IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: MR. JUSTICE MIAN SAQIB NISAR, HCJ 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL 
 
 
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.39-L OF 2015 
(Against the judgment dated 16.10.2014 of 
the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in 
Crl.A.No.2509/2010 and M.R.No.614/2010) 
 
 
Mst. Asia Bibi 
 
…Appellant(s) 
VERSUS 
The State etc. 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the appellant(s): 
Mr. Saif-ul-Malook, ASC 
 
 
For the State: 
Mr. Zubair Ahmed Farooq, Addl.P.G. 
 
 
For the complainant: 
Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Chaudhry, ASC 
 
 
Date of hearing: 
8.10.2018 
 
JUDGMENT 
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, CJ. – 
 
 
 
“I bear witness that there is no God worthy to be 
worshiped but Allah, the One alone, without 
partner, and I bear witness that Muhammad (ﷺ) 
is his Servant and Messenger” 
 
 
 
The Qalimah-e-Shahadat as shown above, is deemed to be 
the essence of Islam and the recitation of which makes us Muslims, is 
self explanatory and testifies that there is no God but Allah and our 
Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) is the Last Messenger of Allah. It is our 
Criminal Appeal No.39-L of 2015 
-: 2 :-
declaration of faith in the unseen and belief, to bow down our heads 
before our Lord Allah, admitting the fact that there is none like Him.  
2. 
 
The sanctity of our Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) is further 
evident from the Qalimah-e-Shahadat, as His name is being read 
together with Allah, thus ultimate care and great importance should be 
drawn while taking this Holy name. Tolerance is the basic principle of 
Islam. It is a religious and a moral duty and further relates to the dignity 
of human beings, the equality amongst all creations of Allah and also to 
the fundamental freedom of thought, conscience and belief. It does not 
mean compromise, lack of principles or lack of seriousness about one’s 
principles rather it means accepting the fact that human beings, 
naturally distinct in their appearance, situation, speech, behavior, and 
values, have the right to live in peace and to be as they are. Islam may 
tolerate anything but it teaches zero tolerance for injustice, oppression, 
and violation of the rights of other human beings the Quran speaks 
about, from the very beginning. Freedom of religion has been guaranteed 
by Islam. It prohibits coercion in matters of faith and belief.  
“There should be no compulsion in religion. Surely, the right way 
has become distinct from error.”  [Al-Baqara (2:256)]  
 
 
Thus, as Muslims we are bound by this authoritative order and should 
act within the purview of such.  
 
 
 
3. 
 
As it is enunciated in the above verse of Allama Muhammad 
Iqbal, a well renowned activist and the ‘Spiritual Father of Pakistan’, 
from his poem Jawab-e-Shikwa, the veneration and adulation of Our 
Criminal Appeal No.39-L of 2015 
-: 3 :-
Beloved Holy Prophet (ﷺ) is evident and is reckoned as the 
foundational principle on which the religion - Islam is based. There is no 
denial whatsoever of the fact that Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) holds the 
utmost respect, prestige and dignity amongst the Muslim Ummah and 
possesses the highest rank and status compared to all Creatures shaped 
by Allah Almighty, even the Messengers of Allah who came before him. 
His outstanding demonstration of extremely lofty moral values and 
personal highest exemplary role model bearing an overwhelming effect on 
the course of history, as acknowledged by foe and friend alike, rightly 
deserve and demand utmost respect and honour. His teachings have 
undoubtedly brought about the greatest effect in changing the minds, 
deeds and conducts of individuals and nations. His exceptional 
achievements have surpassed all predecessors in all respects.  
4. 
 
The unlimited and unparalleled love with Allah’s Messenger 
(ﷺ), is an integral part of a Muslim’s faith.  In this connection the 
following Verses and Ahadith are very clear: -  
“Say, [O Muhammad], “If your fathers, your sons, your 
brothers, your wives, your relatives, wealth which you have 
obtained, commerce wherein you fear decline, and 
dwellings with which you are pleased are more beloved to 
you than Allah and His Messenger and jihad in His cause, 
then wait until Allah executes His command. And Allah 
does not guide the defiantly disobedient people”.” [At-
Towbah (9:24)] 
By the star 
when it descends, Your companion 
[Muhammad] has not strayed, nor has he erred, Nor does 
he speak from [his own] inclination. It is not but a 
revelation revealed, [An-Najm (53:1-4)]  
Narrated Abu Hurairah (R.A): “Allah’s Apostle (ﷺ) 
said, “By Him in Whose Hands my life is, none of you will 
Criminal Appeal No.39-L of 2015 
-: 4 :-
have faith till he loves me more than his father and his 
children.” 
Narrated Anas (RA): The Prophet (ﷺ) said “None of 
you will have faith till he loves me more than his father, his 
children and all mankind”. 
 
5. 
 
This love has to manifest itself in complete unconditional 
obedience to follow the footsteps of the Holy Prophet (ﷺ) as is 
manifested from the following Verses:  
“Say, [O Muhammad], “If you should love Allah, then follow 
me, [so] Allah will love you and forgive you your sins. And 
Allah is Forgiving and Merciful”.” [Ali’Imran (3:31)] 
But no, by your Lord, they will not [truly] believe until they 
make you, [O Muhammad], judge concerning that over which 
they dispute among themselves and then find within themselves 
no discomfort from what you have judged and submit in [full, 
willing] submission. [An-Nisa (4:65)].  
It is not for a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah 
and His Messenger have decided a matter, that they should 
[thereafter] have any choice about their affair. And whoever 
disobeys Allah and His Messenger has certainly strayed into 
clear error. [Al-Ahzab (33:36)] 
6. 
 
The commendable charisma and personality of our Holy 
Prophet (ﷺ) serves as a role model for all Muslims, in clear terms, as 
mentioned in the following Verses:  
 
“Certainly, you have in Allah’s Messenger an excellent 
example (role-model) to follow, for whoever looks forward to 
Allah and the last day and remembers Allah abundantly.” [Al-
Ahzab (33:21)] 
And when you, [O Muhammad], do not bring them a sign, they 
say, "Why have you not contrived it?" Say, "I only follow what 
is revealed to me from my Lord. This [Qur'an] is enlightenment 
Criminal Appeal No.39-L of 2015 
-: 5 :-
from your Lord and guidance and mercy for a people who 
believe." [Al-A’raf (7:203)]. 
And indeed, for you is a reward uninterrupted. And indeed, you 
are of a great moral character. [Al-Qalam (68:3-4)] 
And We have not sent you, [O Muhammad], except as a mercy 
to the worlds. [Al-Anbya (21:107)]  
 
7. 
     The Holy Qur’an has unequivocally described the glorification 
and exaltation of Holy Prophet (ﷺ) and has ordered Muslims to strictly 
observe maximum respect and be extremely careful in this regard, to the 
extent of using most appropriate words and even lowering their voices, 
failing to do will render all their good deeds in vain, as mentioned in the 
following Verse. 
Among the Jews are those who distort words from their 
[proper] usages and say, "We hear and disobey" and "Hear 
but be not heard" and "Ra'ina" (ﺎﻨﻋار) twisting their tongues 
and defaming the religion. And if they had said [instead], 
"We hear and obey" and "Wait for us [to understand]," it 
would have been better for them and more suitable. But Allah 
has cursed them for their disbelief, so they believe not, except 
for a few. [An-Nisa (4:46)] 
 
 “O ye who believe! raise not your voices above the voice of 
the Prophet (ﷺ), nor shout when speaking to him as you 
shout one to another, lest your deeds be rendered vain while 
you perceive not.” [Al-Hujurat (4:46)] 
Ibn Tamiyyah, while explaining this verse writes, “In this Verse the 
believers have been prohibited from raising their voices over the voice of 
the Prophet (ﷺ) so that their loud voice before the Prophet (ﷺ) may 
render their good deeds as vain while they will not understand it”.  
 
Allah Almighty declared the enemy of Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) as 
the enemy of Allah and ordained that, in this temporary world and also 
in the eternal life hereinafter, there is a punishment of highest degree for 
Criminal Appeal No.39-L of 2015 
-: 6 :-
those who disbelieves or disrespects him. For reference, some of the 
Verses are mentioned hereinbelow:  
“Ask forgiveness for them, [O Muhammad], or do not ask 
forgiveness for them. If you should ask forgiveness for them 
seventy times - never will Allah forgive them. That is because 
they disbelieved in Allah and His Messenger, and Allah does 
not guide the defiantly disobedient people”. [At-Tawbah 
(9:80)] 
“And thus, have We made for every prophet an enemy from 
among the criminals. But sufficient is your Lord as a guide 
and a helper”. [Al-Furqan (25:31)] 
“Have you not considered those who were forbidden from 
private conversation, then they return to that which they were 
forbidden and converse among themselves about sin and 
aggression and disobedience to the Messenger? And when 
they come to you, they greet you with that [word] by which 
Allah does not greet you and say among themselves, "Why 
does Allah not punish us for what we say?" Sufficient for them 
is Hell, which they will [enter to] burn, and wretched is the 
destination.” [Al-Mujadila (58:8)] 
“May the hands of Abu Lahab be ruined, and ruined is he. His 
wealth will not avail him or that which he gained. He will 
[enter to] burn in a Fire of [blazing] flame. And his wife [as 
well] - the carrier of firewood. Around her neck is a rope of 
[twisted] fiber.” [Al-Masad (111:1-5)] 
“How wretched is that for which they sold themselves - that 
they would disbelieve in what Allah has revealed through 
[their] outrage that Allah would send down His favor upon 
whom He wills from among His servants. So, they returned 
having [earned] wrath upon wrath. And for the disbelievers is 
a humiliating punishment.” [Al-Baqarah (2:90)] 
“Indeed, those who disbelieve in Allah and His messengers 
and wish to discriminate between Allah and His messengers 
and say, "We believe in some and disbelieve in others," and 
wish to adopt a way in between - Those are the disbelievers, 
Criminal Appeal No.39-L of 2015 
-: 7 :-
truly. And We have prepared for the disbelievers a humiliating 
punishment.” [An-Nisa (4:150-151)] 
“Lo! Those who malign Allah and his Messenger, Allah hath 
cursed them in the world and the Hereafter, and hath 
prepared for them the doom of the disdained”. [Al-Ahzab 
(33:57)] 
 
Explaining this Verse Allama Qurtubi writes: 
“Everything which becomes a means of malignity (
 
 یذا) of the 
Holy Prophet (ﷺ) whether by quoting words bearing 
different meanings or similar actions comes under his 
malignity. (نآﺮﻘﻟا مﺎﮑﺣﻻا ﻊﻣﺎﺠﻟا) Quran, Vol.XIV, page 238).” 
Allama Ismail Haqqi while explaining this Verse writes: 
“…..the malignity of Allah and his Prophet (ﷺ) is meant 
only the malignity of the Prophet (ﷺ) in fact, and mention 
of Allah (SWT) is only for glorification and exaltation to 
disclose that the malignity of the Prophet (ﷺ) is indeed the 
malignity of Allah (SWT).” 
The other Verses read as follow: - 
“And of them are those who vex the Prophet (ﷺ) and say: 
He is only a hearer. Say: A hearer of good for your, who 
believeth in Allah (SWT) and is true to the believers, and a 
mercy for such of you as believe. Those who vex the 
Messenger of Allah, for them there is a painful doom.”  
“They swear by Allah to you (Muslims) to please you, but 
Allah, with His Messenger, hath more right that they should 
please him if they are believers.” [Al-Tawbah (9:61-62)]. 
Ibn Taimiyyah while explaining these Verses writes: “Verse No. 62 
denotes that the malignity of the Prophet (ﷺ) is the opposition of Allah 
and His Prophet”. (لﻮﻠﺴﻤﻟا مرﺎﺼﻟا, pages 20, 21).  
These Verses are linked with Verse 20 of Sura Al-Mujadila which is as 
under: - 
Criminal Appeal No.39-L of 2015 
-: 8 :-
“Lo! those who oppose Allah and His messenger, they will be 
among the lowest.” [Al-Mujadila (58:20)].  
Thus, all of these Verses of the Holy Qur’an, mention in clear terms, that 
these abusers and contemners of the Prophet are actually the opponents 
of Allah and His Prophet (ﷺ) about whom the Qur’an says: 
“When thy Lord inspired the angels, (saying) I am with you. 
So, make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into 
the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite their necks and 
smite of them each finger.” [Al-Anfal (8:12)] 
“That is because they opposed Allah and His messenger. 
Whoso Opposeth Allah and His messenger, (for him) Lo! 
Allah is severe in punishment.” [Al-Anfal (8:13)] 
“And if Allah had not decreed migration for them. He verily 
would have punished them in this world, and theirs in the 
Hereafter is the punishment of the Fire.” [Al-Hashar (59:3)] 
“That is because they were opposed to Allah and His 
messenger; and whoso is opposed to Allah (for him) verily 
Allah is stern in reprisal.” [Al-Hashar (59:4)]  
 
8. 
 
These Verses clearly prescribe the severe punishment of 
death for the opponents of Allah and his Prophet (ﷺ), who include 
contemners of the Prophet (ﷺ). Thus, no one by words - either spoken 
or written - directly or indirectly, is allowed to disobey, disregard and 
rebel against the Holy name of Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) and if found 
guilty of disrespecting the name they are liable to be punished. History 
has remained a witness itself to the incidents pertaining to any attempts 
of defiance made in the name of our Beloved Holy Prophet (ﷺ). The 
Muslim communities that exist around the globe have always acted 
against any such act of contempt and have openly reacted to such, 
followed by serious repercussions. That is why anything which in any 
Criminal Appeal No.39-L of 2015 
-: 9 :-
way attacks any aspect of his sacred life, infuriates Muslims to an 
intolerable limit, resulting in extremely serious law and order situation, 
with grievous, disastrous consequences. That is why Section 295-C had 
to be enacted to bring such contemners before the Court of Law.  
9. 
 
Reference may be made to an incident which occurred in 
1923, when one said person, Rajpal, published a pamphlet/book 
containing derogatory remarks against Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ). A 
movement was launched by the Muslims of the sub-continent demanding 
a ban on the book. As a result, in 1927 the British Government was 
forced to enact a law prohibiting insults aimed at founders and leaders of 
religious communities, as such, section 295-A was inserted in the 
Pakistan Penal Code in the year 1927. However, the Muslims were not 
satisfied with it and one Ghazi Ilm-ud-Din Shaheed succeeded in 
murdering Rajpal. After the trial, Ilm-ud-Din was convicted and was 
given death penalty. He is considered by the Muslims to be a great lover 
of the Prophet (PBUH).  
10. 
 
After the independence, to ensure that no attempt could be 
made to defy the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ), a new provision was 
introduced in Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (PPC), which reads as under: -   
“295-C. Use of derogatory remarks, etc., in respect of the 
Holy Prophet: Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or 
by visible representation or by any imputation, innuendo, or 
insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of 
the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) shall be 
punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also 
be liable to fine.” 
As per this provision, the act of blasphemy was made culpable and the 
sentence provided was either death or imprisonment for life along with a 
Criminal Appeal No.39-L of 2015 
-: 10 :-
fine. The validity of this provision was considered by the Federal Shariat 
Court in the case titled as Muhammad Ismail Qureshi Vs. Pakistan 
through Secretary, Law and Parliamentary Affairs (PLD 1991 FSC 10) 
wherein the Court ruled that Section 295-C of PPC was repugnant to the 
fundamental principles of Islam to the extent that it provided for the 
punishment of life imprisonment which acted as an alternative to a death 
sentence. It was held that the penalty for contempt of the Holy Prophet 
(ﷺ) is death. It was further held that if the President of the Islamic 
Republic of Pakistan did not take any action to amend the law before 30th 
April, 1991, then Section 295-C would stand amended by the said ruling. 
An appeal was filed before the Shariat Appellate Bench of this Court, 
which was dismissed for want of prosecution.  
11. 
 
As mentioned above, Muslims all over the world have 
immense love, admiration and affection for Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) 
more than their own lives or the lives of their parents and children. No 
one could be allowed to defy the name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad 
(ﷺ) nor could a person guilty of disrespecting the Holy Prophet (ﷺ) be 
let off scot-free. Even the Government has always made efforts at the 
national and international level to eliminate instances of blasphemy of 
the Holy Prophet (ﷺ). For instance, in March 2009, our government 
presented a resolution to the United Nations Human Rights Council in 
Geneva condemning “defamation of religion” as a human rights violation, 
which called upon the world to formulate laws against the defamation of 
religion. The resolution was adopted on 26.3.2009 despite wide concerns 
that it could be used to justify restrictions on free speech in Muslim 
countries. The efforts of our government succeeded in imposing global 
limitations against any attempt to defy a religion or belief, on the basis of 
Criminal Appeal No.39-L of 2015 
-: 11 :-
freedom of expression. The social media website “Facebook” was blocked 
as it promoted and hosted a page called as “Everybody draw Muhammad 
Day”. This was another attempt made by the authorities to stop these 
malicious and vexatious attempts to sabotage the Holy name. The ban 
was lifted when Facebook prevented access to the said page. In June 
2010, seventeen websites were banned for hosting content which were 
offensive and demeaning to Muslims. Since then the authorities have 
been monitoring the content of various websites including Google, Yahoo, 
YouTube, Amazon, MSN, Hotmail and Bing and all social media websites 
which are used globally and have a direct impact on people.  
12. 
 
As noted above, no one could be allowed to defy the name of 
the Holy Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) and be left unpunished, but there is 
another aspect of the matter; sometimes, to fulfill nefarious designs the 
law is misused by individuals leveling false allegations of blasphemy. 
Stately, since 1990, 62 people have been murdered as a result of 
blasphemy allegations, even before their trial could be conducted in 
accordance with law. Even prominent figures, who stressed the fact that 
the blasphemy laws have been misused by some individuals, met with 
serious repercussions. A latest example of misuse of this law was the 
murder of Mashal Khan, a student of Abdul Wali Khan University, 
Mardan, who in April 2017 was killed by a mob in the premises of the 
university merely due to an allegation that he posted blasphemous 
content online.  
13. 
 
Reference may also be made to the case of one Ayub Masih, 
who was accused of blasphemy by his neighbour Muhammad Akram. 
The alleged occurrence took place on 14th October 1996, the accused was 
arrested, but despite the arrest, houses of Christians were set ablaze and 
Criminal Appeal No.39-L of 2015 
-: 12 :-
the entire Christian population of the village (fourteen families) were 
forced to leave the village. Ayub was shot and injured in the Sessions 
Court and was also further attacked in jail. After the trial was concluded, 
Ayub was convicted and sentenced to death, which was upheld by the 
High Court. However, in an appeal before this Court, it was observed that 
the complainant wanted to grab the plot on which Ayub Masih and his 
father were residing and after implicating him in the said case, he 
managed to grab the seven-marla plot. The appeal was accepted by this 
Court and the conviction was set aside.    
14. 
 
At this jucture, it is to be noted that Islam as stipulated in 
Holy Book “Quran” teaches us, amongst many other virtues, to live in 
peace and harmony, with compassion and love to our other fellow human 
beings. It is the masterpiece of guidance and knowledge bestowed upon 
us by the Allah Almighty, which cannot be modified in any way 
whatsoever, thus being the final book. The commandments of Allah are 
entrenched in the Quran which provides for a complete way of life and 
teaches us the concept of tolerance. It is however to be kept in mind that 
unless proven guilty, through a fair trial, as provided for in the 
Constitution and the law, every person is considered innocent, 
irrespective of their creed, caste and colour. The Holy Quran has 
mentioned in clear terms that:- 
“….. he who slays a soul unless it be (in punishment) for 
murder or for spreading mischief on earth shall be as if he 
had slain all mankind; and he who saves a life shall be as if 
he had given life to all mankind. ……”. [Al-Ma’idah 
(5:32)] 
Moreover, it is also pertinent to mention that awarding a sentence is the 
duty of the State and no one else has the authority to take law into his 
hands and punish anyone on his own. After allegations regarding 
Criminal Appeal No.39-L of 2015 
-: 13 :-
contempt etc., a fair opportunity for offering defence before a competent 
court, has to be provided so that proper justice is done. This will 
eliminate the chances of false allegations prompted by ulterior motives, 
as has been done in several cases in the past.  
15. 
 
It is worth mentioning that it is a matter of great pride and 
satisfaction that we are governed by a written Constitution and Statutory 
Laws. The Constitution, as per Article 4 thereof mandates that “to enjoy 
the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with the law is an 
inalienable right of every citizen, wherever he may be, and of every other 
person for the time being within Pakistan. In particular (a) no action 
detrimental to the life, liberty, body, reputation or property of any person 
shall be taken except in accordance with law (b) no person shall be 
prevented from or be hindered in doing that which is not prohibited by 
law; and no person shall be compelled to do that which the law does not 
require him to do”.  As per Article 37 of the Constitution, it is the duty of 
the State to ensure that justice is dispensed inexpensively and 
expeditiously to the People of Pakistan. As per Article 175(2) of the 
Constitution, “no court shall have any jurisdiction save as is or may be 
conferred on it by the Constitution or by or under any law”. Section 28 
of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (Cr.P.C.) provides that subject to 
the other provisions of the said Code, any offence under the Pakistan 
Penal Code may be tried (a) by the High Court, or (b) by the Court of 
Sessions, or (c) by any other Court by which such offence is shown in the 
eighth column of the Second Schedule to be triable. Thus, under the 
authority and command of the Constitution and the Law, it is the duty of 
the State to ensure that no incident of blasphemy shall take place in the 
country. In case of the commission of such crime, only the State has the 
authority to bring the machinery of law into operation, bringing the 
Criminal Appeal No.39-L of 2015 
-: 14 :-
accused before a Court of competent jurisdiction for trial in accordance 
with law. However, it is not for the individuals, or a gathering (mob), to 
decide as to whether any act falling within the purview of Section 295-C 
has been committed or not, because as stated earlier, it is the mandate 
of the Court to make such decision after conducting a fully qualified trial 
and on the basis of credible evidence brought before it. No such parallel 
authority could in any circumstances be bestowed upon any individual 
or a group of persons. For this reason, this Court has held that the 
“Commission of blasphemy is abhorrent and immoral besides being a 
manifestation of intolerance but at the same time a false allegation 
regarding commission of such an offence is equally detestable besides 
being culpable. If our religion of Islam comes down heavily upon 
commission of blasphemy then Islam is also very tough against those who 
level false allegations of a crime. It is, therefore, for the State of the Islamic 
Republic of Pakistan to ensure that no innocent person is compelled or 
constrained to face an investigation or a trial on the basis of false or 
trumped up allegations regarding commission of such an offence.” [see: 
Malik Muhammad Mumtaz Qadri Vs. the State (PLD 2016 SC 17)]    
16. 
 
In this backdrop, we shall now consider the facts of the 
instant case. This matter has genesis in a criminal case, which has 
emanated from FIR No.326 dated 19.06.2009 under Section 295-C 
P.P.C., registered at Police Station Sadar Nankana Sahib, by one Qari 
Muhammad Salaam (PW.1) stating therein that on 14.6.2009, the 
appellant Mst. Asia Bibi, belonging to Christian community of the village, 
along with other Muslim ladies, including Mafia Bibi (PW.2), Asma Bibi 
(PW.3) 
and 
Yasmin 
Bibi 
(given 
up 
PW), 
was 
plucking 
Falsa 
(Grewia/purple berry), in the field belonging to one Muhammad Idrees 
(CW.1) where the appellant uttered derogatory remarks against the Holy 
Criminal Appeal No.39-L of 2015 
-: 15 :-
Prophet Hazrat Muhammad (ﷺ). The said PWs narrated the matter to 
the complainant/Qari Muhammad Salaam, who on 19.6.2009, called the 
appellant in a public meeting and inquired about the occurrence, where 
the appellant confessed her guilt. Thereafter, Qari Muhammad Salaam 
lodged the complaint before police and consequently the FIR was 
registered.  
17. 
 
Before proceeding further, it may be pertinent to signify that 
the alleged incident, being a heinous crime and involving religious 
sentiments, attracted the media, both electronic and print, and generated 
both grief and rage in the public at large.  
18. 
 
On account of the investigation, the appellant was indicted 
in the matter; she was arrested and challaned by the police and charged 
by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nankana Sahib with the offence 
under Section 295-C of PPC.  
19.   
During the course of the trial the prosecution examined as 
many 
as 
seven 
witnesses, 
including 
Qari 
Muhammad 
Salaam/complainant (PW.1), two eye witnesses of the occurrence i.e. 
Mafia Bibi (PW.2) and Asma Bibi (PW.3), a witness of extra judicial 
confession Muhammad Afzal (PW.4) and three police witnesses (PW.5 to 
7). Whereas, (PW’s) Yasmin Bibi and Mukhtar Ahmad were given up and 
the prosecution evidence was closed. However, Muhammad Idrees, the 
owner of the fields was examined as Court witness (CW-l).  
20. 
 
The appellant had her statement recorded under Section 342 
Cr.P.C. wherein she categorically denied the allegations made against 
her. Further to that, it was also stated that her involvement in this case 
is being maliciously framed by the eye witnesses due to a quarrel arising 
out of the fetching of water which escalated the situation and led to the 
Criminal Appeal No.39-L of 2015 
-: 16 :-
exchange of heated words between her and the said ladies. However, 
neither the appellant appeared as her own witness to record statement 
on oath under Section 340 (2) Cr.P.C. nor did she opt to lead any defence 
evidence.  
21. 
 
After the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide 
impugned judgment dated 08.11.2010, convicted the appellant under 
Section 295-C and sentenced her to death with a fine of Rs.100,000/- 
and in default whereof, to further undergo six months’ SI. The Capital 
Sentence Reference No.614 of 2010 (wrongly mentioned as Murder 
Reference) was forwarded under Section 374 Cr.P.C. by the trial Court to 
the learned High Court for confirmation or otherwise of the sentence of 
death, whereas, the appellant challenged her conviction/sentence 
through Criminal Appeal No.2509 of 2010.  
22. 
 
The learned High Court heard the appeal as well as the 
reference and vide the impugned judgment, dismissed the appeal of the 
appellant and answered the Reference in the affirmative, consequently 
the death sentence awarded to the appellant Mst. Asia Bibi was 
confirmed. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal with the 
leave of the Court granted vide order dated 22.7.2015, inter alia, to 
consider and appreciate the evidence on the record.  
23. 
 
At the outset it was pointed out by the learned counsel for 
the complainant that at the time the instant appeal is barred by 11 days, 
as such, liable to be dismissed on this score alone. In this regard it is to 
be noted that when the instant appeal (petition) was filed, the appellant 
was in jail and confined to death cell. In the instant case, as the 
appellant has been sentenced to death, we deem it appropriate to 
reappraise the evidence to ensure that the conviction and sentence 
recorded against her had been validly recorded. Besides, the matter of 
Criminal Appeal No.39-L of 2015 
-: 17 :-
life and death of a lady is involved, therefore, the appeal should not be 
dismissed on mere technicalities. In this view of the matter, the delay in 
the filing of the appeal is condoned.  
24. 
 
It is the case of the appellant that on the fateful day an 
altercation took place between the appellant and both the eye witnesses, 
namely Mafia Bibi (PW.2) and Asma Bibi (PW.3) in the vicinity of the field 
owned by Muhammad Idrees (CW.1), over the fetching of water which 
was offered by the appellant. However, the offer was refused, and it was 
said that because she is a Christian they would never take water from 
her hand. Over this, a heated argument took place with the exchange of 
some bitter words between them and as a result of this disagreement, 
those ladies, in connivance with the complainant, Qari Muhammad 
Salaam, ignited the situation and wrongly implicated her (the appellant) 
in this case. Furthermore, the alleged extra-judicial confession was not 
voluntary but rather resulted out of coercion and undue pressure as the 
appellant was forcibly brought before the complainant in presence of a 
gathering, who were threatening to kill her; as such, it cannot be made 
the basis of a conviction. There is an inordinate delay of about five days 
in lodging of the FIR which casts a serious doubt and shadow about the 
probity of the witnesses, and in fact, after the deliberations, a false story 
was concocted by the witnesses and reported to the police. Even 
otherwise, the complaint submitted to the police was drafted by an 
Advocate. The appellant, in her statement recorded u/s 342 Cr.P.C, 
expressed her full respect to the Holy Prophet (ﷺ) and the Holy Quran 
and she offered to take an oath on the Bible to the Investigation Officer 
(IO) to prove her innocence which was refused by the IO. Therefore, the 
appellant being innocent deserves acquittal. Further, no prior permission 
Criminal Appeal No.39-L of 2015 
-: 18 :-
of the Central/Provincial Government was obtained before the 
registration of the FIR. 
25. 
 
First of all, we shall consider the validity of the proceedings 
in absence of a permission from the concerned Government. In this 
regard it is to be noted that under Section 196 of the Cr.P.C., no Court 
could take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 295-A, 
P.P.C. unless the complaint was made by the order of or under authority 
from Central or Provincial Government or some officer empowered in that 
behalf by either of the two governments, but there was no requirement 
under the said Section for taking cognizance of the offence under Section 
295-C of PPC. Besides, it was contended by the learned counsel for the 
petitioner that as per Section 156-A of Cr.P.C., in a case involving the 
commission of offence under Section 295-C PPC, no officer below the 
rank of a Superintendent of Police is authorized to investigate in to the 
matter. In the instant case, as is evident from its statement, the 
investigation was entrusted to Muhammad Arshad, SI (PW-7), who 
recorded the statement of witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., 
prepared the site plan and also arrested the accused. Therefore, a 
violation of Section 156-A of Cr.P.C had been committed. In this regard it 
is to be noted that though initially the investigation was assigned to a 
Sub-Inspector, but later on vide letter dated 26.6.2009 the same 
(investigation) was transferred to one Muhammad Amin Bukhari, SP 
(Investigation), Sheikupura who completed the same, therefore, the 
defect, if any, stood cured.      
26. 
 
It has been advocated by the respondent’s side that the 
appellant has committed a heinous offence which has offended the 
feelings of Muslims; therefore, she does not deserve any leniency by this 
Court. The explanation given to the court pertaining to the delay of 5 
Criminal Appeal No.39-L of 2015 
-: 19 :-
days in lodging of the FIR was said to be based on the significance and 
the gravity of the situation. The allegations made were of serious nature 
which required a proper scrutiny and had to be first verified by the 
complainant himself after which the matter was reported to the Police. 
Both the eye witnesses, in whose presence the derogatory remarks were 
passed by the appellant, have not been cross-examined on the decisive 
and pivotal aspect of the case i.e. blasphemy. Therefore, the learned trial 
court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant. 
27. 
 
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned 
Additional Prosecutor General as well as the learned counsel for the 
complainant and the record has been perused with their able assistance. 
28. 
 
The entirety of the prosecution case revolved around the 
statement of two ladies, namely, Mafia Bibi (PW.2) and Asma Bibi (PW.3) 
and the extra-judicial confession of appellant. The said (PW’s) stated that 
the appellant, in the presence of other Muslim ladies, passed derogatory 
remarks against the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ). It is pertinent to mention 
here that admittedly, as is evident from the contents of the FIR and also 
the statements of the witnesses, there were 25-30 ladies present at the 
spot when the appellant allegedly passed blasphemous remarks against 
the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ), however, none of the other ladies except 
Mafia Bibi (PW.2) and Asma Bibi (PW.3) reported the matter to anyone. 
At this stage, it is to be noted that the said ladies did not appear before 
the Court to support the prosecution case. One of the other ladies, i.e. 
Yasmin Bibi (given up PW), though was initially included in the list of 
witnesses, yet was not produced in the witness box and was given up. 
This creates doubt regarding the prosecution story, however, a thorough 
analysis of the statements of all the essential witnesses is required in 
Criminal Appeal No.39-L of 2015 
-: 20 :-
order to reach towards a just and proper conclusion, which shall be 
made at the later stage. Whereas, as is apparent from the statement of 
the appellant recorded under Section 342 Cr.P.C., she negated the 
allegations in the following terms: - 
“I am a married woman having two daughters. My husband is 
a poor labourer. I used to pluck Falsa from the fields of 
Muhammad Idrees along with a number of other ladies on the 
basis of daily wages.  On the alleged day of occurrence, I 
along with number of ladies were working in the fields. Both 
the ladies Mst. Mafia Bibi and Mst. Asma Bibi PWs quarreled 
with me over fetching water which was offered by me to bring 
for them, but they refused saying that since I am Christian, 
they will never take water from my hand. Over this the quarrel 
ensued and some hot words were exchanged between me and 
the PWs ladies.  The PWs then approached Qari Saalam 
complainant through his wife who remained teaching the both 
ladies, hence, the PWs were conspiring with Qari Saalam got 
a false, fabricated and fictitious case against me. I offered my 
oath to police on Bible that I had never passed such 
derogatory and shameful remarks against the Holy Prophet 
(PBUH) and the Holy Quran. I have great respect and honour 
to the Holy Prophet (PBUH) as well as Holy Quran and since 
police had conspired with the complainant, so, the police have 
falsely booked me in this case. The PWs are real sisters and 
interested to unfaithfully involve me in this case as they both 
felt disgrace and dishonour on the basis of altercation and 
hard words extended to them. Qari Saalam, the complainant 
is also an interested person and both the ladies remained 
teaching Holy Quran from his wife. My forefathers are living 
in this village since the creation of Pakistan. I am also about 
40 years old and since the alleged occurrence, no complaint 
of such nature has ever accrued. I am a Christian and I live in 
the village, so, being ignorant of any Islamic thought, how can 
I use such clumsy and derogatory remarks against the beloved 
Prophet (PBUH) of Allah and the Divine book viz. Holy 
Quran. (PW) Idrees is also an interested witness who has 
close family links with their above said ladies.” 
Criminal Appeal No.39-L of 2015 
-: 21 :-
29. 
 
There is no denial of the fact that the FIR was registered with 
a delay of 5 days. The only explanation given by the complainant for 
such an inordinate delay is that the occurrence took place on 14.6.2009 
but the same was brought to his knowledge by Mafia Bibi (PW.2), Asma 
Bibi (PW.3) and Yasmin Bibi (given up PW) on 16.6.2009; during the 
period from 16.6.2009 to 19.6.2009 he as well as other people of the area 
kept on investigating the matter and after being satisfied that the 
occurrence had taken place, they reported the matter to the police for 
registration of the FIR.  In this regard reference has been made by the 
learned counsel for the complainant on the judgments of this Court 
reported as Zar Bahadar Vs. the State (1978 SCMR 136) and Sheraz 
Asghar Vs. the State (1995 SCMR 1365) to contend that the delay in 
registration of a FIR is not per se fatal in all the cases as it never washes 
away nor torpedoes trustworthy and reliable ocular and circumstantial 
evidence. There is no cavil to the proposition, however, it is to be noted 
that in absence of any plausible explanation, this Court has always 
considered the delay in lodging of FIR to be fatal and castes a suspicion 
on the prosecution story, extending the benefit of doubt to the accused. 
It has been held by this Court that a FIR is always treated as a 
cornerstone of the prosecution case to establish guilt against those 
involved in a crime; thus, it has a significant role to play. If there is any 
delay in lodging of a FIR and commencement of investigation, it gives rise 
to a doubt, which, of course, cannot be extended to anyone else except to 
the accused. Furthermore, FIR lodged after conducting an inquiry loses 
its evidentiary value. [see: Iftikhar Hussain and others Vs. The State 
(2004 SCMR 1185)] Reliance in this behalf may also be made to the case 
titled as Zeeshan @ Shani Vs. The State (2012 SCMR 428) wherein it 
was held that delay of more than one hour in lodging the FIR give rise to 
the inference that occurrence did not take place in the manner projected 
Criminal Appeal No.39-L of 2015 
-: 22 :-
by prosecution and time was consumed in making effort to give a 
coherent attire to prosecution case, which hardly proved successful. 
Such a delay is even more fatal when the police station, besides being 
connected with the scene of occurrence through a metaled road, was at a 
distance of 11 kilometers from the latter. In the case titled as Noor 
Muhammad Vs. The State (2010 SCMR 97) it was held that when the 
prosecution could not furnish any plausible explanation for the delay of 
twelve hours in lodging the FIR, which time appeared to have been spent 
in consultation and preparation of the case, the same was fatal to the 
prosecution case. In the case titled as Muhammad Fiaz Khan Vs. Ajmer 
Khan (2010 SCMR 105) it was held that when complaint is filed after a 
considerable delay, which was not explained by complainant then in 
such situation it raises suspicion as to its truthfulness. Thus, we are of 
the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the explanation 
given by the prosecution is not plausible. Another important aspect of 
the matter is that the complainant (PW-1) in his statement admitted that 
the application for registration of FIR was drafted by an Advocate; 
however, he could not mention his name. This also cast doubt on the 
truthfulness of the story narrated in the FIR. 
30. 
 
Further 
to 
that, 
there 
were 
many 
discrepancies/ 
inconsistencies in the statements of the PWs; inasmuch as, the 
variations made by Mafia Bibi (PW.2) from her earlier statement recorded 
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and when got confronted to her are: firstly, 
during her cross examination she stated that there were more than 1000 
people at the time of public gathering but this was not mentioned in her 
previous statement, secondly, during her cross examination she stated 
that the public gathering took place at the house of her father but it was 
not mentioned in her previous statement, thirdly, during her cross 
Criminal Appeal No.39-L of 2015 
-: 23 :-
examination she stated that many Ulemas were present at the public 
gathering but this was not mentioned in her previous statement. 
Likewise, Asma Bibi (PW.3) also deviated from her earlier statement 
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which are: firstly, during her cross 
examination she stated that the public gathering took place at the house 
of her neighbour Rana Razzaq, but this was not mentioned in her 
previous statement, secondly, during her cross examination she stated 
that there were more than 2000 people at the time of public gathering 
but this was not mentioned in her previous statement. Muhammad Afzal 
(PW.4) also made deviations from his earlier statement recorded under 
Section 161 Cr.P.C. which were confronted to him are: firstly,  in his 
examination-in-chief he stated that he was present in his house when 
PW ladies along with the complainant and Mukhtar Ahmed came there 
and narrated the whole occurrence to him, but it was not mentioned 
previously; secondly, during his examination-in-chief he stated that the 
public gathering took place at the house of Mukhtar Ahmed, but this was 
not 
mentioned 
in 
his 
previous 
statement; 
thirdly, 
during 
his 
examination-in-chief he stated that the appellant was brought to the 
public gathering, but it was not mentioned in his previous statement. 
Qari Muhammad Salaam (complainant/PW.1) also transformed his 
earlier complaint submitted before the police for the registration of the 
FIR: firstly, during his examination-in-chief he stated that he was 
present in the village when Mafia Bibi (PW.2), Asma Bibi (PW.3) and 
Yasmin Bibi (given up PW) came to him and informed him of the 
occurrence, at that time Muhammad Afzal and Muhammad Mukhtar 
were also present there, however, in his complaint he stated that Mafia 
Bibi (PW.2), Asma Bibi (PW.3) and Yasmin Bibi (given up PW) and others 
informed him of the occurrence as well as informing the other people of 
the village; secondly, he further stated that the public gathering took 
Criminal Appeal No.39-L of 2015 
-: 24 :-
place at the house of Mukhtar Ahmed, but this was not mentioned in his 
complaint; thirdly, he stated that the appellant was brought to the public 
gathering, but it was not mentioned in his complaint. Thus, such 
inconsistent statements undermine the evidence of the prosecution.  
31. 
 
These material contradictions and inconsistent statements of 
the witnesses are tantamount to cast further doubts on the coherence of 
the evidence pertaining to the questions set out below; -  
a) 
Who informed the complainant about the occurrence 
of such; 
b) 
Who was present at the time of disclosure regarding 
the allegation made against the appellant; 
c) 
How many people were present at the time of the 
public gathering; 
d) 
Where did the public gathering took place; 
e) 
What was the distance between the place of the public 
gathering and the house of the appellant; and 
f) 
How and who brought the appellant to the public 
gathering; 
 
32. 
 
With regards to the first two issues, i.e. who informed the 
complainant about the occurrence and who was present at the time of 
such disclosure, it is to be noted that in the FIR, it has been vaguely 
mentioned that Asma Bibi (PW.3), Mafia Bibi (PW.2) and Yasmin Bibi 
(given up PW) brought the alleged occurrence to the notice of the 
complainant and other villagers. Whereas, Mafia Bibi (PW.2) in her 
examination-in-chief stated that she narrated the whole story to Qari 
Muhammad Salaam (complainant/PW.1) and others, however, during 
her cross-examination, she categorically mentioned that the matter was 
Criminal Appeal No.39-L of 2015 
-: 25 :-
reported to Qari Muhammad Salaam (complainant/PW.1) by her sister 
Asma Bibi (PW.3) who was a student of complainant’s wife on the evening 
of the same day i.e. 14.6.2009. Asma Bibi (PW.3) in her examination-in-
chief stated that she along with other PWs informed Qari Muhammad 
Salaam (complainant/PW.1) of the matter, and Muhammad Afzal and 
Mukhtar were also present there. Muhammad Afzal (PW.4) in his 
examination-in-chief stated that he was present in his house when Mafia 
Bibi (PW.2), Asma Bibi (PW.3) and Yasmin Bibi (given up PW) along with 
Qari Muhammad Salaam (complainant) and Mukhtar Ahmed came there 
and narrated the whole occurrence to him. Qari Muhammad Salaam 
(complainant/PW.1) in his examination-in-chief stated that he was 
present in his village when Asma Bibi (PW.3), Mafia Bibi (PW.2) and 
Yasmin Bibi (given up PW) came to him and informed him about the 
incident; at that time Muhammad Afzal and Muhammad Mukhtar were 
also present there along with other villagers. Thus, the witnesses while 
giving their statements were not consistent in this regard.  
33. 
 
Dealing with the question, as to how many persons were 
present at the time of the public gathering, it is to be noted that PW-1 
stated that the public gathering was held in a house consisting of 5 
Marla and about 100 people were present there; however, PW.2 stated 
that more than 1000 people were present in the public gathering; 
whereas, PW.3 stated that more than 2000 people were present; yet, 
PW.4 narrated that there may be more than 200-250 persons were 
present in the public gathering. Thus, the witnesses are also not 
consistent in this regard.  
34. 
 
Pertaining to the question as to where the public gathering 
took place, it is to be noted that the complainant (PW.1) stated in his 
cross-examination that the public gathering was held at Mukhtar 
Ahmed’s house, while PW.2 stated in her cross-examination that the 
Criminal Appeal No.39-L of 2015 
-: 26 :-
public gathering was held at her father’s, Abdul Sattar’s house, whereas, 
PW.3 stated in her cross-examination that the public gathering was held 
at Rana Razzaq’s house, however, PW.4 stated in his examination-in-
chief that the public gathering was held at Mukhtar Ahmed’s house. Yet 
another name was put forth in this regard by CW-1, who in his cross-
examination stated that the public gathering was held at the Dera of Haji 
Ali Ahmed. Thus, on this issue too, there are material contradictions 
between the statements given by the witnesses. 
35. 
 
Regarding the issue of the distance between the place of the 
public gathering and the house of the appellant, it is to be noted that 
PW.2 did not mention anything in this regard, whereas, PW.3 stated in 
her cross-examination that the house of the appellant was three houses 
away from the place of the public gathering. However, PW.4 stated in his 
cross-examination that the house of the appellant was at a distance of 
200/250 yards from the place of the public gathering, while the 
complainant (PW.1) did not disclose the distance between the house of 
the appellant and the place of public gathering, nevertheless, according 
to CW-1 the house of the appellant was in front of the Dera where the 
public gathering took place. Thus, there are material contradictions 
between the witnesses on this issue as well. 
36. 
 
With regard to the issues that who had brought the 
appellant to the public gathering and how did she got there, it is to be 
noted that PW.2 stated that she did not remember who brought the 
appellant to the public gathering but it was a resident of her village, 
whereas, PW.3 stated that the appellant was called to the public 
gathering by the people of the village and was brought on foot and the 
people who called her were also on foot. However, PW.4 stated that 
Mushtaq Ahmed brought the appellant to the public gathering, while the 
complainant (PW.1) stated that the people of the village went to the 
Criminal Appeal No.39-L of 2015 
-: 27 :-
house of the appellant and took her from there to the public gathering on 
two motorcycles, Mudassar was one of those people. Thus, on this issue 
too there are material contradictions between the witnesses. 
37. 
 
The witnesses were also not in consonance regarding the 
time and duration of the public gathering. PW-2 stated that it took place 
on Friday at 12 noon and lasted for 15/20 minutes; PW-3 stated that the 
public gathering took place at 12 noon and lasted for 15 minutes; PW-4 
stated that the public gathering took place at 11/12 noon and lasted for 
2/ 2½ hours; whereas, complainant (PW-1) did not mention the time and 
duration of the gathering. Thus, there are furthers material contradiction 
between the witnesses. 
38. 
 
A further conflict also prevails between the other PWs and 
the complainant. Other PWs stated that the matter was brought to the 
notice of complainant on the same day i.e. 14.6.2009; however, the 
complainant during his cross-examination stated that he was informed of 
the occurrence on 16.6.2009.  
39. 
 
There is yet another material contradiction regarding the 
submission of the application to the police and registration of the FIR. At 
the bottom of the FIR the place of registration of the FIR has been 
mentioned that the FIR was registered by Mehdi Hassan, SI at “bridge 
canal Chandar Cot” and the time of registration is given as “5:45 pm”. 
Conversely, the complainant (PW-1) in his statement has mentioned that 
the FIR was registered by delivering the application to the SHO 
concerned. However, Muhammad Rizwan, SI (PW-5) stated that the 
complainant presented before him the complaint (Exh.PA) upon which he 
formally registered the FIR (Exh.PA/1).    
40. 
 
With regard to the arrest of the accused, further 
contradictions exist in the statement of Muhammad Arshad, SI (PW-7); 
Criminal Appeal No.39-L of 2015 
-: 28 :-
inasmuch as, he (PW-7) stated in his examination-in-chief that the 
accused was arrested by him with the help of two lady constables, 
presented to the Judicial Magistrate and sent to judicial lockup. It was 
then stated in the cross-examination that the accused was arrested by 
him on 19.6.2009 from her house situated at Village Ittanwali at about 
4/5 p.m., however, at a subsequent point of time it was stated by him 
that he reached the Village Ittanwali at about 7 p.m. and remained there 
for one hour. Furthermore, PW-2 and PW-3 in their statements, 
categorically denied the fact that an altercation/quarrel took place 
between the appellant and them on the fetching of water immediately 
before the passing of the alleged blasphemous remarks by the appellant.  
Whereas, PW-6 and as well as CW-1 admitted in their statements that an 
altercation/quarrel took place between them, thus the factum of quarrel 
is proved from the record. The prosecution did not declare PW-6 as a 
hostile witness. In this eventuality, the said PWs could not be termed as 
truthful witnesses and the death sentence could not be inflicted on the 
testimony of such eye witnesses, which even otherwise are interested 
witnesses.  
41. 
 
All these contradictions are sufficient to cast a shadow of 
doubt on the prosecution’s version of facts, which itself entitles the 
appellant to the right of benefit of the doubt. It is a well settled principle 
of law that for the accused to be afforded this right of the benefit of the 
doubt, it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances 
creating uncertainty. If a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt 
in a prudent mind about the apprehension of guilt of an accused, then 
he/she shall be entitled to such benefit not as a matter of grace and 
concession, but as of right. Reference in this regard may be made to the 
cases of Tariq Pervaiz Vs. The State (1995 SCMR 1345) and Ayub 
Criminal Appeal No.39-L of 2015 
-: 29 :-
Masih vs The State (PLD 2002 SC 1048). Thus, it is held that the 
appellant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a right. 
42. 
 
There is also an another facet pertaining to this matter. The 
learned Trial Court had relied upon the evidence of the witnesses 
regarding the extra-judicial confession to convict the appellant. The 
learned High Court has disregarded the extra-judicial confession for the 
reason that the evidence of extra-judicial confession furnished by the 
witnesses, i.e.  Qari Muhammad Salaam (PW.1), Muhammad Afzal (PW.4) 
as well as Muhammad Idrees (CW.1), to the extent of confessing the guilt 
in a public gathering, cannot be termed as an extra-judicial confession 
because no time, date and manner of commission of offence was given 
and further, no circumstances under which the appellant had allegedly 
committed the offence, have been narrated in the alleged confessional 
statement. In this regard it is to be noted that this Court has repeatedly 
held that evidence of extra-judicial confession is a fragile piece of 
evidence and utmost care and caution has to be exercised in placing 
reliance on such a confession. It is always looked at with doubt and 
suspicion due to the ease with which it may be concocted. The legal 
worth of the extra judicial confession is almost equal to naught, keeping 
in view the natural course of events, human behaviour, conduct and 
probabilities, in ordinary course. It could be taken as corroborative of the 
charge if it, in the first instance, rings true and then finds support from 
other evidence of unimpeachable character. If the other evidence lacks 
such attribute, it has to be excluded from consideration. Reliance in this 
behalf may be made to the cases of Nasir Javaid Vs. State (2016 SCMR 
1144), Azeem Khan and another Vs. Mujahid Khan and others (2016 
SCMR 274), Imran alias Dully Vs. The State (2015 SCMR 155), 
Hamid Nadeem Vs. The State (2011 SCMR 1233), Muhammad Aslam 
Criminal Appeal No.39-L of 2015 
-: 30 :-
Vs. Sabir Hussain (2009 SCMR 985), Sajid Mumtaz and others Vs. 
Basharat and others (2006 SCMR 231), Ziaul Rehman Vs. The State 
(2000 SCMR 528) and Sarfraz Khan Vs. The State and 2 others (1996 
SCMR 188).  
43. 
 
Furthermore, as per Article 37 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 
Order, 1984, “A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a 
criminal proceeding, if the making of the confession appears to the Court 
that it has been caused by any inducement, threat or promise having 
reference to the charge against the accused person, proceeding from a 
person in authority and sufficient, in the opinion of the Court, to give the 
accused person grounds which would appear to him reasonable, for 
supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any 
evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him”. 
44. 
 
In this very instant case, the appellant was brought to a 
gathering of potentially hundreds of people, she was alone at the time, 
tensions were running high, and it was an intimidating environment, the 
appellant may well have felt threatened and vulnerable; thus, the alleged 
extra-judicial confession made by the appellant, even if presumed to have 
been made by her before such public gathering, cannot be termed as a 
voluntary action and nor it can be relied upon to form the basis of a 
conviction, especially for capital punishment.  
45. 
 
Learned High Court while maintaining the conviction of the 
appellant has relied upon the testimony of the witness for the reasons 
that (a) the presence of the eye witnesses and the appellant at the 
relevant time in the field of 'Falsa ' is not denied (b) the witnesses have 
not been cross examined by the defence qua the offence of blasphemy 
alleged against the appellant and (c) the defence could not point out or 
even suggest any previous enmity, ill will or ulterior motive of the eye 
Criminal Appeal No.39-L of 2015 
-: 31 :-
witnesses against the appellant to falsely implicate her in the case of 
such a heinous nature and (d) the testimony of (CW.l), Muhammad 
Idrees, who was also present in the field at the relevant time, provides 
strong corroboration to the evidence furnished by the eye witnesses.  
46. 
 
In this regard it is important to note that this Court has 
held that the principle, namely, the part of the statement which 
remains un-rebutted amounts to admission, does not attract in 
criminal cases. In criminal cases, the burden to prove the guilt of the 
accused rests heavily upon the prosecution, who has to prove its case 
beyond any shadow of doubt. Reliance in this behalf may be made to 
judgments of this Court reported as Nadeem Ramzan Vs. the state 
(2018 SCMR 149), S. Mahmood Aslam Shah Vs. the State (PLD 
1987 SC 250) and State Vs. Rab Nawaz and another (PLD 1974 SC 
87). Thus, the learned High Court has erred in law while deciding this 
aspect of the matter.    
47. 
 
Besides, both the eye witnesses were specifically cross-
examined with regards to the altercation which took place in the said 
field; inasmuch as, when a  specific question was put to Mafia Bibi 
(PW.2), in her reply she stated that "It is incorrect to suggest that I 
recorded my statement against the accused Asia Bibi due to the quarrel 
which took place between me and Asia Bibi during the plucking of Falsa 
on the same day”. The allegation of blasphemy was also rebutted by 
the defence which is evident from the answer given by her (PW.2) 
namely, “It is further incorrect to suggest that I have deposed falsely 
today and listened nothing”. Likewise, a similar suggestion was also 
put to Asma Bibi (PW.3) who in response whereof stated that "It is 
incorrect to suggest that on the day of occurrence, a quarrel took place 
between me and the accused Mst. Asia Bibi in the said garden on the 
Criminal Appeal No.39-L of 2015 
-: 32 :-
issue of drinking water. It is also incorrect to suggest that I am deposing 
falsely today due to the grudge of the quarrel which took place between 
me and the accused Mst. Asia Bibi.” With regard to the allegation of 
blasphemy, a question was put to the said witness (PW.3) who replied 
that “It is further incorrect to suggest that I am deposing falsely, and 
nothing has been heard directly by the mouth of the accused Mst. Asia 
Bibi”. However, Muhammad Idrees (CW.l) in his examination-in-chief 
admitted the factum of a quarrel between the appellant and the eye 
witnesses as is evident from his statement which states “This led to a 
quarrel between them. I was also intimated about this quarrel.” In his 
cross-examination, he admitted that “I was at a distance of 2/3 Killa 
away when I came to know about the occurrence. … I confirmed about the 
facts. … when I came at the spot, I only came to know that there has been 
a disagreement between the accused and PWs which has resulted due the 
fetching of water.”  Thus, there is no denial about the factum of the 
argument over the fetching of water between the appellant and eye 
witnesses before the alleged commission of crime. The mere presence of 
the appellant as well as the witnesses at the place of alleged occurrence 
alone is not sufficient to prove the occurrence of the offence. The 
defence has not contested the matter on the basis that the appellant 
was not present in the field, rather it has taken the plea that the 
appellant and witnesses were present in the field in question when the 
altercation took place between them, and in that resentment the 
witnesses had falsely implicated her (the appellant) with the help and 
support of the complainant. Astonishingly, 25-30 ladies were present at 
the spot but none of them except Yasmin Bibi (given up PW) supported 
the prosecution version before the complainant, and she too did not opt 
to appear in the witness-box to depose against the appellant. Even CW.1 
has not heard the words constituting the crime of blasphemy. All this 
Criminal Appeal No.39-L of 2015 
-: 33 :-
creates doubt regarding the prosecution story. Moreover, the factum of 
inordinate delay of 5 days in the registration of FIR further casts a 
serious dent on the prosecution story.  
48. 
 
It is a well settled principle of law that one who makes an 
assertion has to prove it. Thus, the onus rests on the prosecution to 
prove guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt throughout the trial. 
Presumption of innocence remains throughout the case until such time 
the prosecution on the evidence satisfies the Court beyond reasonable 
doubt that the accused is guilty of the offence alleged against him. There 
cannot be a fair trial, which is itself the primary purpose of criminal 
jurisprudence, if the judges have not been able to clearly elucidate the 
rudimentary concept of standard of proof that prosecution must meet in 
order to obtain a conviction. Two concepts i.e., “proof beyond reasonable 
doubt” and “presumption of innocence” are so closely linked together 
that the same must be presented as one unit. If the presumption of 
innocence is a golden thread to criminal jurisprudence, then proof 
beyond reasonable doubt is silver, and these two threads are forever 
intertwined in the fabric of criminal justice system. As such, the 
expression "proof beyond reasonable doubt" is of fundamental 
importance to the criminal justice: it is one of the principles which seeks 
to ensure that no innocent person is convicted. Where there is any doubt 
in the prosecution story, benefit should be given to the accused, which is 
quite consistent with the safe administration of criminal justice. Further, 
suspicion howsoever grave or strong can never be a proper substitute for 
the standard of proof required in a criminal case, i.e. beyond reasonable 
doubt. In the presence of enmity between the accused and the 
complainant/witnesses, usually a strict standard of proof is applied for 
determining the innocence or guilt of the accused. If the PWs are found 
inimical towards the accused, she deserves acquittal on the principle of 
Criminal Appeal No.39-L of 2015 
-: 34 :-
the benefit of the doubt. Keeping in mind the evidence produced by the 
prosecution against the alleged blasphemy committed by the appellant, 
the prosecution has categorically failed to prove its case beyond 
reasonable doubt. Reliance in this behalf may be made to the cases 
reported as Muhammad Ashraf Vs. The State (2016 SCMR 1617), 
Muhammad Jamshaid Vs. The State (2016 SCMR 1019), Muhammad 
Asghar alias Nannah Vs. The State (2010 SCMR 1706), Noor 
Muhammad alias Noora Vs. The State (1992 SCMR 2079) and Ayub 
Masih Vs. The State (PLD 2002 SC 1048).       
49. 
 
I will end this Judgement on a Hadith of our beloved Prophet 
Muhammad (ﷺ); 
“Beware!  Whoever is cruel and hard on a non-Muslim 
minority, or curtails their rights, or burdens them with more 
than they can bear, or takes anything from them against their 
free will; I (Prophet Muhammad) will complain against the 
person on the Day of Judgment.” (Abu Dawud) 
 
50. 
 
For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is allowed. The 
judgments of the High Court as well as the Trial Court are reversed. 
Consequently, the conviction as also the sentence of death awarded to 
the appellant is set aside and she is acquitted of the charge. She be 
released from jail forthwith, if not required in any other criminal case. 
 
 
 
CHIEF JUSTICE 
 
I agree and have appended a 
separate concurring opinion. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Announced in open Court 
on 31.10.2018 at Islamabad 
Approved for reporting 
Waqas Naseer/* 
Criminal Appeal No.39-L of 2015 
-: 35 :-
 
Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J.: I have had the privilege of perusing 
the proposed judgment authored by my lord the Hon’ble Chief Justice 
and I agree with the reasons recorded and the conclusions reached 
therein. However, because of some important legal and factual issues 
involved in the case I have decided to record this separate concurring 
opinion.   
 
 
2. 
Mst. Asia Bibi appellant had allegedly made some derogatory 
remarks against the Holy Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) and 
the Holy Qur’an on 14.06.2009 in the presence of some of her Muslim 
female co-workers while plucking Falsa (a kind of berry also known as 
grewia asiatica) in the field of one Muhammad Idrees in village Ittanwali 
in the area of Police Station Sadar, Nankana Sahib and for that alleged 
commission of the offence of blasphemy under section 295-C of the 
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (P.P.C.) she was booked in case FIR No. 326 
registered at the said Police Station on 19.06.2009 at the instance of Qari 
Muhammad Salaam complainant, an Imam of the local mosque. It was 
alleged that the appellant had stated something to the effect that the 
Holy Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) had fallen ill and was 
bedridden for one month before his death, insects had emerged from his 
mouth and ear, he had got married to Hazrat Khadija (May Almighty 
Allah Be Pleased With Her) with the intention to loot her wealth and after 
looting her wealth he had discarded her. It was also alleged that on the 
same occasion the appellant had also uttered words to the effect that the 
Holy Qur’an was not a book of God and it was not a divine book but a 
self-made book. The appellant was arrested by the local police on 
19.06.2009 soon after registration of the FIR and upon completion of the 
investigation 
a 
Challan 
was 
submitted 
before 
the 
trial 
court 
recommending her trial. The trial court framed a Charge against the 
appellant for an offence under section 295-C, P.P.C. to which she 
pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial. During the trial the prosecution 
produced seven witnesses in support of its case against the appellant 
and produced some documents and statement of a Court Witness was 
also recorded by the trial court. In her statement recorded under section 
342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Cr.P.C.) the appellant 
denied and controverted all the allegations of fact leveled against her by 
the prosecution and professed her innocence. She opted not to make a 
statement on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. and did not produce any 
Criminal Appeal No.39-L of 2015 
-: 36 :-
evidence in her defence. Upon completion of the trial and after hearing of 
arguments of the learned counsel for the parties the learned Additional 
Sessions Judge, Nankana Sahib trying the case convicted the appellant 
for the offence under section 295-C, P.P.C. vide judgment dated 
08.11.2010 and sentenced her to death and to pay a fine of Rs. 
1,00,000/- or in default of payment thereof to undergo simple 
imprisonment for a period of six months. The appellant challenged her 
conviction and sentence before the Lahore High Court, Lahore through 
Criminal Appeal No. 2509 of 2010 which was heard by a learned Division 
Bench of the said Court along with Murder Reference No. 614 of 2010 
seeking confirmation of the sentence of death passed by the trial court 
against the appellant and vide judgment dated 16.10.2014 the 
appellant’s appeal was dismissed, her conviction and sentence recorded 
by the trial court were upheld and confirmed and the Murder Reference 
was answered in the affirmative. Hence, the present appeal by leave of 
this Court granted on 22.07.2015. 
 
3. 
Leave to appeal had been granted by this Court in order to 
reappraise the evidence and we have undertaken that exercise by 
perusing the record of the case from cover to cover with the assistance of 
the learned counsel for the parties. We have also carefully heard and 
considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the 
parties.  
 
4. 
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that an 
FIR in respect of the alleged occurrence had been lodged by Qari 
Muhammad Salaam complainant (PW1) with a delay of five days and it 
had been admitted by the complainant before the trial court that before 
lodging of the FIR deliberations had taken place amongst the members of 
the complainant party which delay and deliberations had denuded the 
FIR of its evidentiary value, as held by this Court in the case of Iftikhar 
Hussain and others v The State (2004 SCMR 1185). He has also argued 
that the prosecution witnesses had differed with each other over the 
place where the FIR had been lodged and the Advocate who had drafted 
the application for registration of the FIR had never been named. He has 
further argued that two independent prosecution witnesses had 
confirmed that a quarrel had taken place between the appellant and the 
ladies belonging to the complainant party before the offending words had 
Criminal Appeal No.39-L of 2015 
-: 37 :-
allegedly been uttered by the appellant but the prosecution witnesses 
belonging to the interested complainant party had completely suppressed 
such an important fact. It has also been argued by him that no 
independent corroboration was available confirming the allegations 
leveled against the appellant by the crucial prosecution witnesses 
appearing before the trial court, i.e. Mafia Bibi (PW2) and Asma Bibi 
(PW3). According to him the investigation of this case was conducted by 
an officer who was not competent to investigate this case as required by 
section 156-A, Cr.P.C. and in support of this contention he has relied 
upon the cases of Shaukat Ali v The State and others (2008 SCMR 553), 
Amjad Farooq and another v The State (2007 P.Cr.L.J. 238) and Malik 
Muhammad Mumtaz Qadri v The State and others (PLD 2016 SC 17). He 
has also submitted that it was alleged in the FIR that the appellant was a 
preacher of Christian faith which formed the motive in this case but no 
such assertion was made before the trial court by any prosecution 
witness during the trial. He has pointed out that none of the other female 
co-workers of the appellant working in the same field of Falsa was 
produced by the prosecution in support of its case against the appellant 
and, thus, the best evidence had been withheld by the prosecution and 
on account of such failure of the prosecution an adverse inference is to 
be drawn against it. With these arguments the learned counsel for the 
appellant has maintained that the case of the prosecution against the 
appellant was full of serious doubts and the benefit of such doubts ought 
to be extended to her.  
 
5. 
As against that the learned Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab 
appearing for the State has maintained that investigation of a case by a 
police officer not competent to investigate such case does not vitiate the 
investigation and in support of this argument he has referred to the 
provisions of section 156(2), Cr.P.C. He has submitted that the 
statements made before the trial court by Mafia Bibi (PW2) and Asma 
Bibi (PW3) were quite consistent and their statements had found 
sufficient support from the statements made by Muhammad Idrees 
(CW1) and Muhammad Amin Bukhari, SP (Investigation) (PW6). It has, 
thus, been maintained by him that the prosecution had succeeded in 
proving its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 
 
Criminal Appeal No.39-L of 2015 
-: 38 :-
6. 
While opposing this appeal and supporting the appellant’s 
conviction and sentence recorded and upheld by the courts below the 
learned counsel for the complainant has argued that delay in lodging of 
an FIR is not always fatal to a criminal case and in the present case the 
delay stood sufficiently explained by the prosecution. He has relied in 
this regard upon the cases of Zar Bahadar v The State (1978 SCMR 136) 
and Sheraz Asghar v The State (1995 SCMR 1365). He has also argued 
that both the courts below had concurred in their findings and had 
found the appellant guilty as charged and such concurrent findings of 
the courts below are not be interfered with lightly. He has pointed out 
that in her statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant 
had not disputed her presence in the relevant field of Falsa at the date 
and time of occurrence and she had also admitted having some verbal 
interaction with her female co-workers, including Mafia Bibi (PW2) and 
Asma Bibi (PW3), on that occasion and no suggestion was made to those 
witnesses during their cross-examination that the allegations leveled by 
them regarding commission of blasphemy by the appellant were 
incorrect. According to the learned counsel for the complainant an 
assertion of fact by a witness is deemed to have been admitted by the 
opposite party if the witness is not controverted regarding such assertion 
through a suggestion during his cross-examination. He has also 
submitted that the appellant had made multiple extra-judicial 
confessions about her guilt before different prosecution witnesses who 
had consistently deposed about the same before the trial court. In the 
end he has argued that the prosecution witnesses had no ostensible 
reason to falsely implicate the appellant in a case of this nature, their 
consistent statements had inspired confidence of the courts below and, 
therefore, the appellant’s conviction and sentence recorded and upheld 
by the courts below do not warrant any interference by this Court. 
 
7. 
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through 
the record of the case with their assistance I have observed that the 
prosecution had produced seven witnesses in support of its case against 
the appellant. Qari Muhammad Salaam complainant had appeared 
before the trial court as PW1 and had deposed about having been 
informed about the incident by three ladies, holding of a public gathering 
on 19.06.2009 wherein the appellant had allegedly confessed her guilt 
and had asked for forgiveness and lodging of the FIR by him on 
Criminal Appeal No.39-L of 2015 
-: 39 :-
19.06.2009. Mafia Bibi (PW2) had deposed about the incident taking 
place in the field of Falsa on 14.06.2009, informing the complainant 
about that incident and holding of a public gathering on 19.06.2009 
wherein the appellant had allegedly made a confession and had sought 
pardon. Asma Bibi (PW3) had also made a statement regarding the same 
events which were stated by Mafia Bibi (PW2). Muhammad Afzal (PW4) 
had stated about having been informed by Qari Muhammad Salaam 
complainant (PW1), Mafia Bibi (PW2) and Asma Bibi (PW3) about the 
blasphemy allegedly committed by the appellant and holding of a public 
gathering on 19.06.2009 wherein the appellant had allegedly admitted 
her guilt and had sought forgiveness. Muhammad Rizwan, SI (PW5) had 
recorded the formal FIR at the Police Station. Muhammad Amin Bukhari, 
SP (Investigation) had appeared as PW6 and had stated about the 
investigation of this case conducted by him. Muhammad Arshad, SI 
(PW7) was the initial investigating officer of this case and he had stated 
about inspecting the place of occurrence on 19.06.2009, recording of 
statements of witnesses, arresting the appellant, obtaining her judicial 
remand from a Magistrate and sending her to the judicial lock-up. Some 
documents were also produced by the prosecution before the trial court 
in support of its case. The trial court summoned and recorded the 
statement of Muhammad Idrees as CW1 who claimed to be the owner of 
the Falsa field wherein the occurrence had allegedly taken place and he 
also stated about the appellant confessing her guilt before him on 
14.06.2009, the complainant being informed about the incident, holding 
of a public gathering on 19.06.2009 and the appellant allegedly 
confessing her guilt before that gathering and also before the 
investigating officer on that day. In her statement recorded under section 
342, Cr.P.C. while answering a question as to why the present case was 
registered against her and as to why the prosecution witnesses had 
deposed against her the appellant had stated as follows: 
 
“I am married woman having two daughters. My husband is a poor 
labourer. I used to pluck Falsa from the plants of Muhammad Idrees 
along with number of ladies on the daily wages basis. On the alleged day 
of occurrence, I along with number of ladies were working in the fields. 
Both the ladies Mst. Mafia Bibi and Mst. Asma Bibi PWs quarreled with 
me over fetching water which was offered by me to bring for them but 
they refused saying that since I am Christian, so, they never took water 
from the hand of Christian. Over this, quarrel was insued and some hot 
words were exchanged between myself and the PWs ladies. The PWs then 
approached Qari Salaam complainant through his wife who remained 
teaching the both ladies, hence, the PWs were conspiring with Qari 
Salaam got a false, fabricated and fictitious case against me. I offered my 
oath to police on Bible that I had never passed such derogatory and 
Criminal Appeal No.39-L of 2015 
-: 40 :-
shameful remarks against the Holy Prophet (PBUH) and the Holy Quran. 
I have great respect and honour to the Holy Prophet (PBUH) as well Holy 
Quran and since police had conspired with the complainant, so, the 
police has falsely booked me in this case. The PWs are real sisters and 
interested to falsely involve me in this case as they felt disgrace and 
dishonor on the basis of altercation and hard words extended to them. 
Qari Salaam complainant is also interested person and both the ladies 
remained teaching Holy Quran from his wife. My forefathers are living in 
this village since creation of Pakistan. I am also about 40 years old and 
since the alleged occurrence, no complaint likewise this never exist 
against me. I am uneducated and no priest of Christian. So much so 
there is no church of the Christian in the village, so, being ignorant of 
any Islamic thought, how can I use such clumsy and derogatory remarks 
against the beloved Prophet (PBUH) of Allah and the Divine book viz Holy 
Quran. PW Idrees is also a interested witness who has close family links 
with their above said ladies.” 
 
The appellant had opted not to make a statement on oath under section 
340(2), Cr.P.C. and had not produced any evidence in her defence. 
 
8. 
I now proceed to evaluate every piece of evidence produced by the 
prosecution in the sequence of events statedly unfolding in this case. 
 
9. 
Mafia Bibi (PW2) and Asma Bibi (PW3) were produced by the 
prosecution as witnesses of the incident allegedly taking place in the field 
of Falsa on 14.06.2009. The said ladies were young girls and sisters inter 
se and were semi-literate who had statedly received some elementary 
religious education in their village from the wife of Qari Muhammad 
Salaam complainant (PW1). Those ladies had never stated as to who was 
addressed by the appellant at the time of uttering the derogatory 
remarks, they had never disclosed in whose field of Falsa the alleged 
incident had taken place and they had not themselves lodged any report 
about the same with the local police. It is of critical importance to 
mention here that the senior investigating officer of this case namely 
Muhammad Amin Bukhari, SP (Investigation) (PW6) as well as the owner 
of the relevant field of Falsa namely Muhammad Idrees (CW1) had 
categorically stated before the trial court that the derogatory words were 
uttered by the appellant when there was a religious discussion between 
the appellant and her Muslim co-workers in the field of Falsa after Mafia 
Bibi (PW2), Asma Bibi (PW3) and other Muslim co-workers had stated 
that they would not drink water from the hands of the appellant who was 
a Christian by faith. According to the said witnesses it was on the basis 
of the said stance of the appellant’s Muslim co-workers that a “quarrel” 
had taken place and during the said quarrel the appellant had uttered 
the derogatory words against the Holy Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be 
Criminal Appeal No.39-L of 2015 
-: 41 :-
Upon Him) and the Holy Qur’an. This shows that, according to the 
prosecution itself, the appellant had uttered the derogatory words 
attributed to her after the appellant’s religion was insulted and her 
religious sensibilities had been injured by her Muslim co-workers 
including Mafia Bibi (PW2) and Asma Bibi (PW3). It is unfortunate that in 
the FIR lodged by Qari Muhammad Salaam complainant (PW1) and in 
their statements made before the police under section 161, Cr.P.C. no 
mention was made by Qari Muhammad Salaam complainant (PW1), 
Mafia Bibi (PW2) and Asma Bibi (PW3) regarding any such verbal 
exchange or quarrel. It is also disturbing to note that both Mafia Bibi 
(PW2) and Asma Bibi (PW3) had completely suppressed this factual 
aspect of the case in their examinations-in-chief before the trial court 
and when it was suggested to them by the defence during their cross-
examination they simply denied any such verbal exchange and the 
ensuing quarrel. It is, thus, obvious that both Mafia Bibi (PW2) and 
Asma Bibi (PW3) had no regard for the truth and they were capable of 
deposing falsely and also that the said semi-literate young sisters had a 
reason to level allegations against the appellant which could be untrue. I 
propose to comment on this aspect of the case from another angle as well 
in the later part of this opinion.   
 
10. 
Muhammad Idrees had appeared before the trial court as CW1 and 
he had not been produced by the prosecution but was summoned by the 
trial court as a Court Witness. He claimed that he was the owner of the 
relevant field of Falsa, he had gone to his field of Falsa on 14.06.2009 
and he was informed by Mafia Bibi (PW2) and Asma Bibi (PW3) at the 
spot about an altercation taking place between those ladies and the 
appellant whereafter the appellant had made a confession before him 
and had sought pardon. Muhammad Arshad, SI (PW7) had stated that 
the place of occurrence was the field of Falsa belonging to Muhammad 
Idrees (CW1) and Muhammad Amin Bukhari, SP (Investigation) (PW6) 
had stated that Muhammad Idrees (CW1) was attracted to the field and 
the ladies had narrated the matter to him whereafter he inquired from 
the appellant who confessed before him. I have, however, found that the 
story about Muhammad Idrees (CW1) being attracted to the spot, being 
apprised of the incident by Mafia Bibi (PW2) and Asma Bibi (PW3) and 
the appellant confessing before him and seeking pardon was a story 
which was completely new and in their depositions Mafia Bibi (PW2), 
Criminal Appeal No.39-L of 2015 
-: 42 :-
Asma Bibi (PW3), Qari Muhammad Salaam complainant (PW1) and 
Muhammad Afzal (PW4) had not stated anything at all about Muhammad 
Idrees (CW1) coming to the spot, being apprised of the incident by Mafia 
Bibi (PW2) and Asma Bibi (PW3) and the appellant confessing before him 
and seeking pardon! It appears that Muhammad Idrees (CW1) was 
introduced in this case at some later stage by way of an afterthought. He 
had not joined the initial investigation of this case conducted by 
Muhammad Arshad, SI (PW7) and had not made any statement before 
him. It was the subsequent investigating officer namely Muhammad 
Amin Bukhari, SP (Investigation) (PW6) who had claimed that 
Muhammad Idrees (CW1) had appeared before him on 04.07.2009, i.e. 
after 20 days of the alleged occurrence and after 15 days of registration 
of the FIR. Such belated surfacing of the said witness was quite 
suspicious and in all likelihood he had been planted in this case at some 
subsequent stage. Apart from that the confession allegedly made by the 
appellant before Muhammad Idrees (CW1) was not put to the appellant 
at the time of recording of her statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. and 
the law is settled that a piece of evidence or a circumstance not put to 
the accused person at the time of recording of his statement under 
section 342, Cr.P.C. cannot be used or considered against him. The 
statement made by Muhammad Idrees (CW1) before the trial court is, 
therefore, to be kept completely out of consideration. 
 
11. 
The next development allegedly taking place in this case was that 
Qari Muhammad Salaam complainant (PW1) was informed about the 
incident but the evidence brought on the record about that development 
was also not free from doubt. In the FIR lodged by him the complainant 
had stated that Mafia Bibi (PW2), Asma Bibi (PW3), Yasmin Bibi and 
some others had informed him and other people of the village about the 
incident but in the FIR he had not divulged as to when he was informed 
about the incident. In his examination-in-chief before the trial court the 
complainant had stated that he was informed by Mafia Bibi (PW2), Asma 
Bibi (PW3) and Yasmin Bibi on 14.06.2009 and on that occasion 
Muhammad Afzal (PW4) and Muhammad Mukhtar Ahmad were also 
present with him whose presence with him had not been mentioned by 
him in the FIR. In his cross-examination the complainant had changed 
his stance and had stated that he was informed about the occurrence on 
Criminal Appeal No.39-L of 2015 
-: 43 :-
16.06.2009 (not on 14.06.2009 as stated by him in his examination-in-
chief).  
  
12. 
According to the prosecution the next person informed about the 
alleged incident was Muhammad Afzal (PW4) but where was he contacted 
for the purpose was also in doubt. Qari Muhammad Salaam complainant 
(PW1) had stated before the trial court that on 14.06.2009 Mafia Bibi 
(PW2), Asma Bibi (PW3) and Yasmin Bibi came to him and informed him 
about the incident and on that occasion Muhammad Afzal (PW4) and 
Muhammad Mukhtar Ahmad were also present with him. However, 
Muhammad Afzal (PW4) had maintained before the trial court that on 
14.06.2009 Qari Muhammad Salaam complainant (PW1), Mafia Bibi 
(PW2), Asma Bibi (PW3), Yasmin Bibi and Muhammad Mukhtar Ahmad 
came to his house and narrated the occurrence to him. 
 
13. 
According to the record of the case some steps had been taken by 
the complainant party before reporting the matter to the police but the 
ambivalence surrounding taking of such steps was quite noticeable. The 
alleged occurrence had taken place on 14.06.2009 and the matter was 
reported to the police on 19.06.2009, i.e. after five days. Qari 
Muhammad Salaam complainant (PW1) had initially stated before the 
trial court that he had been informed about the incident on 14.06.2009 
but during the same testimony he had also stated that he had been 
apprised of the occurrence on 16.06.2009. He had stated before the trial 
court that between 16.06.2009 and 19.06.2009 he and the people of the 
village had “investigated and consulted and peeped into the matter” and 
the matter was reported to the police when they had felt satisfied about 
correctness of the allegations leveled against the appellant. Muhammad 
Idrees (CW1) had also stated that Qari Muhammad Salaam complainant 
(PW1) had verified the facts from him. It has pertinently been noticed by 
us that no detail of any such investigation, consultation or peeping into 
the matter by the complainant party or of verification by the complainant 
had been divulged before the trial court nor any evidence had been 
produced in that regard. 
 
14. 
The next development allegedly taking place in this case was a 
public gathering convened and held on 19.06.2009 wherein the appellant 
was summoned and she had statedly made a confession and had sought 
Criminal Appeal No.39-L of 2015 
-: 44 :-
pardon. I have found that the evidence produced by the prosecution in 
respect of the said public gathering and about what transpired therein 
was not only an afterthought but was nothing short of concoction 
incarnate. The said public gathering was allegedly held at about Noon on 
19.06.2009 and an FIR in respect of the alleged commission of 
blasphemy by the appellant had been lodged by Qari Muhammad Salaam 
complainant (PW1) with the local police at 05.45 P.M. on the same day, 
i.e. 19.06.2009 but it is quite intriguing to note that in the FIR so lodged 
no mention whatsoever had been made to any public gathering convened 
or held earlier on the same day or to summoning of the appellant in any 
such public gathering, making of a confession by her and seeking pardon 
by her therein! All that was mentioned in the FIR was that on 19.06.2009 
Qari Muhammad Salaam complainant (PW1), Muhammad Afzal (PW4) 
and Mukhtar Ahmad had summoned Asma Bibi (PW3), etc. and when 
the appellant was asked about the incident taking place on 14.06.2009 
she confessed and sought pardon. After lodging and registration of the 
FIR the initial investigating officer namely Muhammad Arshad, SI (PW7) 
had recorded the statements of Mafia Bibi (PW2), Asma Bibi (PW3) and 
Muhammad Afzal (PW4) under section 161, Cr.P.C. (Exhibits-DA, DB and 
DC respectively) on that very day and in those statements the said 
witnesses had also failed to mention anything about any public gathering 
convened and held on the same day, summoning of the appellant in such 
gathering, making of a confession by the appellant or seeking pardon by 
her therein! 
 
15. 
The witnesses produced by the prosecution before the trial court in 
order to prove the convening and holding of the so-called public 
gathering on 19.06.2009 and summoning of the appellant to that 
gathering, making of a confession by her and seeking pardon by her 
therein were Qari Muhammad Salaam complainant (PW1) and 
Muhammad Afzal (PW4). The statements made by the said witnesses 
have, however, been found by me to be mutually contradictory besides 
having been contradicted by the remaining record of the case. Qari 
Muhammad Salaam complainant (PW1) had stated that a public 
gathering was called in the village on 19.06.2009 but he had failed to 
mention the time or specific place of its holding. He claimed that in that 
gathering the appellant had confessed her guilt before him. He had 
conceded that convening and holding of any public gathering on 
Criminal Appeal No.39-L of 2015 
-: 45 :-
19.06.2009 had not been mentioned by him in the FIR (Exhibit-PA) 
lodged by him later on the same day. He had maintained that in the 
public gathering the appellant had narrated the occurrence to him and 
then Mafia Bibi (PW2) and Yasmin Bibi had narrated the occurrence but 
in her statement made before the trial court Mafia Bibi (PW2) had not 
said anything about her presence in the public gathering and Yasmin 
Bibi was not produced by the prosecution before the trial and she had 
been given up as unnecessary. Although Mafia Bibi (PW2) had stated 
about a public gathering in her statement made before the trial court yet 
she had never claimed to be present in any such gathering and, thus, her 
statement in that regard was nothing but hearsay. She had stated that 
the public gathering was held after four days of the alleged occurrence 
which meant that either the public gathering was held on 18.06.2009 
and not on 19.06.2009 or the alleged occurrence had taken place on 
15.06.2009 and not on 14.06.2009. I have already mentioned above that 
in her statement made before the police under section 161, Cr.P.C. Mafia 
Bibi (PW2) had said nothing about any public gathering at all and she 
was duly confronted with that earlier statement. In her statement made 
before the trial court Asma Bibi (PW3) had stated about holding of a 
public gathering but she had failed to mention any date, time or place of 
holding of such gathering. In her examination-in-chief she had never 
claimed to be present in the public gathering but in her cross-
examination she had stated that she and others had gone to attend the 
public gathering on their own. It has already been mentioned by me 
above that in her statement made before the police under section 161, 
Cr.P.C. Asma Bibi (PW3) had also said nothing about any public 
gathering at all and she was duly confronted with that earlier statement. 
Muhammad Afzal (PW4) had stated before the trial court about his 
presence in the public gathering and about summoning of the appellant 
to that gathering, making of confession by her in that gathering and her 
seeking pardon but he was confronted with his earlier statement made 
before the police under section 161, Cr.P.C. wherein he had said nothing 
at all about any such public gathering, summoning of the appellant to 
that gathering, making of confession by the appellant in that gathering 
and her seeking pardon. Muhammad Idrees (CW1) had also stated before 
the trial court about the public gathering convened and held on 
19.06.2009 and also about what transpired therein but he had admitted 
in black and white that he was not present in that gathering and he was 
Criminal Appeal No.39-L of 2015 
-: 46 :-
told about the same by some other persons. His statement about the 
public gathering and whatever transpired therein was, thus, hit by the 
rule against hearsay evidence. It may, however, be pointed out that the 
said witness had maintained that the public gathering was held after two 
or three days of the alleged occurrence and not after five days as asserted 
by some other witnesses. 
 
16. 
Apart from what has been discussed above the evidence produced 
by the prosecution about where the public gathering had been held, how 
many people had participated in that gathering, who had brought the 
appellant to the gathering, how the appellant was brought to the 
gathering and the time consumed in the meeting has been found by me 
to be replete with glaring contradictions exposing complete falsity of the 
said part of the prosecution’s story. As regards the place of holding the 
public gathering Qari Muhammad Salaam complainant (PW1) had stated 
that the public gathering was held in the house of Muhammad Mukhtar 
Ahmad who was not produced by the prosecution and was given up as 
unnecessary. He had also stated that the total area of the house of the 
said Muhammad Mukhtar Ahmad was 5 Marlas. Mafia Bibi (PW2) had 
stated that the public gathering was held in the house of her father 
namely Abdul Sattar wherein she and her sister namely Asma Bibi (PW3) 
also resided. Asma Bibi (PW3) had stated in one breath that the public 
gathering was held in her house but in the other breath she had stated 
that the public gathering was held in the house of her neighbour namely 
Rana Razzaq. Muhammad Afzal (PW4) had maintained that the public 
gathering was held in the house of Muhammad Mukhtar Ahmad who had 
not been produced by the prosecution and had been given up as 
unnecessary. According to Muhammad Idrees (CW1) the public gathering 
was held at the Dera of Haji Ali Ahmad and not at any other place. The 
number of persons who had participated in the said public gathering was 
stated by Qari Muhammad Salaam complainant (PW1) to be about 100, 
Mafia Bibi (PW2) had given that figure as more than 1000 including 
many Ulema and Imams of mosques, according to Asma Bibi (PW3) the 
number of participants was about 2000 including people of nearby 
villages and according to Muhammad Afzal (PW4) more than 200/250 
people were present in that gathering. Muhammad Idrees (CW1) had 
stated that many religious scholars were also present in the gathering 
but he did not know the names of the religious scholars who had 
Criminal Appeal No.39-L of 2015 
-: 47 :-
participated. If, as stated by Qari Muhammad Salaam complainant 
(PW1), the total area of the house wherein the public gathering had been 
held was only 5 Marlas then hundreds or thousands of people could not 
conceivably fit into that very small house. The evidence produced by the 
prosecution regarding bringing the appellant to the public gathering was 
equally discrepant and utterly unreliable. According to Qari Muhammad 
Salaam complainant (PW1) some residents of the village including one 
Mudassir had gone on two motorcycles to the house of the appellant and 
had brought her with them to the public gathering. The said Mudassir 
was not produced by the prosecution as a witness. Asma Bibi (PW3) had 
stated that the house of the appellant was situated only three houses 
away from the place where the public gathering was held and that the 
appellant was brought there on foot and she also went back on foot. 
Muhammad Afzal (PW4) had stated that the house of the appellant was 
situated 200/250 yards away from the house wherein the public 
gathering had been held and it was one Mushtaq Ahmad who had 
brought the appellant to the gathering. Later on during the same 
statement the said witness had maintained that Mushtaq Ahmad had 
brought the appellant from the field of Falsa. Muhammad Idrees (CW1) 
had stated that the appellant’s house was situated in front of the Dera 
whereat the public gathering was held. According to Mafia Bibi (PW2) 
and Asma Bibi (PW3) the public gathering lasted for about 15/20 
minutes but Muhammad Afzal (PW4) had deposed that the gathering had 
continued for two to two and a half hours. There was a general 
consensus among the prosecution witnesses that the public gathering 
was held on a Friday and it had commenced its proceedings around 
Noon time. If the proceedings had continued for two to two and a half 
hours then the participants of the gathering, including some religious 
scholars and Imams of mosques, might have missed their Friday prayers 
which was not expected of them!  
 
17. 
According to the prosecution after the public gathering was over 
Qari Muhammad Salaam complainant (PW1) had lodged an FIR with the 
local police on the same day, i.e. 19.06.2009. The circumstances in 
which the complainant had lodged the FIR were also not free from 
serious doubts. The original FIR (Exhibit-PA) was in the shape of a 
written application which had statedly been drafted by an Advocate. The 
record of this case is completely silent about availability of an Advocate 
Criminal Appeal No.39-L of 2015 
-: 48 :-
in the village of the parties and nobody had stated anything about the 
complainant going to any city so as to contact an Advocate and to get an 
FIR drafted by him. As a matter of fact the complainant had stated before 
the trial court that he did not even remember the name of the Advocate 
who had drafted the FIR. The application Exhibit-PA showed that the 
same was presented by the complainant before Mehdi Hassan, ASI at 
Pull Nehar Chandarkot (bridge over Chandarkot canal) at 05.45 P.M. on 
19.06.2009 when the complainant had met that police officer there while 
on his way to the Police Station. Qari Muhammad Salaam complainant 
(PW1) had, however, stated before the trial court that the application 
Exhibit-PA was delivered to the Station House Officer of the concerned 
Police Station which was factually incorrect and was belied by the 
document Exhibit-PA itself. Muhammad Rizwan, SI (PW5) had stated in 
black and white that on 19.06.2009 the complainant had presented the 
complaint Exhibit-PA before him at the Police Station and he had then 
chalked out the formal FIR (Exhibit-PA/1). Even Question No. 6 put to 
the appellant at the time of recording of her statement under section 
342, Cr.P.C. was about the complainant presenting the application 
Exhibit-PA at the Police Station which was against the record. It was 
suggested to the complainant by the defence during his cross-
examination that the application Exhibit-PA was presented by him before 
Mehdi Hassan, ASI at Pull Nehar Chandarkot and not at the Police 
Station but the complainant had categorically denied that suggestion and 
had maintained that it was incorrect to suggest that the application 
Exhibit-PA was not presented by him at the Police Station. The 
complainant had lied in that regard because it had been recorded by 
Mehdi Hassan, ASI at the bottom of the application Exhibit-PA that the 
said application had been presented by the complainant before him at 
05.45 P.M. on 19.06.2009 at Pull Nehar Chandarkot. This lie told by the 
complainant could have further been exposed by Mehdi Hassan, ASI but 
for some undisclosed reason the said police officer was not produced by 
the prosecution before the trial court. It is quite strange and out of the 
ordinary that Qari Muhammad Salaam complainant (PW1), the initiator 
of this criminal case, did not remember who had drafted the application 
Exhibit-PA for the purpose of lodging the FIR and he did not even know 
where and before whom the said application had been presented by him 
for the purpose of getting an FIR registered. It, thus, appears that 
something else was happening behind the scene and the actual movers 
Criminal Appeal No.39-L of 2015 
-: 49 :-
of the present criminal case were some others who had never come to the 
fore. Apart from that the FIR had been lodged in this case by Qari 
Muhammad Salaam complainant (PW1) who was not present in the 
incident allegedly taking place in the field of Falsa on 14.06.2009 and 
who had not himself heard any derogatory remark attributed to the 
appellant. The FIR lodged by him had not even disclosed as to which 
female co-worker was being addressed by the appellant when she had 
allegedly uttered the offending words on the relevant occasion. An FIR 
lodged with a noticeable delay and after consultations and deliberations 
loses its credibility and in the present case the FIR had been lodged with 
an unexplained delay of five days and the complainant had admitted 
before the trial court that the FIR had been lodged after he and the 
people of the village had “investigated”, “consulted” and “peeped into the 
matter”. The complainant and the FIR lodged by him, thus, were not 
worthy of much credit. 
 
18. 
The investigation conducted in this case by the police after registration of 
the FIR had also left much to be desired. Qari Muhammad Salaam complainant 
(PW1) had admitted before the trial court that no permission was obtained from 
the District Coordination Officer or the District Police Officer, etc. for lodging or 
registration of an FIR in respect of the offence of blasphemy. The initial 
investigation of this case was conducted by a Sub-Inspector of Police, i.e. 
Muhammad Arshad, SI (PW7) which was a violation of section 156-A, Cr.P.C. 
according to which investigation of such a case could be conducted by an officer 
not below the rank of Superintendent of Police. After lodging of the FIR it was 
Muhammad Arshad, SI (PW7) who was entrusted the investigation of the case 
and it was he who had gone to the place of occurrence, had recorded 
statements of the witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C. and had arrested the 
appellant on the same day, i.e. 19.06.2009. Muhammad Amin Bukhari, SP 
(Investigation) had appeared before the trial court as PW6 and had claimed to 
have conducted the subsequent investigation of this case after the Deputy 
Inspector-General of Police/Regional Police Officer, Range Sheikhupura had 
entrusted the investigation of the case to him on 24.06.2009. That statement of 
PW6 was factually incorrect because the relevant letter of the Deputy Inspector-
General of Police/Regional Police Officer, Range Sheikhupura was dated 
26.06.2009 as was evident from the statement of PW6 himself. The said officer 
had never visited the place of occurrence and had not recorded the statements 
of witnesses himself. Even the circumstances in which the appellant had been 
arrested in connection with this case were quite doubtful. Muhammad Arshad, 
SI (PW7) had stated before the trial court that the appellant had been arrested 
Criminal Appeal No.39-L of 2015 
-: 50 :-
by him on 19.06.2009 from the appellant’s house. Muhammad Idrees (CW1), 
however, had a different story to tell in that regard and according to him the 
religious scholars present in the public gathering had handed over the 
appellant to the police and the appellant had been arrested at the Dera of Haji 
Ali Ahmad where the public gathering was held. 
 
19. 
The argument of the learned counsel for the complainant that some 
factual assertions made by the prosecution witnesses were deemed to have 
been admitted by the defence because the prosecution witnesses were not 
cross-examined regarding those assertions and no suggestion was put to them 
regarding incorrectness of such assertions has been found by me to be 
misconceived. In the case of Nadeem Ramzan v The State (2018 SCMR 149) this 
Court had clarified while referring to the earlier cases of S. Mahmood Alam Shah 
v The State (PLD 1987 SC 250) and State v Rab Nawaz and another (PLD 1974 
SC 87) that “the principle that a fact would be deemed to be proved if the 
witness stating such fact had not been cross-examined regarding the same was 
a principle applicable to civil cases and not to criminal cases. It was held that a 
criminal case is to be decided on the basis of totality of impressions gathered 
from the circumstances of the case and not on the narrow ground of cross-
examination or otherwise of a witness on a particular fact stated by him.”  
 
20. 
The glaring and stark contradictions in the evidence produced by the 
prosecution in respect of every factual aspect of this case, noticed by me above, 
lead to an irresistible and unfortunate impression that all those concerned in 
the case with providing evidence and conducting investigation had taken upon 
themselves not to speak the truth or at least not to divulge the whole truth. It is 
equally disturbing to note that the courts below had also, conveniently or 
otherwise, failed to advert to such contradictions and some downright 
falsehood. All concerned would have certainly done better if they had paid heed 
to what Almighty Allah has ordained in the Holy Qur’an: 
 
“O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm for Allah, 
witnesses in justice, and do not let the hatred of a people prevent you 
from being just. Be just, that is nearer to righteousness. And fear Allah; 
indeed, Allah is acquainted with what you do.” 
 
(Surah Al-Ma’idah: verse 8) 
 
“So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be just. And if you 
distort [your testimony] or refuse [to give it], then indeed Allah is ever, 
with what you do, acquainted.” 
 
(Surah An-Nisa: verse 135) 
 
Criminal Appeal No.39-L of 2015 
-: 51 :-
21. 
There are indications available on the record that something had 
transpired between the appellant, a Christian by faith, and her Muslim co-
workers in the field of Falsa on the fateful day and it was in the background of 
that something that the present allegation regarding commission of blasphemy 
had belatedly been leveled against the appellant after deliberations spanning 
over five long days. It is unfortunate that all the four private witnesses 
produced by the complainant party, i.e. Qari Muhammad Salaam complainant 
(PW1), Mafia Bibi (PW2), Asma Bibi (PW3) and Muhammad Afzal (PW4) had 
remained completely silent about that something and it were the Court Witness 
namely Muhammad Idrees (CW1) and the senior investigating officer namely 
Muhammad Amin Bukhari, SP (Investigation) (PW6) who had spilled the beans 
in that regard and had shown that the boot might in fact be on the other leg! 
According to the statement made by Muhammad Idrees (CW1) before the trial 
court he had come to know that before the offending words were allegedly 
uttered by the appellant a quarrel had taken place between the appellant and 
the other female co-workers over an issue of fetching water to drink. 
Elaborating the said quarrel the said witness, owner of the relevant field of 
Falsa, had disclosed that while working together in that field on the relevant 
occasion the worker ladies wanted to drink water and the appellant was 
requested to fetch water but Mafia Bibi (PW2) and Asma Bibi (PW3) said that 
they would not drink water from the hands of the appellant because she was a 
Christian. Muhammad Amin Bukhari, SP (Investigation) (PW6) had stated 
before the trial court that it came to his knowledge during the investigation that 
during a religious discussion between the ladies working together in the field of 
Falsa on the fateful day a Muslim lady asked for water but when the appellant 
offered her water the Muslim lady refused to have/drink it from the hand of a 
Christian lady. He had also confirmed that in his statement recorded under 
section 161, Cr.P.C. Muhammad Idrees (CW1) had stated that a quarrel had 
taken place between the appellant and the ladies appearing as prosecution 
witnesses on the issue of drinking water. The record shows, and it is sad to 
note, that when taking place of such a quarrel between the appellant and Asma 
Bibi (PW3) on the issue of drinking water was suggested to the latter by the 
defence during her cross-examination she had denied that suggestion. The 
denial of that suggestion by Asma Bibi (PW3) has, however, failed to surprise 
me because in the FIR, in their statements recorded by the police under section 
161, Cr.P.C. as well as in their statements made before the trial court all the 
private witnesses belonging to the complainant party, i.e. Qari Muhammad 
Salaam complainant (PW1), Mafia Bibi (PW2), Asma Bibi (PW3) and Muhammad 
Afzal (PW4) had maintained complete silence over this factual aspect of the case 
and this fact had come to light only through the statements of a Court Witness 
and an investigating officer who were both independent witnesses.  
 
Criminal Appeal No.39-L of 2015 
-: 52 :-
22. 
The above mentioned suppression of a critical fact by the members 
of the complainant party in fact holds the key to a just, fair and correct 
decision of the present case. The record of the case shows that the 
appellant and her forefathers had been living in the same village since 
before the creation of Pakistan in the year 1947 and during all this while 
no such incident or quarrel over religions of the parties had ever taken 
place. It may be advantageous to read again what the appellant had 
stated in her statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C.: 
 
“I am married woman having two daughters. My husband is a poor 
labourer. I used to pluck Falsa from the plants of Muhammad Idrees 
along with number of ladies on the daily wages basis. On the alleged day 
of occurrence, I along with number of ladies were working in the fields. 
Both the ladies Mst. Mafia Bibi and Mst. Asma Bibi PWs quarreled with 
me over fetching water which was offered by me to bring for them but 
they refused saying that since I am Christian, so, they never took water 
from the hand of Christian. Over this, quarrel was insued and some hot 
words were exchanged between myself and the PWs ladies. The PWs then 
approached Qari Salaam complainant through his wife who remained 
teaching the both ladies, hence, the PWs were conspiring with Qari 
Salaam got a false, fabricated and fictitious case against me. I offered my 
oath to police on Bible that I had never passed such derogatory and 
shameful remarks against the Holy Prophet (PBUH) and the Holy Quran. 
I have great respect and honour to the Holy Prophet (PBUH) as well Holy 
Quran and since police had conspired with the complainant, so, the 
police has falsely booked me in this case. The PWs are real sisters and 
interested to falsely involve me in this case as they felt disgrace and 
dishonor on the basis of altercation and hard words extended to them. 
Qari Salaam complainant is also interested person and both the ladies 
remained teaching Holy Quran from his wife. My forefathers are living in 
this village since creation of Pakistan. I am also about 40 years old and 
since the alleged occurrence, no complaint likewise this never exist 
against me. I am uneducated and no priest of Christian. So much so 
there is no church of the Christian in the village, so, being ignorant of 
any Islamic thought, how can I use such clumsy and derogatory remarks 
against the beloved Prophet (PBUH) of Allah and the Divine book viz Holy 
Quran. PW Idrees is also a interested witness who has close family links 
with their above said ladies.” 
 
In the backdrop of that statement of the appellant, suppression of the 
fact by the complainant party about the quarrel over drinking water and 
confirmation about such quarrel by the Court Witness and the senior 
investigating officer there are two possibilities which appeal to reason: 
firstly, the appellant had uttered the offending words after her own 
religion or religious sensibilities had been insulted and injured by the 
Muslim co-workers at the spot or, secondly, due to the quarrel taking 
place between the appellant and her Muslim co-workers at the spot 
without any offending word having been uttered by the appellant the 
quarrel was reported by the Muslim ladies to others who then, after 
deliberating over the matter for five long days, had decided to go after the 
Criminal Appeal No.39-L of 2015 
-: 53 :-
appellant with a false allegation regarding commission of blasphemy. 
Both these possibilities require some examination. 
 
23. 
The 
statements 
made 
by 
Muhammad 
Idrees 
(CW1) 
and 
Muhammad Amin Bukhari, SP (Investigation) (PW6) before the trial court 
revealed that the alleged blasphemy had been committed by the 
Christian appellant after her Muslim co-workers had insulted the 
appellant’s religion and had injured her religious sensibilities only 
because she believed in and was a follower of Jesus Christ. According to 
the Holy Qur’an a Muslim’s faith is not complete till he believes in all the 
Holy Prophets and Messengers of Almighty Allah including Jesus Christ 
(Isa son of Maryam) (Peace Be Upon Him) and all the revealed Holy Books 
of Almighty Allah including the Holy Bible. From that perspective 
insulting the appellant’s religion by her Muslim co-workers was no less 
blasphemous. Almighty Allah, the Creator of mankind, knew how a 
human being whose religion and religious sensibilities are insulted is 
likely to snap and retort and that is why it was ordained in the Holy 
Qur’an that  
 
“And do not insult those they invoke other than Allah, lest they insult 
Allah in enmity without knowledge. Thus We have made pleasing to every 
community their deeds. Then to their Lord is their return, and He will 
inform them about what they used to do.”  
 
(Surah Al-An’am: verse 108) 
 
The Muslim co-workers of the appellant had violated the command of 
Almighty Allah by insulting the Deity believed in and the religion followed 
by the appellant and, even if the prosecution’s allegations against the 
appellant were to be accepted as correct, the stated reaction to the same 
by the appellant was not different from that warned about by Almighty 
Allah.  
 
24. 
In view of the glaring contradictions in the evidence produced by 
the prosecution it has appeared to me to be equally plausible that due to 
the quarrel taking place between the appellant and her Muslim co-
workers at the spot without any offending word having been uttered by 
the appellant the quarrel was reported by the Muslim ladies to others 
who then, after deliberating over the matter for five long days, had 
decided to go after the appellant with a false allegation regarding 
commission of blasphemy. If that were so then the Muslim witnesses in 
Criminal Appeal No.39-L of 2015 
-: 54 :-
this case had violated a covenant of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (Peace 
Be Upon Him) with those professing the Christian faith. In his book The 
Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World 
(published by Angelico Press on 01.09.2013) John A. Morrow has 
referred to and reproduced many covenants entered into by the Holy 
Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) with people of the Christian 
faith and one of such covenants is called the Covenant of the Prophet 
Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) with the Monks of Mount Sinai. It is 
reported that in or around the year 628 A.D. a delegation from St. 
Catherine’s Monastery, the world’s oldest monastery located at the foot of 
Mount Sinai in Egypt, came to the Holy Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be 
Upon Him), requested for his protection and he responded by granting 
them a charter of rights. That charter, also known as The Promise to St. 
Catherine, was translated from Arabic to English language by Dr. A. 
Zahoor and Dr. Z. Haq as follows: 
  
"This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to 
those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them. 
Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, 
because Christians are my citizens; and by God! I hold out against 
anything that displeases them. No compulsion is to be on them. Neither 
are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their 
monasteries. No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, 
or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses. Should anyone take 
any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. 
Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that 
they hate.  
No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight. The Muslims 
are to fight for them. If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is 
not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from 
visiting her church to pray. Their churches are to be respected. They are 
neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their 
covenants. No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till 
the Last Day (end of the world)." 
The promise made was eternal and universal and was not limited to St. 
Catherine alone. The rights conferred by the charter are inalienable and 
the Holy Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) had declared that 
Christians, all of them, were his allies and he equated ill treatment of 
Christians with violating God’s covenant. It is noticeable that the charter 
imposed no conditions on Christians for enjoying its privileges and it was 
enough that they were Christians. They were not required to alter their 
beliefs, they did not have to make any payments and they did not have 
any obligations. The charter was of rights without any duties and it 
Criminal Appeal No.39-L of 2015 
-: 55 :-
clearly protected the right to property, freedom of religion, freedom of 
work, and security of person.  
25. 
It is unfortunate that while utilizing the sacred concept of Namoos-
e-Risalat (honour and dignity of Prophethood) the above mentioned 
promise made by the Holy Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) to 
those professing the Christian faith had not been adhered to by his 
followers in the present case. It appears that after an altercation taking 
place in the field of Falsa a feast of falsehood had followed and the 
Muslim members of the complainant party led by Qari Muhammad 
Salaam complainant had paid little heed to the following command of 
Almighty Allah in the Holy Qur’an: 
 “O! ye who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, 
even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it 
be (against) rich or poor, for Allah can best protect both. Follow not the 
lusts (of your hearts), lest ye swerve, and if ye distort (justice) or decline 
to do justice, verily Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do.”  
 
(Surah Al-Nisa: verse 135) 
 
Even if there was some grain of truth in the allegations levelled in this 
case against the appellant still the glaring contradictions in the evidence 
of the prosecution highlighted above clearly show that the truth in this 
case had been mixed with a lot which was untrue. Even in this regard 
the Muslim witnesses belonging to the complainant party had ignored 
what had been ordained by Almighty Allah in the following verse of the 
Holy Qur’an: 
 
“And do not mix the truth with falsehood or conceal the truth while you 
know [it].”  
 
(Surah Al-Baqarah: verse 42) 
 
Blasphemy is a serious offence but the insult of the appellant’s religion 
and religious sensibilities by the complainant party and then mixing 
truth with falsehood in the name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (Peace 
Be Upon Him) was also not short of being blasphemous. It is ironical that 
in the Arabic language the appellant’s name Asia means ‘sinful’ but in 
the circumstances of the present case she appears to be a person, in the 
words of Shakespeare’s King Leare, “more sinned against than sinning”. 
 
26. 
For what has been discussed above a conclusion is inescapable 
and irresistible that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against 
Criminal Appeal No.39-L of 2015 
-: 56 :-
the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. This appeal is, therefore, 
allowed, the conviction and sentence of the appellant recorded and 
upheld by the courts below are set aside and she is acquitted of the 
charge by extending the benefit of doubt to her. She shall be released 
from the jail forthwith if not required to be detained in connection with 
any other case. 
 
 
 
(Asif Saeed Khan Khosa) 
Judge 
 
 
 
