The Lahore High Court on Friday acquitted a man convicted of desecrating the Holy Quran, ruling that the recovery of a burnt copy alone could not establish guilt without proof of a wilful and deliberate act. The LHC acquits man in desecration case judgment sets aside a life sentence handed down by a trial court.
Justice Tariq Mehmood Bajwa of the court’s Rawalpindi bench allowed the criminal appeal filed by Shahidur Rehman. The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove that the appellant had set fire to the copy, and that evidence of his long-standing mental illness could not be ignored.
LHC acquits man in desecration case after witnesses admit gaps
Reiterating a basic principle of criminal law, the court observed that even a single reasonable doubt entitled an accused to acquittal as a matter of right.
The case was registered at Sarai Alamgir police station in Gujrat district after an incident allegedly reported on January 27, 2022. According to the prosecution, the appellant emerged from a street near his residence carrying a burning copy of the Holy Quran and threw it onto the main road as people rushed to put out the fire. A major portion of the copy was burnt.
The trial court convicted him under Section 295-B of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced him to life imprisonment on December 20, 2025.
Examining the evidence, Justice Bajwa noted that the complainant and another key prosecution witness had admitted during cross-examination that they had not seen the appellant setting fire to the copy.
The court explained that the word “wilfully” in Section 295-B required an intentional, deliberate and conscious act. The mere fact that a copy had been damaged by fire was not enough unless the prosecution proved that the appellant had knowingly and deliberately caused the damage.
Justice Bajwa stressed that the gravity of an allegation could not substitute for proof, and that every essential element of the offence had to be established beyond reasonable doubt.
Mental illness evidence could not be disregarded
Addressing the appellant’s mental condition, the court noted that prosecution witnesses had consistently described him as mentally unwell. The complainant and other witnesses said he had suffered from mental illness for 13 to 14 years and had stayed confined to his house for about 12 years.
The court examined the protection under Section 84 of the Pakistan Penal Code, which excludes criminal liability where a person is, by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of understanding the nature of the act.
The judgment distinguished between mental incapacity at the time of the offence and an accused’s capacity to stand trial. It held that the absence of a formal application under Section 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not justify disregarding the mental-condition evidence.
The court observed that the evidence raised serious and reasonable doubts about the appellant’s mental capacity at the relevant time, bringing the protection under Section 84 into consideration.
Investigation shortcomings weakened the case
The judgment also identified flaws in the investigation. The investigating officer had not identified the specific Surah, Para or other portion of the Holy Quran allegedly defiled, while the recovered burnt pieces had not undergone scientific examination or other reliable identification.
The alleged matchbox was never taken into possession, and nothing established how the copy had caught fire.
Prosecution witnesses also contradicted each other on the police’s arrival at the scene, the time spent there and the recording of their statements.
The judgment also noted that the investigating officer had made no meaningful effort to ascertain or address the appellant’s mental condition before sending him to judicial lock-up.
The high court therefore acquitted him, extending the benefit of doubt.
Courts have recently weighed evidence carefully in other serious cases too, including a Lahore couple sentenced to life in a delivery rider case, an Islamabad court jailing two men for ten years in a cybercrime case, a witness statement in the Gul Plaza fire case and the cross-examination of witnesses in the Imaan and Hadi security breach case.
Frequently asked questions
Why did the LHC acquit the convict?
The court found the prosecution could not prove the appellant had deliberately set fire to the copy, witnesses admitted they had not seen him do it, and evidence of his long-standing mental illness raised reasonable doubt.
