RAWALPINDI: The Lahore High Court’s Rawalpindi Bench has acquitted six convicts facing death sentences and life imprisonment in a blasphemy case, observing that the prosecution has failed to establish a credible link between the accused and the alleged online blasphemous material, while also hinting at the growing menace of so-called “honey trap” tactics in cyber blasphemy cases.
In a detailed judgment, the court set aside convictions awarded by the trial court in a case registered by the FIA Cyber Crime Circle, Rawalpindi, involving allegations that blasphemous content was circulated through WhatsApp groups. The accused had been sentenced to death under Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code, along with additional sentences under Sections 295-B PPC and the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA), 2016.
The bench, comprising Justice Jawad Hassan and Justice Ch. Sultan Mahmood, found that the prosecution’s case rested almost entirely on screenshots and a CD provided by the complainant, without any proper forensic examination of the complainant’s mobile phone or verification of the electronic trail.
The judges noted that the WhatsApp numbers cited in the FIR were registered in the names of third parties who were neither made accused nor examined as witnesses.
Significantly, the court observed that the complainant had remained part of the alleged WhatsApp groups for nearly three years before approaching authorities, a delay the judges termed ‘highly suspicious’.
The judgment underscored concerns repeatedly raised in recent years that individuals are lured into online groups or private chats—often through fake profiles or personal inducements—and later implicated in blasphemy cases once objectionable content appears, a pattern commonly described as a “honey trap.”
The bench also held that mandatory legal safeguards were ignored. Investigation of offences under Section 295-C PPC, which carry capital punishment, must be conducted by an officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police, as required by Section 156-A CrPC. In this case, the investigation was conducted by FIA officers below the prescribed rank, rendering it legally defective.
Emphasising the sensitive and irreversible nature of blasphemy allegations, the court ruled that convictions cannot be sustained on moral outrage, suspicion, or unverified electronic material.
“Where capital punishment is involved, the highest standard of proof is required,” the judgment noted, extending the benefit of doubt to all accused.
The death sentences were not confirmed, the capital reference was answered in the negative, and all appellants were ordered to be released if not required in any other case.
Published in Dawn, December 17th, 2025
