Hassnain Raza

21090008

Law 280 – Legal Writing and Research Methods

Salman Ijaz

15 February 2019

Critique on Asia Bibi Case

Brief Facts of the Case

On 14th June 2009, Asia Bibi (the appellant) allegedly uttered derogatory remarks against

Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) while plucking falsa in a field in District

Nankana, Punjab. The two Muslim ladies, Mafia Bibi and Asma Bibi, were working in the

field along with Asia Bibi and there was some quarrel between Asia Bibi and the other two.

Asia Bibi claimed that it was on the fetching of water, but as per the other two, Asia Bibi had

passed derogatory remarks on Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). The two Muslim ladies

narrated the incident to Qari Muhammad Salaam, the complainant and on 19th June Asia

Bibi was made to appear in a public gathering where she allegedly accepted that she passed

those derogatory remarks and on the same day, a FIR was lodged in the local police station.

The case mostly relied on the eye-witnesses and the alleged confession made in public,

however, in the trail court Asia Bibi unequivocally denied any such confession. In the

statement under section 342 of the Criminal Procedure 18981 she stated, “……I have great

respect and honor to the Holy Prophet (PBUH) as well as the Holy Quran and since police

have conspired with the complainant, so, the police have falsely booked me in this case.” 2

1
Power to examine the accused: (1) For the purpose of enabling the accused to explain any circumstances appearing in the
evidence against him, the Court may, at any stage of any inquiry or trial without previously warning the accused, put such
questions to him as the Court considers necessary, and shall, for the purpose aforesaid, question him generally on the case
after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before he is called on for his defence.
(2) The accused shall not render himself liable to punishment by refusing to answer such questions, or by giving false
answers to them; but the Court [....] may draw such inference from such refusal or answer as it thinks just.
(3) The answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial and put in evidence for or
against him in any other inquiry into, or trial for, any other offence, which such answers may tend to show, he has
committed.
(4) Except as provided by subsection (2) of section 340, no oath shall be administered to the accused.
2
Mst. Asia Bibi v The State Crl.A. No.39-L of 2015, paragraph [28].
The trial court convicted Asia bibi under Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal code and

awarded death sentence to her. She later on appealed to Lahore High court which was

dismissed, following which she appealed to Supreme Court and the case was decided by a

two-judge bench comprising of the then Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nasir and the current

Chief Justice Asif Saeed Khosa.

Analysis

Blasphemy law has been misused in Pakistan since its inception and minorities are mostly at

the receiving end. While considering the misuse of this law against the minorities, the

Supreme court has laid down some important rules in this case regarding the future cases of

blasphemy. The court stated that only state has the power to decide on blasphemy charges

and it further asserted its authority to interpret the Islamic laws related to blasphemy. The

judgement has extensively used reference to Quran and Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and

his dealings with the non-Muslim communities at that time to strengthen the reasoning

behind the acquittal of Asia Bibi.

The Supreme Court for the first time, and very needed so, has exhaustively referred to the

constitutional provisions which include Article 43, Article 37(d)4 and Article 175(2)5 to assert

the responsibility of state to decide and protect minorities in blasphemy cases. Reliance was

also placed on the landmark judgement of Malik Muhammad Mumtaz Qadri v. the state6 to

explain that the state is responsible for the protection of minorities (and others) against false

accusation of blasphemy.

The Supreme Court looked into the evidence present on record and into the reasons of the

dismissal of petition of Lahore High court. Lahore high court uphold the decision of trail
3
“Right of individuals to be dealt with in accordance with law, etc. (1) To enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in
accordance with law is the inalienable right of every citizen. Wherever he may be, and of every other person for the time
being within Pakistan.
(2) In particular—
(a) no action detrimental to the life, liberty, body, reputation or property of any person shall be taken except in accordance
with law;
(b) no person shall be prevented from or be hindered in doing that which is not prohibited by law; and
(c) no person shall be compelled to do that which the law does not required him to do.”
4
“Promotion of social justice and eradication of social evils. The State shall…(d) ensure inexpensive and expeditious
justice.”
5
“Establishment and jurisdiction of courts (2) no court shall have any jurisdiction save as is or may be conferred on it by the
Constitution or by or under any law.”
6
PLD 2016 SC 17.
court on the basis of three reasons. Firstly, the presence of Asia bibi and the two major eye

witnesses (Mafia Bibi and Asma Bibi) in the falsa field was not denied. Secondly, the

witnesses were not cross-examined in relation to their allegation of blasphemy against Asia

bibi and Lahore High court while making this decision assumed (while interpreting Article

132 of Qanun Shahdat Order7)that anything that is not re-butted is deemed to have been

admitted. Thirdly, the defence could not prove on record any enmity or any other possible

reasons for the complainants and the eye-witnesses to conspire against the appellant.

The Supreme Court stated that the high court had erred while making this decision by

stating that there was a quarrel between the ladies in the field followed by exchange of hot

words which is why they conspired against asia bibi in this case. Secondly, the non-cross-

examination by defense was considered to be admitted before the court while Supreme court

stated that the LHC had seemed to ignore the latest case Nadeem Ramzan v. The state 8 in

which it was held that the statement, which is not cross-examined deems to be admitted,

does not apply to criminal cases.

Along with the substantive errors, the Supreme court also looked into the procedural issues

as well. As to the non-appearance of other women present in the field, the LHC relied on

Haji Bashir Ahmed v. The State9 to conclude that the testimony of only one witness is

sufficient to hold the accused guilty. However, the Supreme court has refuted this by saying

that not a single testimony (or proof for that matter) was able to prove the accused

responsible for blasphemy and along with that the court also looked into several other

procedural irregularities including late filing of FIR, ASI being in charge of this case.

The Supreme court also looked into the testimonies of different witnesses and noted that

they were inconsistent to each other. The complainant changed his stance at different

hearings. The details as per to the presence of witnesses and details of the incident were

different in FIR and testimonies which is why the Supreme court was of the opinion that the

7
Examination-in-chief, etc.: (1) The examination of a witness by the party who calls
him shall be called his examination-in-chief.
(2) The examination of a witness by the adverse party shall be called his cross-examination.
(3) The examination of a witness, subsequent to the cross-examination by the party who
called him, shall be called his re-examination.
8
2018 SCMR 149.
9
2005 YLR 985.
testimony of the complainant and FIR were not credible enough for the court to decide in

their favor. Regarding the alleged statement made in public by Asia Bibi about her

confession, the Supreme court observed, “it is a fragile piece of evidence and utmost care

and caution has to be exercised in placing reliance on such a confession.” The court further

stated that a confession obtained by coercion and threat has no value in the eyes of law and

thus the court would not consider it. The court, considering all the reasons mentioned

above, acquitted Asia bibi.

Apart from the procedural and substantive errs in this case, the Court also implied some

general rules for (blasphemy) cases in future. It hints on the conduct of the lower courts

regarding the admissibility of evidence. The Court also highlights the misuse of blasphemy

but fails to propose anything on how to safeguard the minorities from such misuse of this

law. It also talks about those who bring false claims of blasphemy in order to achieve

personal interest, but it does not talk about any adequate punishment for such people.

Regardless, this was a landmark case in the history of Pakistan, and it has laid a new

foundation to the interpretation of this law.