2003 PLP 2114 (YLR)

4. The accused in their statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied the allegations and claimed that they are innocent. On a question to Abdul Manem "Why this case against you and the P.Ws. have deposed against you?" he replied as under:-- "I am a bookseller and running my book shop at Bohar Gate, Multan. So many books binders used to remain in contact with me because I give them books for binding work on contract. According to the terms of contract I stood liable to pay the total cost of book binding to the book binders. Paper purchase, card, cloth etc. used in book binding are the liability of book binders. I have only concern with the binded books. Sadiq accused in the instant case is neither my servant nor I have any concern with him. I have given him Siparas of Holy Qur'an for the purpose of bindings. Prior to the registration of instant case Ch. Muhammad Aslam Magistrate visited my shop and requested for the sale of one thousand books written by his Peer at highest cost. I refused to accept the liability which caused serious annoyance to him. I am a responsible person having the wisdom of Qur'an and Sunnah, therefore, I cannot think to commit such-like offence as it has been alleged against me. I am innocent. The allegedly recovered wrappers might have been provided from the professional rival group in the market. I have been falsely implicated in this case. I am Muslim by Faith and usually render services as "Khateeb" in Jumma prayers, and belongs to famous religious family of Multan, as such, even cannot think, to give any gesture of derrogation or disregard, defiling, insult, or damage to the Holy Qur'an. All the P.Ws. have deposed at the instance of Ch. Muhammad Aslam Magistrate, who managed my false implication. " and to the same question Muhammad Sadiq appellant replied as under: "Ch. Muhammad Aslam Magistrate pressurized me to give evidence against Abdul Manan in this concocted case. On account of my refusal I have been booked by the said Magistrate falsely." They also produced D.W.1 Irfaz Shahzad in support of their defence. Learned trial Court after hearing both the parties, both the appellants were convicted and sentenced as above through the impugned judgment.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that only wrappers are alleged to have been recovered from the inside of room which were not used for binding therefore, offence under section 295-B, P.P.C. is not made out and moreso no private person ever complained about the de-filing of Holy Qur'an by the appellants; that Abdul Manem appellant is a "Hafiz-e-Qur'an" and used to address "Khutba" in Jumma prayers for the last so many years, who could not even think to defile the Holy Qur'an or any portion thereof; that the case has been registered only due to personal grievance with him by Muhammad Aslam P.W.4; that Muhammad Sadiq appellant has denied him to be the servant of Abdul Manem appellant; that prosecution story is improbable and has been concocted only to wreak the personal vengeance; that the prosecution evidence is not worthy of reliance; that the appellants are true Muslims and have no history of their involvement in such type activities; that they have good reputation in the people of their vicinity and lastly prays that the appellants may be acquitted of the charge.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes this appeal.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the evidence available on the record. From the perusal of statement of P.W.4 Muhammad Aslam it is clear that only 180 wrappers (P.1 to 180) were recovered and these were still not used for binding of "Qur'anic Siparas". No binded Qur'an with objectionable wrapper or material was recovered from the appellant or elsewhere from the Market. According to him these wrappers though were not prepared by the appellants yet pasting was to be made 'by them. However, he conceded that their Publisher was not arrested. He also admitted that no private part of the human body of a woman was visible on these wrappers; that both the accused/appellants are Muslims by Faith and a Muslim cannot cause any damage or insult to Islam or to the Holy Books, and that both the accused have not intentionally caused any humiliation or disregard to the Holy Qur'an but stated that they should be presumed negligent. Same type is the statement of other P. Ws.

8. What offence has been committed by the appellants, I would like to reproduce the provisions of section 295-B, P.P.C. here:-- "295-B. Defiling etc. of copy of Holy Qur'an. Whoever wilfully defiles, damages or desecrates a copy of the Holy Qur'an or of an extract therefrom or uses it in any derogatory manner or for any unlawful purpose shall be punishable with imprisonment for life." According to the afore-quoted provisions whether any person is guilty of the said offence, first of all his intention has to be accounted for. According to the prosecution evidence only wrappers were recovered in this case from Muhammad Sadiq appellant which were presumed to be used for binding of ' Sura Albaqra' find still no such ' Sipara' was binded therewith. There also does not come on the record that any 'Sapara' or Holy Quran binded with such type of wrappers was either available in the market or was produced by any person from the public. The prosecution evidence is also silent that whether any person from the public had come forward to complain against the appellants for their involvement in such type of activities. However, as against this it has come on the record that the appellants are true Muslims, and their act was not more than a negligence.

9. It is an admitted position that both the appellants are Book Binder and Proprietor respectively and had not prepared these wrappers by themselves and the prosecution has failed to locate their publisher. Moreover, it is only the presumption of the complainant (P. W.4) and the other P. Ws. that these were to be used for binding of 'Qur'anic Siparas'. No person can be held guilty on the presumed intention without doing an act towards the commission of an offence.

10. I have myself seen the wrappers P.1 to 180 allegedly recovered from Muhammad Sadiq appellant. Though these contained some type of objectionable pictures on one side but admittedly these were still not used for binding. The prosecution has miserably failed to bring on record any evidence to connect the appellants with the commission of offence they have been made accused whereof. In criminal cases conviction cannot be based on mere presumptions or suspicion, but there should be unimpeachable and irresistible evidence to connect the accused with the commission of an offence. If there was a presumption that these wrappers were to be used for binding Qura'nic Siparas which would amount to defiling of Holy Qur'an, there can also be a presumption, when these wrappers were still not found to have been used for binding purpose, that these were kept aside for wasting them.

11. For the foregoing reasons the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt. Hence this appeal is accepted, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charge by extending them the benefit of doubt. They are in custody and shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. M.B.A./M-1816/L Appeal accepted.