LHC acquits Quran desecration convict, cites lack of proof and mental illness evidence

The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Friday acquitted a man convicted of desecrating the Holy Quran, ruling that the recovery of a burnt copy alone could not establish guilt without proof of a wilful and deliberate act.

Justice Tariq Mehmood Bajwa of the court’s Rawalpindi bench allowed the criminal appeal filed by Shahidur Rehman, setting aside his conviction and life sentence under Section 295-B of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC).

The court held that the prosecution had failed to establish conclusively that the appellant had set fire to the copy. It also found that evidence of his long-standing mental illness could not be disregarded merely because no formal application had been filed under Section 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Reiterating a fundamental principle of criminal law, the court observed that even a single reasonable doubt entitled an accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

The case was registered at Sarai Alamgir police station in Gujrat district following an incident allegedly reported on January 27, 2022.

According to the prosecution, the appellant emerged from a street near his residence carrying a burning copy of the Holy Quran and threw it onto the main road as people rushed to extinguish the fire. A major portion of the copy was burnt.

The trial court convicted him under Section 295-B PPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment on December 20, 2025.

Also Read: LHC acquits murder convict

Examining the evidence, Justice Bajwa noted that the complainant and another key prosecution witness had admitted during cross-examination that they had not seen the appellant setting fire to the copy.

The court explained that the word “wilfully” in Section 295-B required an intentional, deliberate and conscious act. The mere fact that a copy of the Holy Quran had been damaged by fire was insufficient to establish the offence unless the prosecution proved that the appellant had knowingly and deliberately caused the damage.

Justice Bajwa emphasised that the gravity of an allegation could not substitute for proof, adding that criminal cases had to be decided on evidence rather than emotions or sentiments. The prosecution was required to establish every essential element of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

Addressing the appellant’s mental condition, the court noted that prosecution witnesses had consistently described him as mentally unwell. The complainant and other private witnesses said he had suffered from mental illness for approximately 13 to 14 years and had remained confined to his house for around 12 years.

The court examined the protection available under Section 84 PPC, which excludes criminal liability where, at the time of an act, a person is, by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of understanding the nature of the act or that it is wrong or contrary to law.

The judgment distinguished between mental incapacity at the time of an alleged offence and an accused’s capacity to understand trial proceedings or conduct a defence. It held that the absence of a formal application under Section 464 CrPC did not justify disregarding evidence relevant to the appellant’s mental condition at the time of the alleged offence.

Read more: LHC acquits man in wife's murder case

The court observed that the evidence raised serious and reasonable doubts about the appellant’s mental capacity at the relevant time, bringing the protection under Section 84 PPC into consideration.

It also identified shortcomings in the investigation. The investigating officer had not identified the specific Surah, Para or other portion of the Holy Quran allegedly defiled, while the recovered burnt pieces had not undergone scientific examination or other reliable identification.

The alleged matchbox had not been taken into possession, and no investigation had been conducted to establish the circumstances in which the copy had caught fire, the court noted.

Prosecution witnesses also gave contradictory accounts of the police’s arrival at the scene, the time officers spent there, the recording of their statements and their presence at the police station. These discrepancies further weakened the prosecution’s case, the court observed.

The judgment also noted that the investigating officer had made no meaningful effort to ascertain or address the appellant’s mental condition before sending him to judicial lock-up.

Finding that the prosecution had failed to establish the appellant’s involvement through reliable and consistent evidence, the high court acquitted him by extending the benefit of doubt.