The following articles of the QSO 1984 were discussed in the Aasiya Bibi case in relation

to the law of evidence:

1. Article 17: This article provides for the right to a fair trial and due process, which
includes the right to be heard, the right to present evidence, and the right to cross-
examine witnesses.
2. Article 24: This article governs the admissibility of evidence in criminal trials and
prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence.
3. Article 25: This article prohibits hearsay evidence, which is defined as evidence that is
based on hearsay or second-hand information.
4. Article 26: This article provides for the examination of witnesses in criminal trials and
allows for witnesses to be cross-examined by the defense.

In the Aasiya Bibi case, the defense argued that the witness testimony was unreliable
and contradictory, and that the prosecution had failed to provide direct evidence linking
Aasiya Bibi to the alleged blasphemy. The Supreme Court of Pakistan ultimately found
that there were irregularities and procedural flaws in the handling of the case, which
raised questions about the credibility of the witness testimony and the admissibility of
the evidence presented.

The case of Aasiya Bibi, also known as Asia Noreen, involved a Christian woman from a village in
Punjab, Pakistan, who was accused of committing blasphemy against the Prophet Muhammad in
June 2009. According to the prosecution's case, Aasiya Bibi had a heated argument with her Muslim
co-workers over a cup of water while working in the fields. Her co-workers claimed that she had
insulted the Prophet Muhammad during the argument, which led to her arrest and charge with
blasphemy.

Aasiya Bibi denied the accusations and maintained that she had not insulted the Prophet
Muhammad. She was subsequently tried and convicted of blasphemy by a district court in Punjab,
which sentenced her to death by hanging. Her case sparked widespread outrage and protests among
religious conservatives in Pakistan, who demanded that she be put to death.

Aasiya Bibi's case was appealed to the Lahore High Court, which upheld her conviction and death
sentence in 2010. Her case was subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which
granted her appeal and ordered a retrial in 2015.

During her retrial, Aasiya Bibi's defense team argued that the accusations against her were false and
that the prosecution had failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish her guilt. They also argued
that the witnesses who had testified against her were unreliable and had given contradictory
statements.
 In October 2018, the Supreme Court of Pakistan acquitted Aasiya Bibi of all charges, citing a lack of
evidence and irregularities in the handling of the case. The ruling sparked widespread protests and
violence by religious extremists, who demanded that she be put to death. Aasiya Bibi was forced to
flee the country and seek asylum in Canada, where she now lives with her family.
The Aasiya Bibi case involved several arguments from both the prosecution and the
defense:

Prosecution arguments:

1. Aasiya Bibi had insulted the Prophet Muhammad during an argument with her Muslim
co-workers in the fields.
2. The witness testimony of Aasiya Bibi's co-workers was sufficient to establish her guilt
under Section 295-C of the QSO, which prohibits the use of derogatory remarks in
respect of the Prophet Muhammad and carries a mandatory death penalty upon
conviction.
3. Aasiya Bibi had a motive to commit blasphemy because of her Christian faith, which was
considered to be at odds with the majority Muslim population of Pakistan.

Defense arguments:

1. Aasiya Bibi denied the accusations of blasphemy and maintained her innocence
throughout the trial.
2. The witness testimony against Aasiya Bibi was unreliable and contradictory, and the
prosecution had failed to provide direct evidence linking her to the alleged blasphemy.
3. Aasiya Bibi was falsely accused of blasphemy as a result of personal animosity between
her and her Muslim co-workers, and her Christian faith was used as a pretext to accuse
her of a crime she did not commit.
4. There were several procedural irregularities and flaws in the handling of the case, which
raised questions about the credibility of the witness testimony and the admissibility of
the evidence presented.

The Aasiya Bibi case was heard by several courts in Pakistan, including the district court,
the Lahore High Court, and the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The courts engaged in
detailed discussions of the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense, as
well as the legal issues raised by the case.

The district court that initially tried Aasiya Bibi found her guilty of blasphemy based on
the testimony of several witnesses who claimed that she had insulted the Prophet
Muhammad. The court rejected the defense's arguments that the witnesses were
unreliable and had given contradictory statements.
The Lahore High Court, which heard Aasiya Bibi's appeal, upheld her conviction and
death sentence. The court rejected the defense's arguments that the accusations against
Aasiya Bibi were false and that the witnesses were unreliable. The court also rejected the
defense's argument that Section 295-C of the QSO, which prohibits the use of
derogatory remarks in respect of the Prophet Muhammad, was unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court of Pakistan, which granted Aasiya Bibi's appeal and ordered a retrial,
engaged in a detailed analysis of the evidence presented by the prosecution and the
defense. The court noted that the prosecution had failed to provide direct evidence
linking Aasiya Bibi to the alleged blasphemy, and that the witness testimony against her
was unreliable and contradictory. The court also noted that there were irregularities and
procedural flaws in the handling of the case, which raised questions about the credibility
of the witness testimony and the admissibility of the evidence presented.

The Supreme Court ultimately acquitted Aasiya Bibi of all charges and ordered her
release from prison. The court noted that the prosecution had failed to establish Aasiya
Bibi's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that there was no direct evidence linking her
to the alleged blasphemy. The court also expressed concern about the misuse of
blasphemy laws in Pakistan to target religious minorities and called for reforms to
ensure that these laws are not misused in the future.

The final decision in the Aasiya Bibi case was made by the Supreme Court of Pakistan,
which acquitted Aasiya Bibi of all charges and ordered her immediate release from
prison.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court noted that the prosecution had failed to establish
Aasiya Bibi's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the evidence presented was
unreliable and contradictory. The court also noted several procedural irregularities and
flaws in the handling of the case, which raised questions about the credibility of the
witness testimony and the admissibility of the evidence presented.

The Supreme Court's decision to acquit Aasiya Bibi was based on a careful analysis of
the evidence and the legal issues raised by the case. The court concluded that Aasiya
Bibi had been falsely accused of blasphemy and that there was no direct evidence
linking her to the alleged crime.

The court's decision was widely praised by human rights groups and advocates of
religious freedom, who had raised concerns about the use of blasphemy laws in Pakistan
to target religious minorities. The decision was also criticized by some religious groups,
 who argued that it undermined the country's blasphemy laws and threatened the
Islamic identity of Pakistan.

The following articles of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 were discussed in the Asia Bibi
case:

1. Article 2: This article defines what constitutes evidence, and how it can be classified as
oral, documentary or circumstantial.
2. Article 17: This article deals with the competency of a witness to testify in court. In the
Asia Bibi case, the prosecution argued that some of the witnesses were not competent
to testify because they had a personal interest in the case.
3. Article 22: This article defines what constitutes relevant evidence and how it should be
admitted in court. In the Asia Bibi case, the defense argued that the statements made by
some of the prosecution witnesses were not relevant to the case.