ASIA BIBI BLASPHEMY CASE — Detailed Judgement of Supreme Court
PDF ASIA JUDGEMENT
Asia Bibi blasphemy case has been decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan whereby the judgments of the High Court as well as the Trial Court are reversed. Consequently, the conviction and the sentence of death awarded to Asia Bibi is set aside and she is acquitted of the charge. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has ordered her to be released from jail forthwith, if not required in any other criminal case.
The case was emanated from a complaint lodged by Qari Muhammad Salaam before police and consequently the FIR No.326 dated 19.06.2009 under Section 295-C P.P.C. was registered at Police Station Sadar Nankana Sahib. After the conclusion of the trial, the 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 imprisonment. The 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 said Asia Bibi filed the appeal with Apex Court of Pakistan.
The Supreme Court considered the following points while acquitting Aisa Bibi. The first thing considered was the statement of appellant 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. The appellant had her statement recorded under section 342 Cr.P.C, expressed her full respect to the Holy Prophet SAW ( and the Holy Quran and she offered to take an oath on the Bible to the Investigation Officer to prove her innocence which was refused by the Investigation Officer).
Second point considered by the Court was absence of 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 (Prosecution Witness No. 2), Asma Bibi (Prosecution Witness No.3) and Yasmin Bibi (given up Prosecution Witness) on 16.6.2009. The Courts have 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. In addition it is established from the record that an altercation/quarrel took place between Asia Bibi and Prosecution Witnesses Nos. 2 and 3, thus the factum of quarrel is proved. Another important aspect of the matter is that the complainant Qari Muhammad Salaam in his statement admitted that the application for registration of FIR was drafted by an Advocate; however, he could not mention his name. The Supreme Court categorized his statement casting a doubt on the truthfulness of the story narrated in the FIR. The Supreme Court also considered the point vis-à-vis the validity of the proceedings in absence of a permission from the concerned Government.
Thirdly the Court also considered another facet pertaining to this matter. The 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 was furnished by the witnesses. Fourth aspect considered by the Supreme Court was the contradiction in the statements of prosecution witnesses including the self-contradictory statements of the witnesses; and the contradictions of the statements of the different prosecution witnesses.
The Honourable Supreme Court has held that all the 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. 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.
