Sajid Ali vs State Ss — 2025 PCrLJ 1412 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Sajid Ali VS State Ss. 295-C & 298-a---Making derogatory remarks against the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), use of derogatory remarks, etc., in respect of holy personages---appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Ocular account not proved---accused was charged for speaking words defiling the sacred name of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) and the sacred names of the wives, members of the family of the Holy Property (peace be upon him) and the righteous Caliphs and companions of the Holy Property (peace be upon him) in the presence of witnesses---Perusal of the prosecution evidence revealed that all the prosecution witnesses stated that on 10.04.2020 at about 06.45 a.m., the appellant,spoke words defiling the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and the sacred names of the wives and members of the family of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) and the righteous Caliphs and companions of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), in the presence of the said prosecution witnesses---However, said witnesses never reported the matter to the police till 9.30 p.m. on 10.04.2020, rather even let the appellant, who had allegedly spoke such appalling, abysmal, awful, damning, hateful and outrightly sacrilegious words in the presence of the witnesses,left the place of incident without even making any effort to take action against him---Prosecution witnesses claimed that the appellant had spoken unmentionable words in their presence but were so naïve that they let the appellant leave their sights without making any effort to apprehend him---Said prosecution witnesses did not react at all to the alleged statement of the appellant and calmly saw him leaving, without even moving an inch to restrain the appellant and handing him over to the police---Said witnesses had not mentioned in their statements that the appellant had some weapon with him which could have precluded the said witnesses from apprehending the appellant---Said witnesses did not even state that they attempted to arrest the appellant though it should have been the natural reaction and instinct of the prosecution witnesses if the appellant had actually spoken the words which the prosecution witnesses stated that he had, in their presence---Such conduct of the prosecution witnesses in letting the appellant left their sights after making the alleged utterances was not natural in the circumstances---Such utter failure of the prosecution witnesses in making any effort to apprehend the appellant proved that the prosecution witnesses had not heard the appellant speaking the alleged words and invented a story regarding the same subsequently, for the simple fact that if the appellant had indeed uttered the alleged words, no person, besides the prosecution witnesses who would have heard the said words, would have let the appellant left after the said utterances---Said failure of the prosecution witnesses in not reacting at all to the alleged statement of the appellant and not proceeding against the appellant proved that the said witnesses had not heard the appellant speaking the words on the said date and time---Conduct of the prosecution witnesses in the circumstances revealed that no such words were uttered by the appellant in the presence of the prosecution witnesses, otherwise the appellant would have been apprehended there and then---Moreover, it was a fact that no person professing Muslim faith would even continue to hear such words as allegedly spoken by the appellant and not make any effort to stop the said person---In the circumstances of the case, it could not be believed that the prosecution witnesses would have allowed the appellant to complete his statement and then would have also allowed themselves to continue to hear such words and remember them too---Why the prosecution witnesses let the appellant complete his statement in their presence had not been explained---Why the prosecution witnesses did not stop the appellant immediately had not been explained---Why the prosecution witnesses continued hearing not only the alleged words of the appellant but also remembered them, though differently, had not been explained---appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Sajid Ali vs State Ss — 2025 PCrLJ 1412 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PCRLJ