' Syed Ijaz Hussain alias Tahir Pir son of Syed Mazhar Shah Hussain alongwith WalayatAlison of Dost Muhammad was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala for committing an offence under sections 295-A and 295-B, P.P.C. The trial Court, finding the appellant guilty of the charge, convicted and awarded him sentence of life imprisonment under section 295-B, P.P.C. Vide judgment dated 16-2-1986. Walayat Ali, his co-accused was acquitted of the charge.
2. Precisely the prosecution case as contained in the complaint Exh.PA and disclosed by Mubeen Khan P.W.5, the complainant at the trial is that on 29-8-1982 at about 3-15 p.m. He, Khalid Mahmood, Munir Ahmad and Muhammad Moazam P.Ws. Alongwith other passengers were travelling through a bus (No,6145-JG) of Shaheen Bus Service and during the journey Walayat Ali, acquitted accused, introduced himself to be the Mureed of appellant, a Peer and addressed the passengers to be attentive to listen to the appellant, who carrying a book, containing film songs, calling it more sacred to that of the Holy Qur'an read some verses as part of the said book. He then pointing out to a bag lying in his feet in the bus took out a copy of Holy Qur'an kept by him in the said bag with a pair of embroided shoes. The P.Ws. Fetched the appellant to the police station and produced him before the S.H.O. With the copy of Holy Qur'an, a pair of embroided shoes, and the book in question containing film songs.
3. A case was registered against the appellant through F.I.R. Exh.PA/1 recorded by Muhammad Sarwar A.S.I. On the basis of complaint Exh.PA lodged by Mubeen Ahmad P.W.5. Copy of the Holy Qur'an P.1 with its cover P.2, bag P.3, pair of embroided shoes P.4/1-2, a frame containing photo P.5 and a Radio Transistor P.7 belonging to the appellant were taken into possession vide Memo.
Exh.PC attested by Khalid Mahmood and Muhammad Moazam, P.Ws.
3. The prosecution examined five P.Ws. In all. Muhammad Ismail Inspector P.W.1 is the Investigating Officer of the case who submitted the challan. Azhar Hussain A.S.I. P.W.2 has recorded the formal F.I.R. Exh.PA. And arrested the accused. He recorded the statements of P.Ws. And inspected the spot.
Muhammad Sarwar S.I. P.W.3 recorded the complaint Exh.PA on the statement of Mubeen Ahmad P.W.5, a passenger of the bus. Muhammad Moazam P.W.4 another passenger of the bus has supported the prosecution case as contained in the complaint Ex.PA. At the trial the appellant submitted an application for the benefit of section 84, P.P.C. On the ground of his being of unsound mind at the time of commission of offence. The appellant was got medically examined in the Mental Hospital, Lahore and was found not suffering from any mental disease. The accused was also not found of unsound mind to be incapable to defend himself at the trial.
5. The accused denied the prosecution allegations on his using derogatory words for the Holy Qur'an and took plea of mental ailment with disease of fits of insanity. He in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Answered to question No,5 which is as under: "It is incorrect. None of the above" said articles or the Holy Qur'an was secured from me.
' In answer to question No,6 he replied as under: ' I have been suffering from mental disease and had been undergoing fits of insanity at intervals since long. While suffering from the fits of insanity, I do not know as to why the P.Ws. Deposed against me'."
' He produced defence evidence in support of his plea. However, according to the defence witnesses after 1958 the appellant was never admitted to any hospital for mental ailment. D.W3 an official from Mental Hospital produced register of admission and discharge relating to the year, 1958.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that no doubt the action on the part of the appellant amounts to showing disrespect to the Holy Qur'an but it does not constitute an offence under section 295-B, P.P.C. The appellant not knowingly acted in the manner as stated and that mere keeping a copy of Holy Qur'an at a place where it is not normally kept, is not wilful defiling of it. He next argued that defiling would mean not to acknowledge the teachings and authority of Holy Qur'an but physical dishonour, if any, shall not constitute the offence. He also argued that there is no evidence of wilful defilement of the Holy Qur'an available on the record, without which conviction under section 295-B, P.P.0 is not sustainable.
7. The learned counsel for the State submitted that the physical action with the words used by the appellant for the Holy Qur'an amounts to show disrespect to it within the meaning of defiling, constituting an offence under section 295-B, P.P.C.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for both sides at length and given due consideration to the arguments advanced by them and also carefully perused the record with their assistance.
9. The occurrence is denied by the appellant with the plea of insanity at the trial. The learned trial Court on an application moved by the appellant during the proceedings at the trial conducted necessary inquiry under section 465, Cr.P.C. Providing the appellant a full and fair opportunity to establish the plea of insanity both at the time of commission of offence and for the purpose of trial but he failed to prove his insanity either for the purpose of section 84, P.P.C. Or section 465, Cr.P.C.
The trial was accordingly conducted. Muhammad Moazam P.W.4 and Mobeen Ahmad P.W.5, the eye-witnesses of the case were travelling together with the appellant in the same bus when this occurrence took place. The relevant portion of the statement of Muhammad Moazam P.W.4 is reproduced as under: "Zia-ul-Hassan accused was reciting some verses which were against the Holy Qur'an. We asked him to show the copy from which he was reciting the verses. On persual of the copy, it transpired that the same contained some film songs. He stated that he had in his possession the Holy Qur'an also, on our asking they showed us Qur'an which was lying on a bag under the embroided shoes.
The accused took out the embroided shoes and then the Holy Qur'an which was lying under the embroided shoes."
' The statement of Muhammad Mubeen P.W.5 is as under: ' Sacred than the Holy Qur'an. He was asked to show the book and on the persual of said book it transpired that the same was containing Punjabi songs. We enquired from the appellant that the book in question was containing only some verses and it was not the Holy Qur'an. On this Zia-ul- Hassan accused stated that he had also the Holy Qur'an in his possession. On the asking of the P.Ws. To show the Holy Qur'an he took out a copy of the Holy Qur'an from his bag kept with a pair of embroided shoes."
10. The P.Ws. Have supported the prosecution case tooth and nail as contained in the complaint Exh. PA. According to the statement of Muhammad Moazam P.W.4, Zia-ul-Hassan appellant recited some verses from a book with him which were not found by them in the Holy Qur'an. He, however, displaying the said book containing film songs claimed that it was more sacred than the Holy Qur'an and thereafter took out a bag lying in his feet in which he was keeping a copy of the Holy Qur'A with a pair of embroided shoes. Mubeen Ahmad P.W.5 corroborating the statement of Muhammad Muazam P.W.4 on each material point with no omission or addition deposed that Zia- ul-Hassan appellant did not at all appear to be an insane person at the time of occurrence. The gist of the evidence of the P.Ws. Is that the appellant at the first instance quoted some verses from the book in question containing film songs awarding the same, the status of the verses of Holy Qur'an and thereafter took out a copy of the Holy Qur'an kept in the bag with a pair of exbroided shoes.
11. The pivotal questions for determination in the given facts and circumstances of the case would be, whether no case under section 295-B, P.P.C. Is constituted and the appellant was not a sane person at the time of commission of offence. Further, he due to his insanity was disabled to commit the offence or defend himself at the trial.
12. Section 295-B, P.P.C. Provides as under: "Whoever wilfully defiles, damages or desecrates copy of the Holy Qur'an or of an extract therefrom or uses it in any derogatory manner or for any unlawful purpose, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life."
The word 'defiles' as defined in Black's Law Dictionary means to corrupt purity or perfection; to debase; to make ceremonially unclean; to pollute; to dishonour; to debauch, deflower.
' The word 'defile' is of general import not confined to a limited meaning to the extent of spiritual aspect and honour but also the physical show of respect which actually is a declaration to the honour and greatness to its teachings and thoughts. The Holy Qur'an being a sacred book necessarily is to be given full honour and high place both in body and mind. The word 'defile' would include both animate and inanimate objects and is not restricted in meaning to acts that would make an object of faith only unclean as a material object but extends to acts done in relation to all objects of faith, visible or invisible, rendering such objects ritually impure.
' In the verses of Holy Qur'an itself the Almighty Allah has directed to show respect and honour to the Holy Qur'an both in the context of physical respect and its teachings. If somebody does not show respect to the Holy Qur'an in its physical context, he cannot have honour for its teachings and similarly if some one has no respect to its teachings, he does not have much g respect in physical context, therefore, the physical respect and spiritual feelings with its teachings cannot be separated from each other.
14. Keeping copy of the Holy Qur'an in a bag with a pair of shoes and that too in the feet is a sign of showing dishonour and disrespect to the Holy Qur'an. The arguments that not the physical but the spiritual respect is the intent of section 295-B, P.P.C, do not carry weight for the reason that spiritual respect is a matter of understanding of an individual with reference to his knowledge and wisdom which is not common, but to show physical respect and honour to the Holy Qur'an is a legal, religious and moral duty of a person.. The spiritual respect and honour is a matter of an individual relating to his thinking whereas the physical honour and respect is a matter of his action D visible.
The disrespect if wilful shall be covered by the definition of 'defilement' constituting an offence under section 295-B, P.P.C.
"Qur'an is the Book revealed by God to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). It is glorious, most honoured, full of wisdom and a healing and mercy for those who believe?
' The Almighty Allah in the ' following verses has described the gloriousness and greatness of the Holy Qur'an:-
(i) In a Book well-guarded.
' None but the dean shall touch it---clean in body, mind, thought, intention and soul; only such can achieve real contact with its full meaning. (LVI-78).
(ii) Exalted (in 'dignity) Kept ' pure and holy. {{URDU TEXT}} ' It was held in the highest honour, its place in the hearts of Muslims was more exalted than that of anything else, as God's Word, it was pure and sacred; and those who transcribed it were men who were honourable, just and pious. (LXXX-14).
(iii) By the Glorious Qur'an. (Thou art God's Apostle). {{URDU TEXT}} ' Glorious is one of the beautiful appellations of the Qur'an. Its glory is that of the rising sun; the more it rises on your mental and spiritual horizon, the more you are lost in admiration of its glory. Its meanings are manifest and inexhaustible. (L-1).
(iv) This is Glorious Qur'an inscribed in a preserved Tablet. (LXXXV-21, 22)
(v) By no means (should it be so) for it is indeed. A message of instructions.
(vi) Therefore, let who so kept it in remembrance.
(vii) (It is) in Books held greatly in honour.
15. The words 'destroys and damages' used in section 295-B, P.P.C. Have obviously a physical and material significance. On the basis of the usual principle of construction of ejusdem generis a similar meaning can be assigned to the word 'defile' and may also be understood especially in collocation of such words as destroy and damage, in the primary physical source, apparent from its meaning with relation to the glory, dignity, greatness, honour and respect both in mind and body.
16. The essential ingredients and components to constitute an offence under section 295-B, P.P.C.
Are that:
(1) Wilfully defiling of Holy Qur'an.
(2) Defiling of copy of the Holy Qur'an or an extract thereof.
(3) Damaging or desecrating a copy of the Holy Qur'an or an extract thereof.
(4) Using it in a derogatory manner or for any unlawful purpose. A wilful defiling: Wilful means as defined in Black's Law Dictionary: Proceedings from a conscious motion of the will voluntary, intending the result which actually comes to pass, designed, intentional, not accidental or involuntary. An act or omission is wilfully done, if done voluntarily and intentionally and with the specific intent to do something the law forbids or with the specific intent to fail to do something the law requires to be done, that is to say, with purpose either to disobey or to disregard the law.
' The word (wilfully) often denotes an act which is intentional, or knowing or voluntary, as distinguished from accidental. But when used in a criminal context it generally means an act done with a bad purpose, without justifiable excuse, stubbornly, obstaintly, perversely. The word is also employed to characterize a thing done without ground for believing it is lawful or conduct marked by a careless disregard whether or not one has the right so to act. United States v. Murdech, 290 U.S. 389, 394, 395, 54 S. Ct. 223, 225, 78 L.Ed.
381.
' Whatever the grade of the offence the presence of the word "wilful" in the definition will carry with it the implication that for guilt the act must have been done willingly rather than under compulsion and, if something is required to be done by statute, the implication is that a punishable omission must be one having the ability and means to perform In re: Trombley 31 Dal 2d 801, 807,193 P2d 734, 739.
' A wilful act may be described as one done intentionally, knowingly and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. A wilful act differs essentially from a negligent act. The one is positive and the other negative."
The defiling, damaging or desecrating of a copy of Holy Qur'an or of an extract therefrom if wilfully must constitute an offence under section 295-B, P.P.C. The act of defiling or desecrating if done consciously and deliberately with or without the intention to damage and destroy the honour, respect and geatness in the eye of public in general or with the purpose to satisfy one's own feelings shall be a wilful act bringing the case within the purview of section 295-B, P.P.C. A person who has to force himself upon the attention of others addressing them as an involuntarily hearer, using of insulting and derogatory language against the Holy Book, would definitely be defiling the Holy Book by his conduct and acts in a wilful and deliberate manner.
15. It is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that accused acted in ill will manner and wilfully through separate evidence if injurious act was voluntarily done without a lawful excuse, the defile is presumed and proved. The wilful is not often capable to allucidate any tangible proof and has to be found in the given facts and circumstances of each case. Burden shall be shifted to a person who claimed that his act was not wilful and deliberate to establish as such.
17. I have no doubt in my mind that the derogatory language used and the conduct shown qua the copy of the Holy Qur'an is sufficient to attract the provisions of section 295-B, P.P.C. The P.Ws. Were travelling in the bus and were strangers to the appellant and had no reason to level false allegations against him. The appellant was taken into custody in the bus when he was uttering derogatory language for the Holy Qur'an and produced a copy of it from the bag with pair of shoes placed by him in his feet in the bus. The facts introduced and proved undoubtedly constitute an offence under section 295-B, P.P.C.
18. The next question left for determination is whether the appellant at the relevant time was suffering from insanity and has committed no offence.
19. In the present case the appellant pleaded his insanity at the time of commission of offence to defend himself, which if would have been proved, the necessary ingredients to constitute an offence under section 295-B, P.P.C. Would be missing, but the plea of insanity was not proved either for the purpose of section 84, P.P.C. Or for the trial as provided under Chapter XXXIV, Cr.P.C.
' Section 84, P.P.C. Provides as under: "Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable' of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law."
' The appellant if in fact was suffering from an ailment of the nature provided under section 84, P.P.C., no doubt he could get benefit of it but there is no evidence on the record to substantiate the plea of mental ailment of the appellant at the time of occurrence. The trial Court to satisfy itself and also for the purpose of complete dispensation of justice got the appellant medically examined through a Board of Doctors which found him mentally fit negating the defence plea. There is no past history of his insanity except the one instance of fits somewhere in 1958 and thereafter no direct or indirect evidence of any mental ailment or insanity is available on record. The occurrence took place in the year 1982 and the appellant was medically examined in the year 1986 during the trial, therefore, there being no evidence of the nature to establish that in the year 1982 or before that, the appellant was suffering from any mental ailment or insanity as the case may be, it is proved that the appellant was mentally fit. He was apprehended by the P.Ws. At the spot with H the recovered articles. The P.Ws. Being strangers to him had no reason to depose falsely. They are truthful and confidence inspiring.
20. In the light of the above discussion, I have no doubt in mind in holding the appellant guilty of commission of an offence under section 295-B, P.P.C. There can be no other view of the matter to that of one taken by the learned I trial Court. The findings of the learned trial Court being unexceptionable this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. The appellant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody and sent to jail to serve out his remaining sentence.