2023 SCLR 68
Other citations:
2023 SCP 306 (https://www.supremecourt.gov.pk/downloads_judgements/crl.p._54_p_2012.pdf)
2023 SCMR 2109 (https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/MainPage)
[Supreme Court of
Pakistan]
Present: Jamal Khan
Mandokhail, Ayesha A. Malik and Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, JJ
The State through
Advocate General KPK, Peshawar—Petitioner
versus
Saadat Khan and
another—Respondents
Criminal
Petition No. 54-P of 2012, decided on 26th September, 2023.
[Against
the judgment dated 21.03.2012 of the Peshawar High Court, Mingora Bench
(Dar-ul-Qaza), Swat]
HEADNOTES
Penal
Code (XLV of 1860) —
— S. 295-B — Defiling of copy of Holy
Quran — Appreciation of evidence — Scope — Prosecution assailed the
acquittal of accused — Record transpired that there had been significant
contradictions in the statements provided by the complainant and the
prosecution witnesses — The accused was identified as the complainant’s uncle
and there was a land dispute existing between the parties — Two independent
witnesses had been abandoned, leading to an adverse inference against the
prosecution — Additionally, crucial pieces of evidence, such as torn pieces
of Holy Quran mentioned in the FIR, had not been produced during the
investigation — The moulvi, who allegedly took the torn pieces of the
Holy Quran, had not appeared as a witness — Investigating Officer had found
the accused to be abnormal at the time of arrest and had referred him for a
medical examination, but the same had not been taken to its logical conclusion
— However, the accused had produced a certificate asserting his abnormality
during the incident, which the prosecution had not objected to — Supreme
Court noted that the allegations against the accused were of a highly sensitive
nature, but the prosecution had failed to prove its case with sound and
convincing evidence — No legal issues or mis-reading had been found in the
available record — Consequently, the petition was dismissed due to its lack
of merit, and the leave was declined. [Para. No. 7 & 8]
Altaf Khan, Additional Advocate General, KPK for the
petitioner.
Nemo for the respondents.
Date of hearing: 26th September, 2023.
JUDGMENT
Syed
Hasan Azhar Rizvi, J.- Through this petition filed under Article 185(3) of
the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the
petitioner/State has challenged the judgment dated 21.03.2012 passed by the
Peshawar High Court, Mingora Bench (Dar-ul-Qaza), Swat (High Court)
whereby Criminal Appeal filed by the respondent, Saadat Khan, was allowed;
judgment dated 22.12.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Izzafi Zila
Qazi, Dir at Timargara (trial Court) was set aside and the
respondent was acquitted of the charge.
2. Succinctly, facts of the case leading
to filing of instant as are: the complainant, namely, Zahir Ali, lodged a
report on 03.09.207 (sic) at 20:00 hours that he, after offering zohar
prayer, while present outside the mosque heard noise from the house of the
respondent and saw him beating his family members. The complainant, however,
affected separation. In the meantime, the respondent went inside his house and
came out while holding Holy Quran in his hand and thrown the same by force on
the floor. The complainant took the Holy Quran in torn condition to the mosque
which (incident) was witnessed by Najam-ud-Din, Amin Ullah and Gulzeb. The
incident was reported by the complainant, thus FIR No.249 was registered at
Police Station Khall, District Dir under Section 295-B, PPC and the respondent
was, accordingly arrested.
3. After completion of the
investigation, challan was submitted before the Court. The respondent was
charged with the allegation to which he pleaded not guilty. After recording of
evidence and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the respondent was
convicted under Section 295-B, PPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life by
the trial Court vide judgment dated 22.12.2009.
4. Being aggrieved with the above
decision, the respondent approached the High Court by filing a criminal appeal
which was allowed through the impugned judgment, as mentioned above, hence this
petition.
5. Learned Additional Advocate General,
KPK, appearing on behalf of the State, contends that the impugned judgment is
not strictly in accordance with the dispensation of criminal justice; the High
Court while allowing criminal appeal has reached to a wrong conclusion; that
the respondent was not a man of sound mind; that the findings of the High Court
are based on conjectures and surmises, which are the result of mis-appreciation
of evidence, thus the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the
decision of the trial Court should be maintained.
6. Heard the learned Law Officer at some
length and scanned the material available on record with his able assistance.
7. It transpires from the record that
there are material contradictions in the statements of the complainant as well
as the prosecution witnesses. Apparently, the respondent is uncle of the
complainant (PW- 1) and Gulzeb (PW-2) is a friend of the complainant and there
was a land dispute in between the parties. Two independent witnesses, namely
Najam-ud-Din and Amin Ullah, have been abandoned, thus an adverse inference has
to be drawn against the prosecution. The torn pieces and damaged book (Holy
Quran) which were taken by the complainant from the scene of occurrence to
the mosque, as narrated in the FIR, were neither produced during the
investigation nor moulvi who took the torn pieces of Holy Quran,
appeared as a witness.
We
find that the respondent was found to be an abnormal person by the
Investigating Officer at the time of his arrest and was referred for the
medical examination but the same had not been taken into its logical
conclusion. However, the respondent produced a certificate regarding the fact
that he was an abnormal person at the time of incident which fact was not
objected to by the prosecution. The allegations levelled by the complainant
against the respondent are of highly sensitive nature and the prosecution has
failed to prove its case against the respondent through sound, cogent and
confidence inspiring evidence. Neither any infirmity or illegality nor any
misreading and non-reading has been noticed from the available record. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for the
interference.
8. For what has been discussed above,
this petition lacking merit is dismissed. Leave is declined.
Petition dismissed