' ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA,J---Ranjha Masih appellant was convicted for an offence under section 295-C, P.P.C. Vick judgment dated 26-4-2003 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad and was sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs,50,000 or in default of payment thereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The benefit under section 382- B, Cr.P.C. Was extended to him. He has challenged his conviction and sentence before this Court through the present appeal.
2. According to the F.1.R. Lodged in this case Jahanzeb complainant was a resident of Montgomery Bazar, Faisalabad and on 8-5-1998 he was present along with some friends in Gumti Chowk, Faisalabad when a procession belonging to persons professing Christian faith passed from there while raising slogans against the Muslims. The said slogans outraged the feelings of the complainant and others. Thereafter within the view of the complainant and others Ranjha Masih appellant and the other members of that procession started hitting the plates affixed around the Gumti bearing Darood Sharif and a board available on Heera Paan Shop with Kalima Tayyaba inscribed thereon with their shoes and also started abusing the Muslims. The said incident had been witnessed by the complainant and his friend namely Muhammad Ramzan, one Muhammad Ashraf who was employed at the abovementioned Heera Paan Shop, Muhammad Saeed, Aamir Sagheer and many others. Jahanzeb complainant later on submitted an application in respect of that incident before the local police and on the basis of the said application formal F.I.R. No,107 was registered at Police Station Rail Bazar, Faisalabad at 7-10 p.m. On 8-5-1998 for an offence under section 295-C, P . P. C
3. The investigation of this case was conducted by Wazarat Hussain Inspector (P.W.7), Muhammad Hanif Aqeel S.-I. Ijaz Masood, Inspector (P.W.8) and then by Mushtaq Ahmad, D.S.P. (P.W.11). Apart from the other necessary and formal steps taken by them during the investigation Ranjha Masih appellant was arrested and two pieces of a plastic board with Kalima Tayyaba inscribed on them and a plate with Darood Sharif 'inscribed on the same were secured when they were produced by the complainant at the police station. Upon completion of the investigation a Challan was submitted before the learned trial Court.
4. At the commencement of the trial the learned trial Court framed a charge against the appellant in respect of an offence under section 295-C, P.P.C. To which he pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial.
5. During the trial the prosecution produced eleven witnesses in support of its case against the appellant. Jehanzeb complainant (P.W.3), Muhammad Ramzan (P.W.4), Muhammad Ashraf (P.W.6) and Muhammad Saeed (P.W.9) furnished the ocular account of the incident in question.
Muhammad Tayyab (P.W.5) and Muhammad Ali (P.W.10) deposed about recovery of two pieces of a broken board and a plate during the investigation of this case. Wazarat Hussain. Inspector (P.W.7), Ijaz Masood, Inspector (P.W.8) and Mushtaq Ahmad, D.S.P. (P.W.11) stated about the various steps taken by them during the investigation of this case. The remaining evidence produced by the prosecution was more or less formal in nature.
6. In his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellant denied and controverted all the allegations of fact levelled against him by the prosecution and professed his innocence. He, however, opted not to make a statement on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. But produced Javed Anjum, H.C. (D.W.1) in, his defence.
7. Upon conclusion of the trial the learned trial Court found the prosecution's case against the appellant to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt and, thus, it convicted and sentenced him as mentioned and detailed above. Hence, the present appeal before this Court.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Assistant Advocate- General appearing for the State and have gone through the record of this case with their assistance. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that there were material discrepancies in the statements of the eyewitnesses and the Investigating Officers had also given a lie to the eye-witnesses on many important aspects of this case. They have, thus, canvassed that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt entitling him to be acquitted by this Court. As against that the learned Assistant Advocate-General appearing for the State has argued that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the appellant's guilt to the hilt and, therefore, his conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court do not warrant any interference by this Court.
9. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Assistant Advocate-General appearing for the State and after going through the record of this case from cover to cover with their assistance it has straightaway been noticed by me that in the F.I.R. No time of the occurrence had been specified and it is admitted at all hands that the day of occurrence was Friday and on that day most of the shops at and around the place of occurrence were closed. It has pertinently been noticed by me that although in the F.I.R. As well as in the statements of the eye-witnesses it had been alleged that the members of the procession allegedly being led by the appellant were raising slogans against the Muslims yet nobody had ever specified the exact words allegedly being , uttered by the members of the procession and more particularly by the present appellant. It has also significantly been noticed by me that in the F.I.R. It had been alleged by Jehanzeb complainant (P.W.3) that the appellant and the other members of the procession had started beating a board of Heera Pan Shop and the plates affixed around the Gumti with shoes but before the learned trial Court every eye-witness had maintained that shoes and stones were hurled at the said board and the plates. All the four eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution before the learned trial Court had maintained in unison that some of the abovementioned plates affixed around the Gumti had fallen down and the board at Heera Pan Shop had been broken into two pieces but Wazarat Hussain, Inspector (P.W.7), the initial Investigating Officer, had stated before the learned trial Court in black and white that upon his first visit to the place of occurrence he had found the abovementioned board and the plates to be still affixed at their own places and he had only found some marks of violence upon them. It has also been found by me to be curious that according to Muhammad Saeed (P.W.9), one of the eye-witnesses, he had handed over the broken board and the fallen plates to the police on the very day of the present occurrence, i.e, on 8-5-1998 but according to the recovery witnesses namely Muhammad Tayyab (P.W.5) and Muhammad Ali (P.W.10) the said articles A had been produced by Jehanzeb complainant (P.W.3) before the police at the police station on 28-5-1998, i.e, after twenty days of the alleged occurrence. It may not be out of place to mention here that although it was alleged by the prosecution that the relevant board and the plates had marks of violence upon them but it has never been established by the prosecution that the said board and the plates were indeed damaged or that such damage had been caused at the hands of the present appellant and the other members of the procession and not at any time prior to the present occurrence due to any other factor. The stones and shoes allegedly hurled at the said board and the plates had never been recovered during the investigation of this case.
10. The record of this case shows that all the eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution had levelled only a generalized and collective allegation against the appellant and the other members of the prosecution and no particular individual utterance or action of the appellant had ever been specified by them. No other member of the procession was ever named or identified and nobody had uttered even a single word before the learned trial Court that any stone or shoe allegedly hurled by the appellant at the relevant board or plates had actually hit the same. The record of this case shows that the appellant was an active political worker at the local level and the complainant's father was contesting an election to the local municipality which elections were to be held after only a few days of lodging of the F.I.R. In the present case: The eye-witnesses.
Produced by the prosecution were all either friends or supporters of the complainant and most of them were chance witnesses who had utterly failed to establish any reason for their presence at the scene of the crime at the relevant time. The record confirms that the complainant's father was a veteran in local politics and he had remained a Mayor of the city and, thus, the influence of the complainant's father over the local administration was a foregone conclusion. It had consistently been maintained by the appellant during the investigation of this case as well as during the trial that he had been falsely implicated in the present case only by way of a political vendetta. It is rather unbelievable that a political worker in this ideological country would be so politically incorrect to defile or desecrate a holy Muslim personage or place and that too during the heat of an election process. In his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellant had maintained in unequivocal terms that:- ' "I am follower of Holy Book Bible and have great respect all the Holy books of any messenger of Almighty Allah. The Holy personality of Holy Prophet (s.a.w., p.b.u.h) is as sacred as for any Muslim."
' There is nothing available on the record of this case to suggest as to why the appellant would commit such a grave offence as alleged in the present case if he had such great respect for the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be .Upon him). In the peculiar circumstances of this case the assertion of the appellant that he had been framed in a false case only on account of political vendetta has appeared to me to be as an assertion which may not be without any substance or foundation. The appellant had been arrested in connection with this case way back on 19-5-1998 and for the last about eight and a half years he is rotting and languishing behind the bars in a case which has been found by me to be replete with serious doubts and infirmities. An offence under section 295-C, P.P.C. Is indeed a very grave offence but not grave enough to brutalize justice in its name.
11. For what has been discussed above a conclusion is irresistible and inescapable that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. This appeal is, therefore, allowed, the conviction and sentence of the C appellant recorded by the learned trial Court are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge by extending the benefit of doubt to him. He shall be released from the jail forthwith if not required in any other case.