Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 295B

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 129(g)

(a)    Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 295-B---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---Willfully defiling, damaging, or desecrating a copy of the Holy Quran---Appreciation of evidence--Benefit of doubt---Case property not presented as evidence---Effect--Accused was charged for tearing the pages of Holy Quran and using derogatory words about it---Record showed that primary evidence i.e. Holy Quran from which pages were torn allegedly by the appellant, was not taken into possession by the Investigating Officer; such damaging defect demolished the entire superstructure of the case---Necessary incriminating articles, which requires proper identification, must be exhibited as case property during the trial--Failure to do so attracted the presumption under Art. 129(g) of the Qanun-eShahadat, 1984, which implied that such material had gone against the prosecution or that no such material existed at all---No doubt that if the case property was not produced in Court, the concerned authority/ prosecution was required to furnish plausible explanation based upon concrete material and not mere lame excuses, which was not the case in hand---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Qamar Zaman v. Waseem Iqbal and 5 others 2004 SCMR 1209; State of Islamic Republic of Pakistan through Deputy Attorney General for Pakistan v. Kenneth Marshal and 2 others 2005 SCMR 594; Gul Dast Khan v. The State 2009 SCMR 431 and Ahmed Ali v. The State 2023 SCMR 781 rel. (b)    Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 295-B---Willfully defiling, damaging, or desecrating a copy of the Holy Quran---Appreciation of evidence---Mental condition of the accused---Scope--Accused was charged for tearing the pages of Holy Quran and using derogatory words about it---Fundamental aspect of the case was the mental condition of the accused, who was apprehended on the same date i.e. 30.05.2022 and he remained under treatment with Medical Officer, who while appearing as a witness in the Court stated that she was posted at PIMS Psychiatry Department and patient (appellant) aged 25 years was brought by police in handcuffs with the complaints of hearing multiple voices…