پاکستان میں توہینِ رسالت کے مقدمات میں معیارِ شہادت: آسیہ بی بی کیس کی روشنی میں عدالتی استدلال کا تنقیدی مطالعہ

Evidentiary Standards in Blasphemy Cases in Pakistan: A Critical Study of Judicial Reasoning in the Asia Bibi Case

Abstract

This article examines the evidentiary standards applied in prosecutions under Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code, with particular reference to Asia Noreen (Asia Bibi) v. The State. It compares the reasoning of the Trial Court, the Lahore High Court, and the Supreme Court of Pakistan in order to assess how witness testimony, alleged extra-judicial confession, delay in lodging the FIR, procedural irregularities, and the possibility of false implication were evaluated at different judicial levels. The study argues that the Trial Court and the Lahore High Court placed substantial reliance on oral testimony and treated several inconsistencies as minor, whereas the Supreme Court applied a stricter standard of proof and regarded those inconsistencies as material contradictions capable of creating reasonable doubt. The article further analyses the doctrine of benefit of doubt as a right of the accused rather than a discretionary concession, and shows its compatibility with both Pakistani criminal law and Islamic principles of justice, caution, and evidentiary certainty. It concludes that the Asia Bibi judgment represents an important precedent for fair-trial guarantees, strict scrutiny of evidence, and judicial restraint in highly sensitive blasphemy cases.