1991 PLP 1734 (SCMR)

ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.‑‑‑This appeal by leave arises from the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench dated 30‑1‑1985. ,

2. The facts are that on 6‑4‑1982 at about 9‑00 a.m., Mirza Muhammad Anwar Baig complainant was going towards Farid Gate when he found a person whose name later on transpired as Ubaidullah across the road in front of S.D. High School, near the wall of jail who was throwing a booklet on the ground again and again and was trampling the same. The complainant got suspicious, went near the person, picked up the booklet and found that it was Namaz Mutarajjam. In the meantime, two persons namely, Liaquat Ali and Muhammad Rafique also came there and saw the said occurrence. The three of them then caught hold of the accused and on asking he told them that he was trampling the booklet on his own free will and that they had nothing to do with it. Soon other people were collected there, they took the accused to the Police Post Farid Gate Bahawalpur alongwith booklet where the complaint Exh. PA. was lodged alleging therein that the accused had desecrated the Holy Quran and had injured the feelings of the Muslims.

3. Mukhtar Ahmad S.I. took the booklet Namaz Mutarajjam in his possession vide memo Exh.P.B. He arrested the accused, recorded the statement of the witnesses and the case was sent for trial.

4. On 7‑10‑1982, the learned Additional Sessions Judge‑I formally charged the accused under section 295‑B, P.P.C. and started with the trial. The prosecution in support of its case produced a number of witnesses. The accused 1 in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. deposed:‑ "On the day of the occurrence some unknown person had given me cigarette filled in with charas which I smoked and due to that I became intoxicated and senseless. Some of the unknown persons put the Namaz Mutarajjam in my pocket. Some persons collected at the spot. They gave me beating. I also gave them beating in retaliation. Due to this they took me to the police station, where the police also gave me beating and involved me in this case."

5. The defence put forth by the accused did not find favour with the learned trial Court who then convicted Ubaidullah appellant as such and sentenced him to imprisonment for life vide Order dated 5‑1‑1983. The appeal filed by the appellant before the High Court was also dismissed.

6. Leave in this case was granted to consider whether under section 295‑B, P.P.C. must the sentence on conviction be imprisonment for life.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgments of the Courts below. It is true that the case of the prosecution is based on the evidence of independent witnesses who have supported the case of the prosecution in its entirety. But we cannot ignore the defence put forth by the appellant altogether. His plea soon after the arrest was that he did not commit the offence charged with and the detailed statement which he had given at the trial which has been reproduced above seems quite reasonable and plausible. The record shows that he is an absolutely illiterate person and therefore, there existed no reason for him to carry the booklet‑?Namaz Mutarajjam. It seems that when he was under the influence of intoxication, somebody, to make a fun of him, pushed this booklet into his pocket which late: on turned to an ugly scene and resulted into the present occurrence.

8. In view of the above, we agree with the defence put forth by the appellant and hold that he has not committed the offence charged with. We, therefore, accept his appeal set aside the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge‑I, Bahawalpur dated 5‑1‑1983 and that of the learned Judge of the High Court dated 30‑1‑1985 and acquit the appellant of the charge. He should be released forthwith if not required in any other case. MA.K./U‑38/S??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Accused acquitted.