PESHAWAR: A local court has convicted a man for committing blasphemy and sentenced him to death with a fine of Rs100,000.

The additional sessions judge, Rafiullah, pronounced that the prosecution proved its case against the suspect, an Afghan national, beyond

any reasonable doubt, warranting his conviction under Section 295-C of Pakistan Penal Code.

The judge pronounced that the sentence of death awarded to him was subject to confirmation by Peshawar High Court.

Sentence is subject to confirmation by PHC

The court directed that a murder reference under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, along with the complete record

of the case, should be transmitted to Peshawar High Court, forthwith for confirmation of the sentence of death or otherwise, in accordance with law.

“No enmity, mala fide intention, or ulterior motive has been brought on record to suggest that prosecution witnesses would falsely implicate the accused in such a heinous offence carrying the extreme penalty of death,” the judge ruled.

The suspect was charged in an FIR registered at Hayatabad police station in Peshawar on Aug 5, 2022, under Section 295-C of PPC.

According to the FIR, local police upon receiving information of the occurrence rushed to Phase-III, Flyover Hayatabad Peshawar, where many people were gathered and had apprehended a person. He was taken into custody by police.

Three of the eyewitnesses told police that he was standing on the flyover, when the arrested man uttered derogatory and abusive remarks in respect of the Holy Prophet (PBUH). The complainant stated that the suspect was overpowered with the help of other persons.

One of the eyewitnesses, who was a friend of the complainant and was present with him on the flyover, deposed that in his presence the suspect used abusive language

in respect of prophets including Hazrat Essa and Hazrat Musa.

Though the witness deposed that the suspect facing trial used derogatory remarks against prophets Hazrat Essa and Hazrat Musa, the court referred to a famous judgement of Federal Shariat Court (1991 PLD FSC 10), quoting from it that “derogatory or contemptuous remarks concerning Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), as well as other prophets (A.S), are treated as offences.”

Referring to the same judgement, the court pointed out that the Federal Shariat Court held that the jurists and scholars unanimously agreed that, in view of the relevant verses of the Holy Qur’an and the equal status of all prophets, the penalty of death would apply to anyone, who uttered contemptuous or insulting remarks against any of the prophets.

The judge said that the FSC had further declared that the alternative punishment of life imprisonment provided under Section 295-C of PPC was repugnant to the injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Qur’an and Sunnah, and directed that the words “or imprisonment for life” should be deleted from the said provision.

He said that the FSC had directed that, if the law (295-C PPC) was not amended by April 30, 1991, those words would cease to have effect from that date.

As no advocate was willing to defend the suspect and he was also unable to arrange a lawyer at his own expense, a counsel was provided to him through Legal Aid Committee working under the chairmanship of the district and sessions judge.

The court, in its detailed 21-page judgement, pointed out that the suspect was medically examined by a doctor on Aug 6, 2022, and was declared fit for custody.

It was added that he was again medically examined the next day and was once again found fit.

“There is nothing on record to suggest that the accused was suffering from any mental disorder or disability at the relevant time. Furthermore, no report indicating any mental disorder or disability of the accused facing trial was submitted by the superintendent of Central Prison Peshawar during his confinement in the said prison,” the judge maintained.

The defence counsel contended that the complainant and the alleged eyewitnesses were unable to provide a satisfactory explanation regarding their presence at the place of occurrence, particularly when the complainant was a permanent resident of Mardan district and the witnesses belonged to different localities.

He argued that the actual words allegedly uttered by the suspect were not mentioned in the initial report or the formal FIR, thereby creating doubt regarding the precise nature of the alleged offence.

He said that the prosecution evidence contained material inconsistencies regarding the alleged utterances.

Published in Dawn, October 29th, 2026