LAHORE: A Lahore High Court (LHC) division bench on Monday sought arguments from the prosecution on the admissibility of electronic evidence relied upon by a Bahawalpur trial court to sentence a man to death in a blasphemy case.

The bench comprising Justice Sadiq Mahmud Khurram and Justice Muhammad Jawad Zafar was hearing an appeal against sentence filed by Taimoor Raza through Advocate Asad Jamal.

Previously, the appeal was pending at the Bahawalpur bench of the LHC. However, it was transferred to the principal seat on the request of the appellant counsel about a year ago.

On Monday, Justice Khurram directed the prosecution to come up with its arguments on the questions raised in the appeal on the alleged contradiction in the evidence including electronic i.e. Facebook pages presented before the trial court.

The appellant’s counsel requested the bench to adjourn the hearing for a short date.

The bench is yet to announce the next date of hearing.

The Counter Terrorism Department (CTD) of Bahawalpur had registered the FIR in 2016 under section 298A of Pakistan Penal Code, which criminalises the use of derogatory remarks, spoken or written words that defile the sacred names of holy personages, including the wives, family members, righteous Caliphs, or companions of the Holy Prophet (PBUH), and section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997.

However, an antiterrorism court had in 2017 sentenced Raza to death for offence under 295-C (the use of derogatory remarks against the Holy Prophet (PBUH) punishable by death or imprisonment for life).

The defence alleged that the FIR was registered against Raza when a case for his abduction had been lodged in Lahore by his family.

It alleged that Raza was abducted from his office where he worked as office assistant and taken to Bahawalpur and was roped in the case.

The appeal argued that the trial court failed to refer to any evidence, which could form the basis of which the charge under section 295-C was made against the appellant.

It said the prosecution procured an opinion from so-called religious scholars who never testified in the trial court and were never cross-examined.

It argued that no independent witness was engaged or joined the investigation against the appellant.

Published in Dawn, September 29th, 2026