Supreme Court acquits man on death row for ‘blasphemy’
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has acquitted a 74-year-old Christian man, who was diagnosed with a mental illness, of blasphemy charges after overturning the June 30, 2014 Lahore High Court’s (LHC) order confirming his death sentence.
Authored by Justice Athar Minallah, a three-judge Supreme Court bench, while extending the benefit of doubt, ordered the acquittal of all charges against petitioner Anwar Keneth after accepting his jail plea but with a direction to release him if not required in any other case.
In a nine-page judgement, the bench consisting of Justices Athar Minallah, Irfan Saadat Khan and Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan also expressed the expectation that the Pakistan Institute of Mental Health (PIMH) executive director, where the petitioner was being treated, will ensure continuation of his medical treatment.
The blasphemy case against Mr Keneth was registered on Sept 25, 2001, by the Gawalmandi police for alleged offences under Section 295C of the Pakistan Penal Code.
Bench says elderly suspect diagnosed with mental illness, prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt
The complaint registered by Inspector Nasrullah Khan Niazi concerned the Aug 27, 2001, letter to a person named Haji Mehmood Zafar and following investigation, a report under Section 173 CrPC was filed before the competent court. The appellant pleaded guilty to the charge framed and admitted writing the letter.
The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 295C and sentenced him to death with a fine of Rs500,000. The high court later confirmed the death sentence.
Subsequently, a jail petition sent through the prison superintendent was received by the Supreme Court in 2014, whereas the letter was sent to the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) on March 12, 2024.
Later, the PIMH medical board diagnosed the petitioner as suffering from ‘Bipolar Affective Disorder’ (a disorder causing extreme mood swings, including emotional highs and lows) and that the mental disorder was in the ‘hypomanic’ stage. The medical board also advised admission of the appellant to the institute for treatment.
In its order, the Supreme Court regretted that the prosecution in the case produced only two witnesses, Maulana Naeem Akhtar Adnan (PW-1) and Haji Mahmood Zafar (PW-2). The investigating officer of this case did not enter the witness box. It appears that the prosecution, besides producing two witnesses, made no attempt to prove its case against the appellant, the order regretted.
The judgement said the appellant professes the religion of Christianity and that the letter was attempting to propagate and profess his faith with a claim that ‘he belonged to the Juda tribe and a descendant of King David’.
The appellant claimed to be the ‘King of Israel and rule the whole world,’ and asserted that the ‘great Lord of Heavens will establish the Kingdom in Israel’.
In his letter, he attempted to build an argument that his faith was the true religion, the judgement said, adding that the entire letter unambiguously showed its author was suffering from some mental disorder.
The conduct of the appellant during the investigation and the trial was not that of a sane person, the judgement said, adding the contents of the letter reflected signs of grandeur, hallucination, and delusional flight of ideas.
Though the abnormality was obvious from the conduct and contents of the letter, neither the prosecution nor the trial court had the appellant medically examined by specialists in the field of psychiatry.
According to the judgement, the offence under section 295C is penal and attracts the punishment of death. It added that it was a settled principle of criminal administration of justice that the prosecution has to prove its case against an accused beyond a reasonable doubt and it was not absolved of this duty if the accused has been unsuccessful in proving a plea in his/her defence.
The appellant was not aware that his actions were influenced by the mental disorder from which he was suffering, the judgement noted, adding that the culpability of the offence for which the appellant was charged required establishing the ‘actus rea’ and ‘mens rea’.
The opinion of the medical board has raised a serious doubt regarding the existence of criminal intent or ‘mens rea’.The CII, in its interim report, has rightly observed that the followers of all religions enjoy the right to profess, practice and propagate their respective beliefs but the exercise of such right is subject to law, the judgement said.
Published in Dawn, October 11th, 2025
Read Comments