[ad_1]
The Supreme Court issued Wednesday its highly anticipated judgment in the case & # 39;Asia Bibi c. The state, etc.& # 39; case, reversing previous judgments rendered by the Lahore High Court as well as by a trial court, thus overturning the conviction of Aasia Bibi in the case of blasphemy against her.
Subsequently, the three-judge court ordered the immediate release of the mother of four, aged about 50, who had languished for about nine years.
The Supreme Court's Judgment – a seismic event in the history of the country, whether judicial or otherwise – makes extensive reference to Islamic teachings and traditions, but ultimately relies on an badessment of facts and evidence in support of the reversal of the previous conviction.
Below are some of the key points shared in the judgment.
1. More than 25 witnesses but only two charges
What the SC judgment says:
"25-30 women were present at the scene when the appellant allegedly made blasphemous remarks against the Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Hum) No other woman except Mafia Bibi (Prosecution witness 2) and Asma Bibi (Prosecution witness) 3) reported the case to anyone … At this point, it should be noted that the said ladies did not appear in court to support the thesis of the Accusation. "
2. First information report (FIR) recorded with a suspicious delay
What the SC judgment says:
"There can be no denying the fact that the FIR was registered with a delay of 5 days (…) It should be noted that in the absence of any plausible explanation, this Court has always considered that the delay in the deposit of the FIR was fatal. [to the case] and casts a suspicion on the history of the prosecution, extending the benefit of the doubt to the accused … In addition, the RIP filed after an investigation loses its value as evidence. "
"Another important aspect of the case concerns the fact that the complainant (PW-1) admitted in his statement that the application for the registration of a court record had been drafted However, he could not mention his name, which also cast doubt on the veracity of the story told in the FIR. "
3. The witnesses in the case made contradictory statements
The inconsistencies identified by witnesses in witness statements are listed below:
Mafia Bibi (PW.2)
- She stated during cross-examination that there was "more than 1,000"
present at the public meeting where Aasia Bibi would have had
& # 39; confessed & # 39; committing a blasphemy. However, she never mentioned
this fact in his initial statement. - She stated on cross-examination that this public meeting had taken place
to place at her place. However, this has never been mentioned in his
initial declaration. - She stated during the cross-examination that "many ulema" were present at
the public gathering. However, she never mentioned that in her
initial declaration.
Asma Bibi (PW.3)
- During cross-examination, she stated that the public meeting had taken place
place in the house of his neighbor, Rana Razzaq. However, she
does not mention this in his original statement. Also note that his
own sister had testified that the rally had taken place in their own
House. - She stated during the cross-examination that "more than 2,000" people had been
present at the public meeting. She never mentioned that in her
initial declaration. Also note that his own sister had
testified that 1,000 people were present at the meeting
Muhammad Afzal (PW.4)
- During his examination-in-chief, he stated that he was present at his post.
his own house when Mafia and Asma, with Qari Muhammad Salam (PW.1
and the complainant in the case) and Mukhtar Ahmad came to inform him of the incident. He never has
mentioned in his initial statement. - During his interrogation, he stated that the public meeting had taken place at
the house of Mukhtar Ahmed, that he did not mention in his first
declaration. Also note that he contradicted Asma and Mafia
as regards the place of the public meeting.
Qari Muhammad Salaam (PW.1, complainant)
- He first said that the mafia, Asma and a third witness had informed him
as well as other people from the village about the alleged Aasia
blasphemy. However, he later said that they had only informed him,
Afham and Muhammad Mukhtar, who were present at the meeting
Note that this contradicts the words of Mohammed Afzal.
statement, who said that he was in his house when Mafia, Asma, Salam and
Mukhtar came to inform him of the incident. - After failing to mention anything in his initial statement, he stated:
during his cross-examination that the public meeting at which Aasia
had "confessed" took place at Mukhtar Ahmed's. This
contradicts the statements made by the two female witnesses who had
different versions of where the rally took place.
"These material contradictions and inconsistent statements of the
witnesses return to express additional doubts about the coherence of the
the proof."
4. The complainant is not sure of the date of the crime
What the SC judgment says:
"Another conflict prevails between the other GPs and the complainant, while others stated that the complainant was brought to the attention of the complainant on the same day, 14.6.2009. -exercise, the complainant stated that he had been informed of the event of 16.6.2009. "
5. Flagrant Discrepancies in FIRs and Arrests
What the SC judgment says:
"At the bottom of the FIR, the place of registration of the FIR was mentioned that it was registered by Mehdi Hbadan, SI [Sub Inspector] at the Chandar Cot Cbad Bridge and the time of registration is set at "17:45" … Conversely, the complainant (PW.1) indicated in his statement that the RIP had been registered by submitting the application to the SHO. concerned. However, Muhammad Rizwan, SI (PW.5) stated that the Applicant had presented the complaint in which he officially registered the FIR. "
"With regard to the arrest of the accused, the statement of Muhammad Arshad, SI (PW.7), presents new contradictions, in that it [Arshad] During his examination-in-chief, he stated that the accused had been arrested by him with the help of two gendarmes, presented to the judicial magistrate and sent to pre-trial detention … He was then declared at the cross-examination. interrogation that the accused had been arrested. by him on 19.6.2009 from his house in the Ittanwali Village around 16h / 17h; however, he later stated that he had reached the village of Ittanwali around 19 hours. and stayed there for an hour. "
6. Lying not to fight with Aasia Bibi
The court noted that the two sisters, Asma and Mafia Bibi, key witnesses, both denied any altercation between them and Aasia Bibi about the water chore.
However, he pointed out that a police officer who had investigated the case and the owner of the plantation where the incident occurred – witnesses both independent and unrelated – have acknowledged in their statements that an altercation / quarrel had occurred between them. [Asma, Mafia and Aasia]so the quarrel file is proved by the minutes ".
Noting that the prosecution had not declared the police officer a "hostile witness" – that is, that he was questioning his statement that the fight had taken place – the sisters Asma and Mafia "could not be described as witnesses of truth and the death sentence could not be pronounced on the testimony of such eyewitnesses".
"All these contradictions are sufficient to cast a veil of doubt on the version of the facts of the prosecution, which gives the appellant the right to benefit from the doubt."
7. Extrajudicial Confession
What the SC judgment says:
"This Court has repeatedly held that evidence of extrajudicial confessions is a fragile piece of evidence, and one must be extremely careful and cautious before relying on such confessions. The legal value of extrajudicial confession is almost equal to nothing, taking into account the natural course of events, human behavior, behavior and probabilities, in the ordinary course. "
"In this case, the appellant was brought to a gathering of hundreds of people, she was alone at the time, tensions were high and the environment was intimidating." it was perhaps felt threatened and vulnerable; the alleged extrajudicial confessions made by the applicant, even presumed to have been before such a public gathering, can not be described as voluntary acts and can not be to be invoked as the basis of a conviction, especially in the following cases: Capital punishment. "
For more details and more points raised by the Court, read the full judgment here.
Source link
