. Seelion 295-A deals with

deliberate and malicious aels intended to outrage religious feelings of any class
an.;! provides punishment and for (he s'nne. punishment defiling with PPC, the Section 295-B deals with defiling

of copy
with These

of Holy Qur'an
use of derogatory

provides remarks dealing of

for the same. sacred

Section of the Itoly

295-C

deals

name
acts. on

Prophet, initially was sections

are major under therefore,

sections

blasphemous and the later ingredients

This

case

was

lodged

seclion

295-A to

section of these

295-C two

amended, in - this

I need

discuss

judgment.

Section 295-C will come into force when it is found that the name or

Holy Prophet P_B_U.H has been defiled. The first al1egation leveled against the "';;j, .~:,';:::accused in the first information report is "derogatory remarks. against Holy ~::-.~ Prophet Muhammad P.B.U.H. but no specific remarks are mentioned in the FIR.
~~"*

~'::'~:~~,~ction 295-C would attract

~

~,~,fl
~

only when

the words

spoken

or written,

or by any nam e

"'K'

L~..'. ~:;,j of Holy Prophet

.

i~

'~'i:nputation,

innuendo,

or insinuation

directly or indirectly, defile S the sacred

,

Muhammad

P.B-U.H. Hence.

to claim a conviction

under section

295-C it would be mandatory upon the prosecution 'not only to show specific
remarks the name given by the accused of Holy Prophet. but also to prove
that these remarks

have defiled by the

The word "defile", as defined

and explained

honorable High Court in [PlD 1994 lah 485]. means to corrupt purity or
perfection
violate the

of, to debase;
\ sacr~dness lis

to make cerej1).Onial1y unclean;

or sanctity of; to de;ecrate, earlier profane;

to pollute;
to sully

to sully; to the honor of,!

and to dishonor. word. sentence Holy Prophet, of FIR shows However,

I havo

discussed

that witnout defiled

cannot

mentioning

specific

or remark;
the charge

which has allegedly

under section 295-C

the sacred name of the Careful perusal therein.

be proved.

that no such word either spoken in the witness p..

roPh~!

or writlen

is mentioned

while appearing

box PW2 and PW3 added that accused /

. . ~ersons mentioned

pe~~~~~-A~l~~ k;I~~,;hat ,'h'amoy o' Ho'yPmphe'PBU.H , .,,, ,", mer.oo~m\ (',. o,ccothe '"

the Ho!y

as an Illiterate

~-

-t... ~-

S_I:3

considered

<ISblaspllemy

unless and until the fact was narr"ted

11 in a derogatory

,and insulting tone. Every Muslim is presumed 10 be respectful to the Holy I "P!i~het P.B.U.H and ever ready to sacrifice his 1ift3for the honor of beloved
':~,/

Prophet p,e.U.H.

therefore. to prove the charge of blasphemy is required. hence But in oral evidence

against a Muslim, of

. very strong evidence dewgatory remarks.

I find no substance

the question

of defiling the sacred

name 01 Holy the prosecution

Prophet P.B.U.H does not arise at all. Beside the oral evidence has produced documentary evidence

EX.f>1 to Ex,p11, which are some books persons

recovered

allegedly distributed
ideas EX.P11 amongst are much Ihe

by the accused
witnesses. rulovant10 The know

lor the promotion of their profane

books an~ pamphlets persons Ex.P1 instead to of

the

intention

of accused

oral evidence in this case. Ihave gone through these books in order to ascerlain the exact spirit and message based .
<='.. ,~~ r3'b

of these books. The major portion of these books is and religious books and if those

on quotations

from other famous

quotations

(Riwayats) seem to be blasphemous

then the status of those famous

~-.

~?~ JJ ~~
.

lR~~

g~. and religious books would also become questionable from which' these "'''',--. references have been taken. The authors h<lve expressed their opinion about the or authenticity of these "Riwayats' (narrations) in these books P1 to

"'-.G~' correctness

P1"1. Although they are bit rude while expressing blasphemy cannot be suggested

their viewpoint but intention of

even remotely, The authors are very respectful They have only raised some

towards Holy Prophet P.B.U.H and his comp"nions. questions about the correclness

or authenticiiy of some Hadith or "Riwayals" as Some relevant extracls from these

done by many ~ther religious scholars ~ier. books are mentioned as under. (P1 )(/L(w' J)'(-(;"ffyi)-,(tt( Galaxy Publications lauderhill,

-,([("";",,cr ;:.-,~.

6440 NW, 53 Street, florida 33319, _:)V/ USA

17,-L~ .

".r~4-/J'.r..."..:--'",,,~ifV'
-~[,

lL;t.A v1u.6

iJ,

\{::

1m

'2A-9-/.3

-;..;-t"../"\I J:.-'-'

21/.."'-'

II

.:;'~~ )v,:"'d

:;.. :~.~ h'"

~ 1...,;";.1' !(...7 ; ~~.:JLV"

) ;/

\ )

0~

t~_..?~cC.JI..:~cC-!"..:JHj':\.:J..v-~~~Jlf

(...,..-'"L.o.v ~y.J,GcCl:.v:.bo~b..,...(J.:J..v-rJ.Lr..Y ~I Lo,)J~~( 7-.;1e;1..i.!-<;-cCh~~l)'dl?Y':-

.~

?j"r.s":.:J,:::..;...!~'Jf\..::..:;..~ -Y...Y!(97iS~~l'\'~_1 -"rJI;'Jo~IS'..i.I",:",Cf";:j 1"'~.dlf';J"?-""" -,..J;:;~{{.?.;JI. ~J;_f" 8,.-?..,...! L:f~{'A(I;-","'L~.;.'::'y"..;I,f$. 'V.l(jJ"..).+ ..irIJ, ; 63/!..r-

jLJ'/!.;JI.::/.l...::-J';'~H.::.Y"-..i/"~o,)lf';

-v.:

r.'..

1
~

~1 ~... <":'
:;' '~~~
, ~im -[~)~

(P2) .J'~JA J../ifi.1 cJl,/h.;...f~I

_:(tl!",:",Ct" _:~ ( ~.o;;t

29~rJ~",j{c}LlI~./'e .f"J"J'.;JlL.,rJ:t.~ ..ir'J ,..I..4J}iL;" 4-'1- J,..J~,;;.-i!fJ'!J,rJ;t",:", ft" -.fiE~)::,~ 30,,-!..r"".);"'Jb'-.;.J~\;'J'. -"7-t'~Af;""L~ -'~.., ;.

'~: .:;;0:-

:;:.~{o,)fAJiJ"Jt';I";"' r.;L~-

v.;
44,-!..rcJt.V.*. r t'/.::.J~~
.s;.r..:J4.;m~

JJ,jlj;:("'.:.ILV"JfL,:J~
i-cCi.P;IJ..tr

t' i~I.h~.t.:""cJLV"I/,Jfi~

))::~.::.Y~cJI.,-~.;I..c-=...~

tiJjl.,j":.;JI~.;jJ::~~"",

(L ~,'~J'Jfv';_"'~i>,,~'L-f-

"Joj"-:-""'~F.
"

-C'"v''''n(..(,~?'t'oR?.{-J "
"'1 ),':1
.
,

?J
2.-11- <J -(3

':~ .~,

13

-o::-~fo,;)!:-'::"-:-(;0~-:-CJ~(_i-'i5/~i)81,-Ly ?6LdtV--F~f.JL;;",~..~I.J'.L..rp{J_.~I".i..{?::, ~--bt,,;,=-$ ,.i.tJYJ=-..;..-:-(fo:::-,:.,I v'=-f"4~

?-J~Lv2'Jf,{o,;)'V;"VJ'ifo:::-o,;)tt,.r--':;-~/.J!"".t!=-v::..? ,.J~=-o,;)I..v.tSdh..:'ili

(P3)

tc!; 'Ii/-'''':>

( ~!(...;""" -'(<<.,.cr

-,~
-:)t .:;-d)t\,.O:iTL-:-[J

v~'\:rj
=-{-crvt.,fo::-

\.;'J./-'=-J~,!,I",o: H

~;~"

~{j'~If!~.IR~ "L~ ef~;(;',:;:;'u""fY..:;/1 ..i>o{~ u.-J-;.j,,~ ,Jr '_.k.Lv'"..vr.tI-i'S':-Tr-:-' (";:'i)-L~)J;tO"ll/,,.J-:..t'

~ti
fJy,
21.

(P4) f:,.::.J? \:M)')I~

-'(n'-:-CJ _:~

-~t;'..:-L:JI?L.:.!jjO\f'L:~ 28/~i-' [rc: ",O: JI..:Jy ,L o,;)'f-:--Vo,;)V-ll~ {v?!""i itIc?-,

0.::-P',-:-(f 0,;)1 ,,-<;- t:/ .j:;r:,,:h,...::-tl;...:.! j0",(lf..:JI?V~r.-

-L~vl/J{'~=-V'f::-"'-.:;-t-'(-'" ../,J~c: LJ'-:-[J':;-I.J!(~L;J~J ',,:.t:ft~

LJr,"LtJv;;.:-!hf1.lu..rt:I!V~dJY'?-rJTL.'/ ~~S'::'y,,,;,~, r.f:r51::~';"";

It is quite obvious and crystal clear from these name quoilltions that the author Muhammad of our ider D had no intention P,B.U.H. These Holy Prophet beloved to defile the sacred books are respectfully There of our Holy Prophet

mentioning

and glorifying the name mmarks against

P.B.U.H.

is not an iota of derogatory of that kind of blasphemy,

Prophet.

No intention

as envisaged

section 295-C, P.P.C., elm be lound in these hooks by any sl{etch of imagit~n;~ V.

~.

..".,~,,'

'.,)..9~

'iI-

/3

14

It would not be out of place

,general' and what

to mention

here
laws

that what the "Blasphemy"

is In

it meflns

in our penal

-;/ impiety,

22,

Blasphemy

generaily sacrilege-

means:

defilement,

desecration,

irreverence, blasphemy admilledly. outwardly swear

profanation,

It is outtawed

under the Penal Code. Though but it is a sinful act

is not always

punishable

in all societies

The "Book of Concord" committed". The "Baptist

calls blasphemy Confession

"the greatest of Faith" says: name

sin that can be "Therefore, to

vainly or ra"hly by the gloriqus with disgust

and awesome

of God---~ is sinful,

and to be regarded

and detestation. and because question

_m_- For by rash, false, and vain of them this land mourns". The by stating, of his na me",
to the

~aths, the Lord is provoked

I,~ :
~~

c;;
;::~
'-

"Heidelberg sin is greater

2002

Catechism"

answers

100 about blasphemy

"No
In

JJ
~

- .' ~~ords ~:.:, ,

,

Q'" to: ~1!!,LD ~~0~

-:
fi
.

or PfOVOkes God's wrat h more than the b laSPhemy _ _

5B7 "blasphemy" IS legal\y defined with

Lahore

reference

book

and Phrases"
,

by Butterworths,
fine

volume

1, as a misdemeanor
,

at common or

~" 'i::i~ '"~:g

law punishable

by

and

imprisonment.
the

It conSists

in (1) scofflngly

::i;!": irreverenlly

ridiculing

or impugning contumelious

doctrines

of Christian

faith; or (2) in

uttering or publishing scoffing

reproaches or exposing

of Jesus

Christ; or (3) in profane to contempt or

at the Holy Scriptures

any part thereof

ridicule. It is not blasphemy Christian Scripture

with due gravity and propriety

to contend

that the

religion or any part of its doctrine, is untrue

or the whol!'! or any part of Ihe Holy

23,

Biasphemy

is not an Arabic for the concept

term;

several

terms

are includes and

used

in Islamic (insult) (accuse, with

religious

literature

of blasphemy.

Tllese

"Sabb" "Ta'n"

and "Shatm" defame),

(abuse,

vilification), ',"La'n" or "La'ana" Ihe term biasphemy

(curse)

elc. In Islamic lilerature,

"Fisq"

sometimes (apostasy.

overlaps

infidel (Kufr, disbeliever),

(Depravity)

and "Ridda"

Qur'an says:

t-T-

~]

~ - < - /3.

IS

1" ~,
, ' ... ...

).

"WllO

doelll

greoler Allah,

wrong

Ihan

lie

wllo

i/1wmtol/, it cmnerh

0 lie unlo

:/

eoncemill9 him?

or deniel/l a home

tho truOl whel1

Is not fhere

ill Iwll for disbelievers'.

A variely of actions. speeches

or behavior can (;o"slilute blasphemy

but section

295-C of Pakistan Penal Code will come into play only when Ihe words spoken or wr~ten, or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred nama of Holy Prophet of Holy Prophet Muhammad P.B.U.H. Hence dofiling of the of

sacred 'name

Muhammad

P.B,U.H is the basic ingredient

section 295-C wilhoul which no such offence shan constitute. In present case, as 1 have discussed question 0;:'::~
~

earlier, no specific derogatory

remarks

are mentioned,

while

of defiling of the name

of Holy Prophet

comes

later. It is worth

mentioning that prosecution

was itself convinced Ihat section 295-C of P.P.C is under seclion 295-A of

~~.:.ade o p !~ 1' ~~

~
,

out, that is why Ihe chellen was submilted

. .. . . . ~;~:;.~~ "
..

"

,
It was argued

~~~

:J ~ 24.

'

from prosecution

side Ihat honorable

High Court has

observed

in its order dated 07~10-2011 passed

in bail application of the accused In this regard I would say Ihe findings of honorable

thai prima-facie section 295~C of P.P.C.. is attracted. that subordinate courts always bow down before

Superior Courts and under the Constitution decisions of honorable Superior Courts

of Islamic Republic of Pakislan Ihe are binding upon the subordinate

judiciary, but the honorable regarding the observations

Superior Courts have also laid down some principles made al ball stage. Fir$! of all. observations these observations Supreme
reported

made at cannot Court of

in 1995

bail stage ar~ always tentative In nature. Secondly, prejudice the result of trial. It was observed
Pakistan In ils judgment "Sikandar A. Karim

by the honorable
versus Ihe Stale"

SCMR 387 thai Court, while decjding a bail app!icatlon observations which may prejudice the accused

has to avoid making at the trial of the

I

in his defence

case, In anolher case "Dr. Behram Khan versus Nasir Ahmed Bacha and others'
PLD 1986 SC 118, it was held that High Court on bail Xp~ca.~OI1 9iVin~, "'[/-",

observalion~

in its order which were likely to prejudice case of one or other part~

\{O'

'!~-g-/3

in tdal forum-Supreme

Court clarified that trial forum shall decide

. .' .'

(
,

\
C

16 case on its

own merits and shall remain uninfluenced

/,

>, \~:'~ .

by High Court. In 1997 SCMR 1281 it was held that obselVations made in - ,,~.P'a_~Sed . ,, - ~- ,'the impugned order were of tentative nature which of course would not affect the decision of the appeal on merits. Very loud verdiel was given by the honorable

by obselVations

made in bail orders

Supreme Court in1998 SCMR 1993 by holding that the obselVation of the
Criminal Court in the bail granting order Is wholly immaterial acquittal Of conviction of the accused. bail applications are always tentative The obselVations for fhe purpose or in

in the orders passed

in nature and as such, cannot be used by

the parties for conviction or acquittal of the accusad 1\was further held In 2010
SCMR 1861

that obselVation are tentative

of Supreme

Court

or courts below while deciding

bail applications

in nature which are not binding upon Trial Court adduced by parties

which is duty bound to decide case on the basis of evidence before it, without being influenced Court. Reliance is also by any observation

of Supreme

Court or High
1743";

placed on "Haji Inayat-u!-Haq's

case 1996 SCMR

. ;J;.:l "Iqbal-ur-Rehman's

~... ~

case

PLD 1974 SC 63" and "Gul Ahmed's

case 1997 SCMR by tha

~
. ~~~ ~;
'.

27",

Hence

I have

no hesitation

to conclude

that ObSelValion made

~~ honorable it ~ .

fc) ~f:;

~ . ~~ 1i~

High Court in bail application thai seelion 29 5'C of PPC is prima-facie . made out, was tentative in nature and honorable High Court never meant to
,

infiuence the result of trial

25. tenets

Now I come to the second

\

al1eg~n,

which is about the denial

and

of certain Hadith

of Islam' such as 'Namaz",

"Meraj", "Namaz--e-Janaza"

etc.

Firsl of all if we go with the prosecution

version Ihal by not practicing these things then whole non Muslim we will convict all the
is obviously

and by making denial thereof one is guilty of blasphemy,

world non will be the guilty of such an offence. Muslims

Now whether

if having the power\and

authority to do so? Answer

"No". Qur'an says: (!.f-i Ji+ iSfi uro UiJ ) ,~~I

~ "~,1: ,\iT 2$-3-

ED
/.3,'

ii:;lJ;P'"

!.

17
At another

, ,.','

\\

place

It says:

"

.:.)

(~1)

,..:.-JJIJ 15..,s. ~ wl I"W# ell.J C'fi ~...1

. "...':J . ../ ' Muslim Scholar Mr. Javed Ahmed Ghamdi said: ""''--'-~"~"~'-A'famous .::- r/~#oIJ.:t-.u::_vr A(v}1.Y'""

-=-J-=-qhJ}~-=--lu~v.: Llf~JJ-=--"flf!. Jy-f!--=-o;f; J~'J,.-=--/.:ih<;-JI;oJJ-=-JtlJn4c--=-:' :!~jJ:J\..~~?L

~JJ~(;I<;-v1dJ~rJJ~t(.~Io'" ~V'-LI;o! ivL.:.:"'J,.Jt'1Jc-'f<;-J:~~"J"<;-~b t(~ ~f"' -"LI;-!f~~,,:,J-1

t.t/-=--JY"l}c-l iLl;- ~j!~.I/./i_n;IP-=--J1..otj ~LJji."-/')('-oJ.1Lj(~/-=-J.P.!;-'~r(~L.:d-

t
~

;fj~'f'
f~TIO
r~~'

JI

.t:j(vf'6JJ~~.t:j(r..t!'6.:J', $~I~~";vLvHr,;}iv.:LI;;,-=--r"j-"-.f...:rL i,-,.JI~~ I:nl,.(:.!(q}.,;-' 1. ~v~

l.t:.!~'6";"f

:QJ

Jj>JfV:'ZJ";-IL~J-,,=- t: ,?yJI,-r.:.:t-J(~ I,..A~-I:n ~LALl;/lft:l':c-J.JJvH0IJ",..;t1~"-~'rjfi"~~ _'V;tJl~/J~~,

Therefore,

we have no right to punish any Muslim, non-Muslim the well known tenets blasphemy of any class

or disbeliever

for

his wrong beliefs or for not practicing denial section section actually th';feof

of Islam or making of of

iUnieSS and until he co,its religious feelings

within the meaning within the meaning persons

295-C or outrages

295-A. .It is yet to be seen denied these rituals

that whether or they

the accused are just

have

of Islam

making

a different

Interpretation whether serious

of Islam other than a popular

interpretation

and in both the cases which is a very aho

,

we can charge allegation

them with the accusation

of blasphemy,

and a kind of apostasy.

In this regard

PLD 20 02
,

58 7 i1:l

feferTed asunder;

ATT .
~.

, T;-_~L D ~61~E 'v",

,, '

~~2-13

..

III "Wia! regard /0 1/18 sta/t/s of a person who commits

blasphemy

and denies

tIJe charg,., during the trial, or repents of Islamic Law, regarding such a

for Ills act; the position case, is as under. Ibn Taymlyah has quoted

(a) Imam mas/ul Abbas

on his celebrated view point

work a/-sarlm Abdul/af!

alIbn

of Hazrot

that to abuse and the

Holy Prophet apostate may

(S,B, w) is a kind of ba exempted from then he

apostasy, punishmant

if he repents. to death. p.326,

If he does

not repent,

will be sentenced (AI-sarim ~'" J;.g' ahmed (b) Ibn

AI-mas/ul,

urdu translation

by Ghu/em

Heriri, p.587). Abbas naffates that Holy Ibn' Prophet (s.a. w) had who (s.a.w) order of

Jj
"

~"
:'=,;"j , !"'~

Q-S ~~ "'... ~,~~ 1;1::",,=, "<:"~~'

forgiven used

Hiber to abuse his

Ibn AI-As wad and apology insult and

Abdal-Muttalib Holy Prophet his

him.

~~

accepted

withdraw

sentencing such man to death.

(Rasa il/bnAbdin, vol. 1, p.346) from Imam Malik and Aowzai

(c) Walid Ibn Muslim narrates

that the ana who swtJafS at the

be asked be nogged to make repentance,

H~

Prophet

(S.B.W), will then he may

but will not be slained. by Abu Bakr Jassas, e charge he has person Of
,

if he repents,

(Ahkam a/-Qur'an (d) If 8 pemon the denies

vol. 3, p.85) lasphemy, or

of committing used are open

/.

words" which

to different

interprelations, . pUnishment on

such

cannoybo
S

aWClrded Hadd

I.

a~c~unt

h:bZh;d~bt)

which has

A'I7li'~~'

,.

~.

.!.~\~

-'-/3

"

19

arisen in this case. avert Hadd punishment. Hence it is apparent is also termcd from the above

This

shubbah

is sufficient

ground

to

referred

Islamic

Jurisprudence someone interprets

that with an he is

blasphemy

as apostasy.

Therefore.

while charging If a person

this allegation

we must be very careful different

and cautious.

order of Islam in.a strayed we may

way as we follow it, then path

if. in our opinion,

show

him the righteous We are permitted

in a logical

way with all our

humbleness

and politeness.

to do nothing more than that. One of disagreement he can't be with the declared religious while

may be wrong In his interpretation poputar disbeliever school of thought

but merely because by the majority

practiced

or guilty of blasphemy. member

said:

Mr. Javed Ahmad

Ghamdi Ideology

a famous

~{~

~~

scholar
answering

and former
a question,

of Council of Islamic

of Pakistan,

~~~ '~~

1 ~I~

h,.,...JirJ"-cC"I,,",,,"
.r.f.pJ<>.-v< ii<-~,~u'

ii<lv'".r.:l.""L~.AJ"""
4lJ<;.!,f.r of ,jY.d/',/1.J'.r...e~,.-,f j)i~t.tU-fJ'~,_~vG'

...J< }t',~(""'.f'f-<f

f..,.,v~,y.~J"

~ J'..i4-(~o'l":-:"...,.JVi~'~f {'Y.J'\J'/>~"",ot>'

.~LV'f~,f,r~,.:,.!:".nI~J;co~{

~~.:.>~JiJ~.J-~!t5tfi~, i~"";/' 'JI:,;~~J/i~ ;Yi).:~L.:J.(Vf~.."'V.L.fU;,:"Ii";i 1.:,;.;L!:h,,;b

J'v'~v.f!,~(;;.:.>~,JiJ"i:CJplL.:J'-~I,fd'L
. J..;4vHf-~!f"'k.?,"~.;I'~Jr?-,,~ILv'~t.A~!

Q.;J

J,!v:'~0 </JJV~""L.rrA<;-,Jf,"",of~A,.,
~,.f"J"J1~vL~~"J'tJu"<G-rJ/d=-l..ivLi.5.PM -'~i.5.h--;JfoAmV=-v'-<Grj/~/JLf
Thus I am of the considered punished religious view that under section 295-A, PPC one can be acts intended to outrage in

if he is guilty of deliberate feelings

and malicious

of any class,

but a diff re

of opinion

or disagreement

in~erpretau~n

of Islam does n;:~o~t

;, ~~;

,;."..

~r';:i ..

I ,

.~,

~
j'

_a_~erZI~

_IoUSfeelings

of any class.

- p

In my humble / disa~reement

view the books

recovered

from the accused

persons

;.:0 are In

with a popular school of thought. The authors their views

of these books may be dec!ared . these as

"

be .,~ little bit rude in expressing .'.',," - ~-'C-,'"'"blasphemous. Likewise the accused are not intended to' commit

but cannot

persons as

who were promoting it appears

books and books

blasphemy

from Ihe facts that these

circumstances

of this case.

But for a moment if it is presumed

contain blasphemous

materia! then question arises that why no action has been houses while their names has

taken against the authors of these books or publisher and addresses not banned blasphemous are clearly mentioned these books

in these books? Why the Government has been blocked

while the "youtube"

for having

contents?

Lers have a look on some extracts of remaining books. (P5) ;1k.J?

-'(U(.,..v -,...;:.14,~.r:#

\:1~;?;;~

fi

fJ@~ 'Y. i;~ -~~

:I~' , D'oa ;:;1::ii'

~.

~,;.

u.~~Yt.P-fi;()f7-6'..li~---':;y'5.~kr
} k(L'-7-<i! ~;5;".J.,..

IPr~~~'\:1r

7~

v)I,.J--'/.--;J=-

...,i:f.A,!'" ";~U;~~1.1,,;,j)'iJ'-::--tI:!-VJ'y<::-,;}'--i'-"'?-I.f';::"~ r..f1f~-t,..~--'/.J/v~L\:1'tb..=...: t<::-;v<::-\:1i) ;;::..~ -*..:-=-:t~\:1r}ktif'l;V"';~d~f~~~,t..'f-;-.,:..~

k~

(P6)

YvL'f~{(t.C.e ..,~;/}fi~

Jy~~~

_:(tI(.,..v - :J-"

~"'II\:1H..:)J~(Ji~-f-'2IA

jj}--"~..1-l-

-..? 1,~.tt.dvm 3-4,.-!..~

v!f.,..;"-'<::-~ -.fJf0'

";,-'JyJ-=-!,,",,,,~Lr~~u; JY~~~I.'...?-v'v1JfJ'J;'L.,.. V~v!.t"...;:.,~c:)fL

trJ'1?L;;t-fiLI.L..r~-{

~~.,..,? ' ' '''< """'4'7 r;7'-;'

,
,

"'~"Jy",<,.,,,.,,,,,,y,,,,,,.,,,,;,,~;J"./J("'

J'v'~~~n'.:;--=---~~ J
~,..
,

'v1~1i"j:.!;)jjy--r

"
-

-7-/~..AUrI~tj)I(~-flJL/.LJn~Jt..'I:I'-~-=-~
,,

'..} r" J. J:....

\i

,I

-~ T;' 1)

",'k~~'8r-a

.'-:"

:tL 1",,;'( 6:c: Y-'~:~",/ c!T}]f

_:(tlJ'",:,,(J _:~

u.y"i/v

;2,~~

L!J'(..{vi':~{'::':=':~L~'~

v~t:lJIf'Jtvl
.Fc...cJ'JiiJ.oI,L,r

J-=-=-=ViAj;'J.-c

=-,f",:",Ir;;,/~-,?,,;:~

-~''f.,:~..f\ScJi}~?J,';i

(PS)

~.J"'J.Ii-;~...JIcr'i (.:-1

...ytlf'",:",Cf -,(t<...-

~'/(LVILY'...[
,A"Lv,f -=-:,c1V'H ~c ~~'.:[j; .\. :; -~; ; -'_

i
1,~~

{cJL,.j't,iJ:.rJt,;i;'1 JI.h"Jv}~":=J" ...;)'J' Jt,;i;... Lcll-Ac...

'i~.t
.
. . .

U ':
' , ,. ' '~'=-\ ,~
'2d

~vf-'-~!t)(lV!Jell~,J'J;I!(~{~" ,; ~I LIfJ ,'{"" JLhJ.,fJ;t=...

.,}t..,~,itl".r-';lt'J/"'t'C~\..::J.~Lu.'.J'.fr}<;;L.-!!hrclU..,,( JY.l""U;yJ"\..~.:..}i...( 5~~ ..J/", ..,. ...;.: d ~JI..' ,I'll vhV"!,f,,,IJy.l -'! ~,"'1597238 L J.ll. (I.! ~I J~- tfr-?/~,l,.12762

~\.ttML!'/.;~~PJ"-UAi;(I){L/'J~,,,,, "";/"'=-~ ~,i,..rl!ciLJ.I{ ~c\'&:J=r(l)-t J~..,. \f~f~,t..r4348

A,}\J""='tf!'h..lJ"".I~'1..12,96652

"~!v.:Li~;J~.... "';/"'-=-~ ~,I".'fl1ci LJ.l/ur.(l(IJ-riV\f..I;1I(JY.l~11.,.1296885J~.I"'\fJ}/~Jt..J3115 ~";'" fv1!v1<;,""}~""P.Jf ;/" =- ~ ~,L.r rl.l"&.} L J1i:- 1 ~1r.U". PJ!':,V!If,JJ",,,~'1..'496200 J~,,~V J,l/~'1..'48 OO

'vO'l"'''"''p . AJ'.,..'"' ~TED ~.

~;

,~1~

J.? -

/.t.<:JI,.14000 .J/.c 5'.t.<:p.~IJJrlT

"::.t.<:,I,.'J"it'!rL..,-I.t:,f.CO ,~~~1 rJy..t.<:}1,.'396000J ~., Vr-?

22

.
.J/c...\.<~ .t.<:}1,.1J"i,,,Lj.I >J0d"fl.-!'(V.~IJ;~-l(:b1I
1

"v.!~J)Jrfi

rJy..t.<:.'t,1195679 J~,,. Vp-Y.t.<:,1.14321 "V:.~lv!L if".~};J'J"?L.t.<:"" 8~~

-~l}"}J.;/d}.2{J"~'''~~f".~~dijLJ~,,;,' ..;.-Jy.}}~~~ L '.h'J;I ::.!J,.V-::J.~Lvq?406 Jlj'

9.,IJ'''? o./-/J"JL--6 c...~l.~Lvr,1fv.:JoJ.f":,,";-.c

~~".P-O""/OJ~9 O,eJ''>'.t'''dJJo.''''''''AfJ~ <~ ;,.JyJ".hjtf4J}DIN"J"~'I:Jv.-';:mfiU"~,~J

-o::-C1l,..-{J;')l:Jl1:
.

1 ~i

;:~~ ,~~ (P9J/-('," &! ~;t ~'J.:;1,.-,r

_:(t5'"",:",CJ _: if.-

~;~... ~~ 1;:,;,,188

'g~m

-'7.
56~~

Vic.} ..::.;Jo;.t,iJro./-o,po::-",:",CJJ..::.l'{J"~~ dO J'v.;;l}JlJV-::~Ju=...rLfJJ..::.';"L~';.(,Lv}r.Y.A -v! -;-..I<"dt.Zf...r'{J"/JJ"'I.-c...'''';'"JtJ''",:",'-J.s("vff..:.,oli'l

(P1 0) (Po,:Jl/.JlL7
'".:oJ'...;.-~;t

-:(tr",:,,"li -: ;;-'

J..lfi/L--........

.f..f..h (;~ 1.1-;-, t.J~J.t.<:}l,.'YdijrJL-/o:JI.c JYJJ-]l,~}l,.rJ' o,:J r }Av!..::.1

iJ' o,:Ji} ;;.t.<:JI".IJoi J}I

'i~;'.t/~JV' .

A1'';\,

TED

"''11 .' ~~~

;.

PB .-a~l?

23

.:
,

'.
(P11) rvr\:,'V.A.~ _,tr",:",cr

J"'J'$,""~)"r'1.<'r...1!
~CL.",,}Ji;-d?.,:..~l"..h1 'iJ~.;.}i"l;l? (vHJ1~":~('(~':'1')L~v!:! ",,,,,'J..;,,,J..;L~

-.if,,;
14~~

~~~.:-~(I,/'IJi~ "V"",.v/? /1,~St:l":

j,Jr,1~/"\1

..~i<.I;.fr;L~i4fLf"/.Ii~"J,.c..('

-v'J"
""';'.I...JI(LIA'" I;l? ,Jj?_-=--'~~V';'.I(V"?'::""""7.;~...fiJj(IYr
,

24 ~.v..&.... V~0:

f?J,

--:- t~JtJ'}';'.IJ.:"'((LVr\fL,(E
L~...,IV;U,f 15",;;I/J or L ";"

~~ t>r ..d~,~t.:~J
r.lJl7"";'.II{(LVI/~_-__-

(f:~
L'Yr'j

~~J,...JI~~~'{\:1~;JA7.fLJt~.I~~J~.c..~'rG-?
J'1,..J)I{'::'.I!h}~,.:..>' ""'.:-U~..;.'I..i-f..,~j"'-.IIr:Vdl!r..i -\.$ ",:",!('(~'::';'.IJlr i!.iJYr:Lf

!,,;:,::'i V-I;':,' ,~c.~..

J~

From the perusal having serious mentioned opponents

of these contents

it appears

that the authors (sehat)

of these

books are

disagreement

in the authenticity The authors

of'Riwayats',(narrations) books are vociferous .

in books

of Hadith.

or Ihese

of a popular school of thought who believes majority, but this lack of consensus

In books of Hadith and is canna! be termed as

in considerable, blasphemy. these

It is i,lecessary

to clarify that11lave

not quoted

the view point given in wI1ich show (s.a.w),

bookS rather

I have only quoted e>tpressed

the' paragraphs

or contents

the praIse and respect because supposed I have nothing

by the authors

about our Holy Prophet

to do with the view point given In these the correclness \ having relevant

books nor I am

to give my verdici about scholars

or falsity of this view point. know1edge of the field, This

This is the job of religious

court is concerned only with the question that whether the offe

e ,of blasphemy

~ hg~

has been committed or not. thus I have referred the stuff nly related to the ~.-,-Y"' '7~D qUestion in hand. In earlier times and prese~~fa Pe~Ple have ""m:~y ~ ..,:, ..,.- Go""'!').'

expressed

such

iike disagreement

with this majority

who

strictly

believes

H in books

01 Hadith, but they were never accused Ahmad ..

for the offence of blasphemy. devialed

Sir Syed

Khan, when wrote the "tafseer" of Holy Our'an, he was strongly opposed

from many set

beliefs and for this reason

by other religious groups of

that era bul he is still a respectad

name for Muslims. Allam.. Iqbal also said:

j,r';:-":"l'tJ"y':, !,/~~'if/'-..::..i?

In a T.V program

Dr, Khalid Zaheer

said aboul the authors and Allama Ibtisam

of books of Hadith Etahi Zaheer also

thai Uley are not "Masoom-anil-khala" agreed question ~., with. Both these was asked scholars

are respected sahib,

and admired

in our society. A Muslim and

from Ghamdl

a well known and unbiased

scholar, which also reflects the controversy its reply:

on this subject. Sec the question

~"tIJ.t.c~

" ii"lrrJ"'p!~; =,J.;&"~JL~W.!.o:-.::.!.JLI.J,(I~V'-.:;-c..~..? rJ/trJ~t {J'/J.,:..~.f"

"~IJ}I u.J~w:J\

iJI;

~<.
'"0"'

.,f.:;-i.fp{LV'~ {~;~'(.!.o:_f':;-2J.y

.!.o:-f .:;-JI:Jk<

-1f".::.."h~L':>-'J <!1C-:'''';l~L1;Jrj 1'~!f\fv.tf(#{':')-'l:Jrjt1f"JJJF

l:Jk<vM~...fi.:;-\f~!f~Ji~kPLrJ"'p! -v.t -=-t!fLv.Ju;"~-<f-!f\:Jk<LJ(;jdr ,:.,fj.s4r.:)T;'j.f.:;-=",~Jvfv1~ifl:J!fL.J(;iJ' iZ.v,<tJ1.J")iLrJ".P!~";"'w \

iJI; '" j~L$~ll"'if v~r~

_':"'Lf~~JC-.-L~/Zv'= -. ..

JzJff<--VLJ'"}J..1~,2.v'

-Ifv"", }<--I'//r-""
{.,:..LY'Lf,(t,I,II

.l:!'f-e- rJ>c?iJZ-fi;..}fv11~J;'rJ~{

L.f*J(f';'rc.f=,~J1.J(.oI"'::"';l~L.? .!.o:-f-s- ref v1 .;y\,;JI~UJ i-fif.:;- ~=,.i"';:- '::'~r'V''::~'~';''';LI>L,:.,!J.-" J(-~"';LL>Lj'z,<:,:.r~qI;,.~tI(F~~;J:r"G.-?/ -rfG.-J;iJ~A~..Y ~,-J;1h.I.;. J..J ~:,J'/,-.,:..LJ "L.f"
t, "

-~rt'='Vtfi~)JfV1A~~ltJJL;lS;LV'/

ATTF,;,'I'ED

i!'! ~r
.

--".

..
"

~
.

"

,'-0.

~rtrG'

25 But we cannot think even to blame these personalities for becoming disrespectful

\0 our beloved expressed

Prophet

(s.a,w).

Hence

I have no hesitation

to hold that views of opinion or hurting of different

in these

books are merely a disagreement

and difference

with a popular ideology of Islam, which has no nexus with blasphemy the religious inlerpretation books thatlhis "sala'eh" feelings of any other class. It is merely a matter

of Islam, for example,

as I understooo

from the reading of these of Arabic word a

school of thought is trying to explore the meanings

(o:,J...o) in e different way and took it as a vast term which describes

system for Is!amic society and not confined to "Namaz" only. This interpretation of word "sala'ah" has been misconstrued as denial of "Namaz". Accused are

Muslims, and as pure as any other .sect" or group of Muslims. therefore, they

r.'", ",.tl' J<.;: ~..

cannot be declared the majority class.

guilty of blasphemy

on the basis of difference

of opinion with

~-i~
!g~f$j'1
, ~<:;I~ 26. Now I come to the legal aspects of this case. First of all there is delay in is not box,

:e

lodging the F.I.R. I have discussac! above that date and lime of occurrence mentioned mentioned in the F.I.R but PW2 and PW3, while appearing thai occurrence took place on 26-05-2011 made by the witnesses In the witness

at about

11111..-30 P.M the case of

Although it is an improvement prosecution,

to strengtheo

but if for a moment this date and time is accepted

as correct then

there is a dela~ of at least four days in lodging the F.1.R. as the same was lodged on 30-05-2011_~hiS the only inference delay in lodging the.J>,.I.R. is not explained on the record and story

that can be drawn from this delay is that the prosecution

does not ring true and tho possibility of fabrication be ruted out as Reliance Is placed the F.I.R. was IodgEid after

and false implication cannot and deliberation. in PLD

consultation

on a judgment

"Ayub Masih YS tha State" reported Supreme

2002 SC 1048, wherein

\ it was' held by the honorable

Court about a case

delay of six hours only that, delay assumed great significance inasmuch

in lodging the F.I,R., in the present as the prosecution

story was doubtful from

the outse!. As I have discussed

earlier that basic ingredierf\.s~of 'b!a:Ph;MV~~,

i1m/!..
~{~.]

;J-SI~8~

17

'

'''",missing

from the very outset by making certain

and prosecution improvements

witnesses

26 have tried to cover up therefore. the

r"i~'i~'.!acuna

in their statements,

pr;~~cution evidence is remarkable in weakness only- As no date, time and / ':;'.J or any specific derogatory remark is mentioned in the F.I.R. and even the \ '-~J~ce same has not been found or discovered by the Investigating Officer during the investigation nor is any site plan prepared through improvements by the 1/0, while the witnesses in their statement, added

these ingredients

thus the prosecution nature.

version suffers from inherent improbabilities

and infirmities of a serious

26, case.

Next point Is the casual procedure The police have paid no heed

adopted

by the police to interrogate attention according

this

or special

to !he

I ~~i

. ;:: 7

':f

sensitivity of this case. This case has been investiga!ed officer of the rank of Sub.lnspector High Court, ignored. as reported and important in PLD 2002 instructions

in a routine matter by an instructions Lahore issued 587, have by the been

f;;:\ronorabla :'.-,,~;:c-ompletely

According

to these

honorable

High Court that whenever of

dir\'!cled the Inspector-General a case IS registered,

of Police of th~ province to ensure the same may be entrusted Investigating

';,<'1 such

for purposes

investigation

to a team of at least two Gazelled with IsJamic Jurisprudence

Officers preferably are not

those conversant conversant

and in case they themselves

with Islamic law, a scholar of known roputation

and Integrity may be an offence

added to the team and the team should th-en Investigate is committed committed, investigation

as to whether

or not and if the team co~ to the conClusion that the offence is \ . the' police may only then proceed further in the matter. As the .In this case was not conducted according to thess Instructions,

hence the same is not worthy of reliance.

27,

Learned

DDPP

assisted

by the counsel

for complainant

contend

that

althQugh the site plan of the place of occurren'ce

Investigating Officer but (AJ&K) this Is not fatal for the

has not been prepar

case

of ~~t'cJrio~~ ")A

upon

PLJ 2013

se

106 in which It was held;

~;-

rl5'".-'lJ

27 .Police did not mention occurrence place in site plan-Victim

categOfically sawmill sodomy and

doposed confined

that he was abducted them for whole night

and taker! to and act of

was repeated-where

in victim stated

categorically along

that he had pointed out sawmill and also visited same with police, thus it is established notice of police, police, story,This case law is not applicable above referred case the site to the preposition plan was in hand for the reason by the If0 same however

that victim had brought info

if there was any lapse on part of 8S fatal for prosecution

cannot

be treated

that in of

prepared

but place

occurrence

was not mentioned in present nor any

in spite of the fact that same was pointed out by case place even the sile plan is not prepared was pointed Prosecution share out by the by the

the victim whereas Investigating complainant that offence because accused preparing Officer

of occurrence

or his witnesses

under section

161 Cr.P.C. place.

contends this view

~:

WflS not commftted

at a specific

1 cannot

some Abdul

PWs have mentioned Rehman near

the place of occurrence Station "Waryam".

as the shop of Therefore by not

Railway

the site plan the 110 has committed story.

gross negligence

which caused

dent in the prosecution

28.

Complaln,ant

side has also relied"IJpon persons out

a number

of judgments

10 secure are more by the

the conviction important. honorable constituted cassettes derogatory derogatory

of accused

of which

two. judgments

First judgment

is 2005 YLR 985 in which it was

observed

Lahore High Court, Lahore that defiling words highlighted offence against

in F.I.R. had

accused under section 295-C, PPC. Five audio \ were also recovered and produced in the Court allegedly containing remarks remarks in the voice of accused: In present case, neither r:;r'.f~ any books

or defiling words are mentioned

in the F.t.R_~

';.i~.t~~~~: """."d ". '0'"'0'0' "oymh m"'.""' Heo'.thefuct. ~/ (, 1.3 .,., ~~;",)..g - 8

Z8 of the case (, in hand are entirely different from the above f('<ferred case, is 2001 MLD 1203 In which torn pieces from the house of the accused. I~ present Second were

"

judgment reoovered

01 the Holy Qur'an

case no such concrete

proof is available referred

nor, the witnesses

are confidence

inspiring. All other judgments to the murder cases hence,

by the complainant

side are pertaining

obviously not within the four comers

of the case in hand. However the law point

laid down in these judgments is that minor contradictions, - inconsistencies,

omissions prosecution entirety. or improvements on trivial matters without affecting the case of the in its

not to be made the basis by the court to reject the evidence held that court after going through

It was further

the entire evidence As 1 have discussed

must form ~n opinion aboul the credibility of the witness. above, ~'.#' . r-i~ I have carefully gone through the evidence that prosecution

oral as well as documentary has miserably failed to prove

and then came to the conclusion

,~~cted ~~~g; "",;:;i;;J <'':'-8

"

~
~

the anegations of blasphemy against the accused persons. Thus 1have already
upon this guide line provided by the honorable Supreme Court.

~129
-

Se fore

. h e JU d 9ment pa rfIng WI t th'

of this case.

If

. . ee I It necessa;y to discuss some

special circumstances towards case an important

But firstly I would like to draw the attention judgment delivered in a blasphemy

and comprehensive

"Muhammad

Mehboob

alias Booba vs the State" PLD 2002 Lahor~ 587,

which says: "Historically speak~!l the Blasphemy Law was enacted by

the Bri/ish to protect the religious sentiments minorities in the sub--conti/!ent

of the Muslim tha

before partition against of Pakistan

Hindu majority. After tha creation thamselves were in majority.

the Muslims

Section

295 of the Pakistan 295-A -~s

Penat Code was enacted w,:Js added introduced, to the PPC. while in1986,

in 1927. In 1980, section In 1982, section section 295-B

Initially life imprisonment

295-C;:. ~~,s ~ legi IflfBrtt .~ Ji... D i,1 B wes the $entenc~re1'_" clib d,

. .,;,.
;...e-

(.,"

8 -. I'J '~~'
~

however, penalty.

in 1991, this was replaced

with mandatory

2'J dealt!

/I appears stringent, registmtion thero

that has

ever

since

the

law

became

more of

been

an increas] cases.

in the numbers

of the blasphemy

A report from the daily 1948 end 1979, Three cases

"Dewn" of 111" July, 2002, says eleven cases of blasphemy between

that betwfffln were registered-

were reporled cases

tho period between

1979 and 1986. Forty four

were registered

1987 and 1999. In 2000 fifty

two cases were registered and strangely, 43 cases had been

registered registered against against the Muslims, while 9 cases w<ilre

non-Muslims.

The reporl furl/Jer says that

r~; ';' ' ';

<:.o:?'
.. < '

tNs shows that the law was being abused more blatantly by
the Muslims against the Muslims to settle such their scores. and

JI ~~
.
.

i: . ~i::'1
.-

Because
..

t/Je police

would readily register

a case

~~:~\~?\
.:

wilhout checking proper guidance

the veracity

of the facts and without taking religious

from any well known Bnd unbiased

scholar, would proceed

Assistant Sub-Inspector /0 adjudge

to enest

an accused.
was

That' an

or a "Moham," whether

academically

not competent constitute

or not the circumstances

act of blasphemyn.

30.

After repeated

incidents

in recent

past the subject their opinions readily

blasphemy

is under ps'rticularly

lot of foc:us "and people with respect

are expressing

on the subject be made

to the accusations

which can

and the sentence

which is prescribed for the offence. The concerned quarters also develop some . \ sentiments while dealing with such like cases, as righlly pointed out in an Article

published in daily "Dawn" of 26th July 2002. The

are being reproduced below in extenso:-

rem.:kS

t,,,
,.;.

T<ji!2D

O:~h~ L: .

pondenl . _

-8 ""13-.'"

3D "The frouble is that over the years bigotry and jnlo/erance

..:.-I, \

have made such deep inroads inlo our sociRty I/ID! all three parties in blasphemy
t/link fill'll they are

cycle complainanf,
doing the right

police officer, Judge and also earning they ere pressing

\:"

thing

\<~~:~;~1~~.-..
divine charges favour into Ihe bargain, when under this taw. This is zeal sanctioned by law end

clothod in self-righleousnes:(.

31.

No doubt that in recent intolerance, which

past our society resulted

has developed in violent

an altitude Case

of of of of

religious Rimsha Islamabad

ultimately

incidents

Masih is not much old. Rimsha being aet:lIsed of burning

Masih was arrested of Holy Qur'an. Rimsha

from suburban The senliments

pages

!'

religious groups

and society

were at peak against

Masih but she was

acquitted by the Court observing that it is a highly sensitive matter and one must .j . be extremely careful whiie leveling such charges against anyone. Fake ~.' '-~\\egations should not be leveled against any Muslim or non-Muslim.

32,

Then

is the

case

of

Governor

Punjab

Salman

Tasoor

who

was

assassinated of blasphemy. general

on 41h January

2011, by his own security guard on the accusaUon

Later on the security

public , and soon became

a hero but after trial he was sentenced

by the Court at law.

guard

succeeded

to win the sympathy

of

to death

33.
since

There October

is another 2012.

case

of Pastor

Karma Patras,

a resident with section

of Sangla

Hill

He was ar;fI;!sted and charged

295-A of the

Pakistan Penal Code. People gathered in the area in rage and perhaps the mob was about to take the taw in hands but meanwhile Pastor Karma was ~rT~ted by t,he police- lateran he was acquitted by the Court ~htn ';;c;;~er~~e;Lh~ ..i \j ~ ~ .. "", lJ'

~/u

!.

31 .mistake. According to a media report he was fourth Christian that year, who was
-

released

from the charges

of blasphemy.

\'
34. According to a media report, another blasphemy case that triggered a mob l!l

of. around lahore

2000 Muslims run rtot the Joseph of disgrace and remorse

Colony of Christian

oommunity

as a cause

for the country and its leadership. two drunken, Muslim and Christian into a dishonorable

The incident took place when a row between friends, set off the blasphemy allegations

that later turned

event when the frenzied mob took the law in its hands on bLasphemy ae<;usation and torched 150 houses of Christians in tl1e area.

~ i~~

In all above referred inl:idents the verdict of the courts was in conflict with ,,"'... 35. !~ :,.\::.E! the pubLic sentiment. It shows that emotions of our general public have overcome . ;;:,~ f>~~heir intellect somewhere. Needless to mention that in civilized socieiies . U':,',~ -,:,~verybody has to bow down before the I:ourt of law. But In our society people are ".> mUl:h aggressive and ready to take the law in their own hands in SUl:h like cases .~-;i-d ~.., not because of disregard towards the I:ourts but out of their love for the Holy Prophet (s.a.w). Jhang district is not an exception prevailing area due to serious to it. This district is also known conflict among some religious I have

for the tension groups..This

case,perhaps,

added

a fuel to fire and the area got tensed.

also felt the heat. Public at large seems with the result t.f this case. Therefore a Judge is n.ot supposed reasoning because Judge

it would be appropriate His decisions

to be deeply and emotionaLly attached to explain here that must be based on

to foflow the emotions. A Judge

rather than the sentlmentshe is not only the Judge

must not be religiously he belongs;

biased .

for the community

but he is a A with

for each caste

and creed, either Muslim, non-Muslim

or a disbeliever.

Judge is not duty bound to please the majority; he is duty b Gnd to dispense justice. matters; He must not be fond of earning the claps nor

uided by extraneous and possess a strong

he must steer himself away from. any kind of bia

~M

...!~ ::'.:(f,-';;::;.b~'''~

.1;';"

32 sense of justice. A Judge is not bound to give populm decisions, he is expected and bOld

to deliver tho fair and impmlial judgments.

A Judge must be fealless

JJJI,;~I..:J' xv:.~/-" -:-,~":"u;.fi"},;-4::;-.l.?

.st",i'v"('.fl'
-:-d'...:,.1.#YJfi~r;.jk..?

J..;f;,"-/-"-:-..:.:~'ir/-" --:-J2"-/-"..d'",,ir/-" ~.;-Jl!VJfA.:YIY!";f.ld\,o-: (LI.liJf(iw.:,J

~-

('.soJ &';...s /("

~
Piokiog"p the th,eed f'O:'~:::'~:~'-:k.O
in thiscase which involves death sentence who fafted to taJ\e necessary

11~6 t.r;~=

, wO"'d "y thot

was entrusted to an care and cauti~n

~,:gi4nveStigation

~~~~

officer of the rank of Sub"lnspector according

to the sensitivity of the case. He did not prepare submitted their written statements

the site plan in spite of to him mentioning scholar the

the fact that witnesses place of occurrence. as advised

He also failed to consult by the honorable

any Islamic

of known

credentials

High Court in above

referred judgment or Provincial that

PLD 2002 Lahore Government sanction objection. mark. evidence not

587. He also failed to obtain sanction

of Central

as envisaged under sectjpn 196 of Cr.P,C. \ when' challan was returned by the prosecution Hlilnce the standard of Investigation that case in this case

He obtaine,d branch

with this

was not up to the

I have

also

observed

of prosecution

is per sa infirm and Witnesses whIch are are

produced

before the Court isremarkable and h~ve made certain

in weakness. improvements

confidence

inspiring

afterthought. was lodged

Delay in lodging the F.I-R. is not explained after They due are deliberations stating and legal advice. have

which m.eans \ e same The accuse ~ct'f~ are nol

confessing.

that they

profdCndT'r;r. t,'

.ih~~ H~ly

~ Of.' :~~ ' .

M-

~~~,:oPhet

(s,a,w). I am also not oblivious of the fact that the standard

33 of proor for

5uch an accusation is mi55ing in thi5 case. After going through the .' matenal, placed on record and scanning the whole evidence brought before the . feel that this Is a case ridden with doubts. I. therefore, acquit all the - ,~.~6~~1 . accused persons of the charge and order that they be released forthwith if not
{

-'-: establishing (

required in any other case. after its due completion.

File of this case be consigned

to the record room

37.

In the end borrowing the words from PLD 2002 lahore

587 I pray that may

we all see the righteous

path and tread on it and the best roadmap for us is the (s.a.w). I also pray that God may give us wisdom to what is ordained before and to take care in fut~re by Otherwise,

Sunnah of our Holy Prophet Under5tand consulting and appreciate religious scholars

making such like accusations

mischief will always overwhelm to defeat through knowledge P.B.U.H.

and Satan will take us astray and whom we have and by following the traditions of ou~ Holy Prophet

Ann'ounced: 24~O8-2013.

Mehmood Haroon Khan Addl: Sessions Judge. Shorkot.

Ir

Dated:24-08-2013

Addl;

'
_

/ ':;2~ 2;zg
h
,

~".""

,. ,_..

'.
_

,\h:':':
" '

~:"/",.
_

, ,,

~'

~'"

~-,tJ

IU.J".~f.p~-L? 75'",.66 L . I:,..~ ,.- e-& , .,... ). ,'I 1.3