Abdullah Versus State
Sardar Ahmad Haleemi, J .--- This Jail Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25.11.2022 (hereinafter the "impugned judgment" ) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Sariab Division (hereinafter the "trial Court" ), whereby the appellant was convicted under section 295-B P.P.C and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment.
2. The prosecution's story, in brief, is that the complainant Muhammad Ali, lodged an FIR No.176/2022, under section 295-B P.P.C at Police Station Sariab, Quetta alleging that on 26.07.2022, his brother Abdullah was asleep in his room when his mother, Amma Jagno, entered and informed him that Abdullah had defiled the Holy Quran and torn its pages. Upon inspection, the complainant found torn pages of the Holy Quran, whereas the accused, Abdullah, had absconded. On 28.07.2022, at approximately 11:30 p.m., the accused returned home. Upon being questioned, he became furious and admitted his guilt; hence, the FIR.
3. After usual investigation, the challan of the case was submitted before the trial Court, wherein a charge was framed against the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution, to prove the accusations, examined five witnesses. After the completion of the prosecution's evidence, the appellant was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., wherein he admitted his guilt but did not record his statement on oath.
4. The trial court heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, convicted and sentenced the appellant vide impugned judgment, hence this appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the pauper appellant, inter alia, contended that the FIR was lodged after a considerable delay and only after due deliberation and consultation; there is no independent eye-witness to the alleged incident; that mere admission made by the accused during his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C., does not, by itself, establish the prosecution case. Learned counsel also emphasized that there exist glaring contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, which render the case doubtful and necessitate giving the benefit of doubt to the appellant.
6. Conversely, the learned Additional Prosecutor General strongly opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the pauper appellant and supported the impugned judgment.
7. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and scanned the available record with their able assistance.
8. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant defiled the Holy Quran and tore its pages. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined PW-1, Muhammad Ali, who deposed that on 26.07.2022, he was present in his room when his mother entered and informed him that his brother Abdullah (the appellant) had defiled the Holy Quran; he went to the room of the accused and found that the accused had already absconded. The accused returned home after a gap of two days, and he was handed over to police custody; he produced his written application for the registration of FIR as Ex.P/1-A and identified his signature thereon.
PW-2, Maye Changi, deposed that she does not specifically remember the exact day of the occurrence, but it was two days before Friday, and she reiterated that the incident took place on a Friday. She stated that the accused was sitting in the room reciting the Holy Quran, and that everyone, including the accused, went to sleep that night. In the morning, upon waking, she noticed that the Holy Quran had been defiled. She then went to the room of the complainant, Muhammad Ali, so that he could admonish the accused, but found that the accused had already absconded. PW-2 further deposed that the accused returned home after a gap of two days at about 11:00 a.m., and he was subsequently handed over to the custody of the police.
PW-3 Muhammad Iqbal deposed that on 26.07.2022, he was present at home; at about 09:30 a.m, his mother informed him that the appellant had defiled and damaged the Holy quran in his room, and Muhammad Ali had gone to beat him, but the appellant fled away from home; they came to collect the torn and damage script of Holy Quran from the toilet. Likewise, PW-4 Muhammad Ishfaq, SIO/IP, produced a recovery memo. as Ex.P/4-A, sealed parcel No.1 as Art/P-1, sample seal as Art/P-2 and defiled/torn pages of the Holy Quran as Art/P-3. PW-5 Gul Zaman SI/Investigating Officer, counted the steps taken during the investigation and produced the FIR as Ex.P/5-A, site sketch map as Ex.P/5-B and challan No.170/2022 as Ex.P/5-C.
9. Undoubtedly, the incident was un-witnessed, and there was no independent evidence of the act of defiling and tearing the pages of the Holy Quran; however, this does not per se weaken the prosecution's case, as the law recognizes that an accused's own admission can carry significant evidentiary value. A careful perusal of the record reveals that the appellant, when examined under Section 342 Cr.P.C., unequivocally admitted his involvement in the defilement of the Holy Quran. Such an admission, made before a competent court, is a formal acknowledgement of his culpability and is admissible as substantive evidence. Though, the appellant did not record his statement on oath, however, the statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C. constitutes a credible indication of the appellant's involvement in the offence and cannot be lightly disregarded. The relevant portion of his statement reads as follows:
Q No. 11 Anything more you want to say?
Ans: I have defiled the Holy Quran but I woke from slumber and did this act. I did it at 09:00 a.m. before sleeping. I have committed the offence, but I have no idea what I have done.
10. A careful perusal of the evidence in the present case demonstrates that all the essential ingredients of Section 295-B P.P.C are fully satisfied. Firstly, the object of the alleged offence, the Holy Quran, is indisputably a sacred text, and the recovery of torn and defiled pages (Art/P-3) confirms that the desecration indeed occurred, which is corroborated by the deposition of PW-1 to PW-2. Secondly, the act of tearing and defiling the Holy Quran was deliberate and intentional, as evidenced by the appellant's own admission under Section 342 Cr.P.C., wherein he unequivocally acknowledged his involvement in the act. Thirdly, the appellant was aware that the object was the Holy Quran, and that his conduct would constitute desecration, which is further corroborated by the consistent testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 regarding the circumstances in which the defilement was discovered. Finally, the act was not accidental or inadvertent; it was a conscious act carried out in private but later acknowledged by the appellant himself before the competent court. Taken together with the corroborative witness testimony and the recovered physical evidence, it is established that the prosecution has proved the essential ingredients of Section 295-B P.P.C beyond any reasonable doubt. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case Javed Iqbal and others v. The State (2016 SCMR 787), wherein it has been held as under:
13. From the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, which is, as mentioned earlier, bald, vague and in general terms, the commission of offence under Section 295-A and 295-B P.P.C by the appellants, other than appellant Shahbaz Ahmad, is not proved upto the mark, but all of them in their section 342, Cr.P.C. statements, in reply to questions numbers 2, 3 and 4 have admitted their guilt in unequivocal terms. Hence on this count, their conviction under these provisions of P.P.C is to be maintained/sustained.
11. Moreover, it is a well-settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the statement of an accused recorded under Section 342 Cr.P.C. is to be considered in its entirety and cannot be dissected or relied upon selectively. If the court finds that a particular portion of such a statement contains a clear admission of guilt, the same may legitimately be taken into consideration along with the other evidence available on record. In other words, the statement of the accused is to be appreciated in toto, and the court is not precluded from placing reliance on the inculpatory part of the statement if the same appears to be voluntary and is corroborated by the surrounding circumstances of the case. In the present matter, the appellant's admission regarding the defilement of the Holy Quran, made in response to the questions put to him under Section 342 Cr.P.C., carries considerable evidentiary weight and reinforces the prosecution's case. Reliance is placed on the case of Azhar Iqbal v. The State (2013 SCMR 383).
12. Furthermore, as far as the contention of learned counsel for the appellant regarding the delay in registration of FIR is concerned, it is well-settled that a delay in lodging the FIR does not per se weaken the prosecution case. Courts recognize that complainants may require time due to shock, distress, fear of the accused, or the need to consult family members, particularly in sensitive cases involving religious sentiments or family members. In the present case, the complainant, Muhammad Ali, lodged the FIR after discovering the defilement of the Holy Quran and after taking due steps to verify the occurrence, which explains the brief delay. The delay, therefore, cannot be treated as fatal or as creating any reasonable doubt, especially when the prosecution's evidence, including the appellant's own voluntary admission under Section 342 Cr.P.C., the corroborative testimony of the complainant and family members, and the recovered torn pages of the Holy Quran, consistently establishes the occurrence of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
13. As a sequel to the above discussion, it is concluded that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case against the appellant. No infirmity, perversity, misreading or non-reading of the evidence has been pointed out that warrants the interference of this Court in the appellate jurisdiction.
For the above reasons, Criminal Jail Appeal No.74/2023, being bereft of merit, is dismissed.
JK/28/Bal. Appeal dismissed.