This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 121-J of 1999 filed by Abdul Rehman, appellant through jail, who was convicted and sentenced by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha vide his judgment dated 23-9-1999 under section 295-B, P.P.C. To undergo imprisonment for life under section 295-C, P.P.C. To undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000 and in default one month's R. I. And under section 298-A, P. P. C., to undergo imprisonment for three years. All- the sentences were ordered to run concurrently with the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. Mst. Tasneem Amin, Advocate was appointed at State expense as a defence counsel to defend the appellant but she was not present on 8-2-2000, then case came up for hearing on 16-2-2000 she was also not present on that date. On 28-2-2000 she was present and asked time to peruse the record, it was adjourned. Today, also she is not present, her name is sufficiently mentioned in the cause list, so today I appoint Mr. Abdul Rauf Farooqi, Advocate at State expense to defend the appellant while the State is represented by Mr. Mumtaz Ahmad Niazi, Advocate.
3. Appellant was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha vide his judgment dated 23-9-1999 which has been impugned by the appellant through jail. Complainant in this case is Muhammad Babar Alain P.W.
7. He has stated in his complaint on 23-6-1999 that on the said date when he was present in his office Fazal Abbas, Umar Hayat, Rehmat Khan, Sahib Khan, Khushi Muhammad and 25/30 persons came there and complained against Abdul Rehman appellant stating that he defiled the sacred copy of Holy Qur'an on 20-6-1996 and not only did this but also used filthy and derogatory language against the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h.) Khhulafa Rashdinand Ahle-e-Bait, that Abdul Rehman had also been saying that Iqbal Shah was his "Murshid" and taught him different kind of knowledge and that he was doing all this at his behest, Investigation was conducted, challan was submitted and the appellant was tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha and thereafter, at the end of trial he was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has read before me prosecution evidence, statement of the appellant recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. And submits that appellant has been falsely implicated in this case, that there is a delay of three days in lodging the F.I.R., that witnesses are inimical towards the appellant, that appellant had denied all the charges levelled against him by the prosecution witnesses during the trial and in their statements recorded before the police, that in fact there was 'a dispute of the house in which the appellant was living with his children as a tenant with his owner namely Mian Muhammad P.W. That no case whatsoever is made out against the appellant. He lastly submits that conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant by the learned trial Court be set aside.
5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel supports the judgment of learned trial Court and submits that prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In the instant case, prosecution examined in all nine witnesses. Hafiz Allah Ditta has appeared as P. W.1. He has fully supported the prosecution case, he has got no enmity with the appellant so there was no question of deposing falsely on his behalf against the appellant, then Sahib Khan has appeared as P.W.2, he did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. P.W.3 is Umar Hayyat, he had not seen the defiling of sacred copy of Holy Qur'an with his own eyes but he himself had heard the indecent language used by the appellant against Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h.), Khulafa Rashdin and. Ahl-e-Bait. He further stated that the appellant has used the said language so many times, police has also taken into possession torn pieces of Holy Qur'an in his presence and he attested the said memo. P.W.4 is Mst. Jindan wife of Amir A Khan. 'She has also supported the prosecution case. She on oath stated in her statement that she was informed by Mst. Zaiina Bibi wife of Abdul Rehman appellant that Abdul Rehman was defiling the Holy Qur'an. According to her statement,.The accused/appellant also used derogatory language against the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h.) and Sahabah-Karams, then Mian Muhammad P.W.5 has also stated that the appellant had used the derogatory language against Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h.) on this he asked Abdul Rehman to vacate his house because Abdul Rehman was his tenant, thereafter, P.W.6 is Rehmat Khan. He also reiterated the statements of earlier witnesses mentioned above stating that the appellant used derogatory remarks against the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h.) and also against "Ahle-e-Bait" then P.W.7 is Muhammad Badar Alain the complainant in this case. He has supported the version given in the F.I.R., P.W.8 is Ijaz-ul-Haq, MHC No. 1180. He has recorded the formal F.I.R. Exh.PB on the basis of complaint Exh.PB/1. The last witness in this case is Zulfqar A.I S.I/I.O. P.W.9. He visited the place of occurrence, inspected the same and prepared site- plan Exh.PC. He also took into possession the torn pieces of Holy Qur'an P.1 from the house of Abdul Rehman lying on the floor through recovery memo. Exh.PA. He recorded the statements of the prosecution witnesses and arrested the appellant on 25-6-1996.
7. After going through the evidence recorded by the learned trial Court, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and other relevant material available on record, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt. All the P. Ws. Have no relationship with each other, they are not inimical towards the appellant, they are not even biased against the appellant, there is no reason on their part to depose against the appellant on oath, so conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant by the learned trial Court is maintained and the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed,