The Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside Aasia Bibi's conviction of death sentence and acquitted her of blasphemy charges. The apex court reversed the judgements of the high court and the trial court and said: "The conviction and the sentence of death awarded to the appellant are 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 Mian Saqib Nisar, heading a three-judge bench, announced the judgement. Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, a member of the bench, wrote an additional note.
The court on October 8, 2018 after hearing the arguments of the appellant and the defence counsel had reserved the judgment. The FIR against Aasia Bibi was registered after five days, i.e., 19-06-2009, while the incident took place on 14-06-2009. The Lahore High Court had upheld the verdict of trial court and convicted and sentenced the accused in October 2014. She filed an appeal in the apex court against the LHC judgement in November 2014.
The judgement authored by the Chief Justice noted that the complaint against Aasia Bibi of blasphemy was filed after a considerable delay, which was not explained by complainant thus raises suspicion as to its truthfulness. The judgement also noted that the complainant (Qari Muhammad Salaam - Prosecution Witness-1 or 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.
The court observed there were many discrepancies /inconsistencies in the statements of the PWs.
The trial court had relied upon the evidence of the witnesses regarding the extrajudicial confession to convict the appellant. The high court has disregarded the extrajudicial confession for the reason that the evidence of extrajudicial 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 extrajudicial 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.
The judgement stated that this Court (SC) has repeatedly held that evidence of extrajudicial confession is a fragile piece of evidence and utmost care and caution has to be exercised in placing reliance on such a confession.
The court noted that in this instant case, the appellant (Aasia Bibi) 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 extrajudicial confession was made by her, even if presumed to have been made by her before such public gathering, cannot be termed as a voluntary action and nor can it be relied upon to form the basis of a conviction, especially for capital punishment.
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.
Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa in his separate note stated, "The prosecution narration 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."
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".
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 Phalsa on the fateful day and it was in the background of that something that the present allegation regarding commission of blasphemy had belatedly been levelled 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 foot.
It appears that after an altercation taking place in the field of Phalsa, 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 Quran:
"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)
Comments
Comments are closed.