The petitioner's counsel Ghulam Mustafa Chaudhry argued the case but failed to point out a single error floating on the surface of the top court judgement. "How could we order to hang someone when the evidence is incredible while the prosecution claims his witnesses are trustworthy," remarked the Chief Justice.
There were tight security arrangements in and outside the Supreme Court on the occasion. The federal capital administration made stringent security arrangements, including the deployment of paramilitary troops in Islamabad's sensitive areas.
The Chief Justice observed that the complainant of this case seems very strange as he does not know who wrote the application, when application was filed by him and at what place it was given to police for registration of an FIR against Aasia Bibi. The complaint neither directly heard nor it was in his knowledge that Aasia Bibi uttered blasphemous words, but he was told by the students of his wife who taught them the Holy Quran. The complainant after pondering for five days lodged an FIR against the Christian lady.
He said if this had happened in any other case, an FIR could have been registered against the complainant as he told a lie on oath. According to the record, this is the case of perjury and it could be registered under Section 194 of Pakistan Penal Code, but due to sensitivity of this case they can't do anything, he added. "This way we are promoting Islam by telling a lie on oath. It is the command of Allah to bear true witness even though it is against yourself or your parents," he further said.
The Chief Justice regretted when the apex court order was not in prosecution's favour, they started blaming the court and blocked the roads. "How can we order for hanging of someone on incredible evidence?" he asked. "We need to peep into our lives." How the case was made. The court observed there were many discrepancies/inconsistencies in the statements of the PWs, he said, adding, "Extent of lie is huge."
Chief Justice Khosa said according to the law, the superintendent of police should investigate the blasphemy cases personally, but in this case ASI rank police officer conducted the investigation for four days. The SP later though assumed the control of investigation, neither did he visit the site of occurrence nor did record the statements of the witness himself.
The 45-year-old Christian woman was convicted of committing blasphemy during an argument with two Muslim women over the issue of drinking water in Sheikhupura town in June 2009.
The Lahore High Court had upheld her conviction and sentence in October 2014. She then filed an appeal in the apex court against the LHC judgement in November 2014, claiming she had not uttered any blasphemous remarks and was falsely accused by her neighbours over a personal feud.
The apex court in its judgement setting aside the LHC verdict noted that the complaint against Aasia Bibi of blasphemy was filed after a considerable delay, which was not explained by complainant; thus, it raises suspicion as to its truthfulness.
The trial court had relied upon the evidence of the witnesses regarding the extrajudicial confession to convict the appellant. The High Court has disregarded the extrajudicial confession for the reason that the evidence of extrajudicial confession furnished by the witnesses i.e. Qari Muhammad Salaam (PW 1), Muhammad Afzal (PW 4) as well as Muhammad Idrees (CW 1), to the extent of confessing the guilt in a public gathering, cannot be termed as an extrajudicial confession because no time, date and manner of commission of offence was given and further, no circumstances under which the appellant had allegedly committed the offence, have been narrated in the alleged confessional statement.
After her release from Multan's women prison on November 7 last year, Aasia Bibi was flown to Islamabad onboard a special aircraft. She was then taken to an undisclosed place amid tight security. Authorities have remained tight-lipped about her movement and whereabouts for security reasons.
At the onset of the case Qari Salam's counsel had demanded that a larger bench be made for the review petition, saying it should include Islamic scholars and Ulema. However, the bench dismissed his request. The Chief Justice asked "How is this matter of religion? Has the verdict not been given on merit? The verdict was given on the basis of testimonies; does Islam say that one should be punished even if they are found not guilty?"