MULTAN: An additional district and sessions judge on Saturday awarded death sentence, 10-year rigorous imprisonment and Rs100,000 fine to lecturer Junaid Hafeez on Saturday under section 295-A in a blasphemy case.
The case had attracted the attention of media and human rights organisations when a senior advocate Rashid Rehman who had smashed the prosecution case in alleged blasphemy and was believed to be close to getting his acquittal, was killed in 2014. Terming the judgment unfortunate, Hafeez's counsel pledged to appeal against the verdict. The HRCP also expressed it dismay at the verdict.
The court also awarded Hafeez death sentence under section 295-C of the PPC and Rs500,000 fine and life imprisonment under section 295-B of the PPC. He would undergo further imprisonment of six months in case of default on payment of fine, the court ordered. The AD&SJ held the court proceedings at the Multan Central Jail. The sentences would run consecutively and according to judgment the accused would not be entitled to benefit from section 382-B CrPC, because in case of blasphemy, as the court had not found circumstances for taking lenient view and it was also not permitted in Islam.
Junaid Hafeez was a lecturer of English literature at the Bahauddin Zakariya University. The FIR and the subsequent charge sheet was based on an anonymous pamphlet. No JIT was ever constituted to initiate an inquiry into the sensitive case. The Police had charged Junaid Hafeez for running a fictitious Facebook page under the title of ‘Mullah Munafiq’ and disseminating blasphemous contents. Interestingly, the Facebook page remained active and continued uploading the contents even after 14 months of the lecturers's arrest and detention.
The Alpha police had registered a blasphemy case no 103/13 against Junaid Hafeez under sections 295-B and 295-C of the blasphemy law, which restricted the police from conducting a detailed investigation through a joint investigation team before registering a case. The Human Right Commission of Pakistan's, Multan Coordinator, Rashid Rehman, pleaded Hafeez's case as many other lawyers had refused to contest it following serious life threats. Unidentified assailants had also killed lawyer Rashid Rehman in May 2014 when he was very close to proving him innocent.
Junaid was a position-holder and a gold medalist in his intermediate examination held in 2003. Pakistan’s prestigious medical institution King Edward Medical College, Lahore, had admitted him to study medicines, but he left the institution after two years due to his interest in arts and literature. He was a Fulbright scholar and spent a year at Jackson State University, Mississippi, studying theatre, photography and English literature in 2009.
The FIR claimed that Junaid was the founder and administrator of the Facebook page titled “So-called liberals of Pakistan” where some miscreants using a concealed ID under the title “Mullah Munafiq” commented on the most revered wives of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) indecently. The FIR claims that “Mullah Munafiq” was actually Junaid and, hence a blasphemer. The Police submitted a challan in the court. The prosecution submitted 1,200 pages as evidence, including everything from the inbox of Junaid's Facebook account, reports of conferences, a 4-5 page CV, and an online version of a book called “Progressive Muslims” sent to him for a review, which arrived "four days after his arrest". The prosecution's evidence included 13 contradictory statements from witnesses against him and Prof Dr Shirin Zubair. Section 295-A deals with "deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs," Section 295-B concerns the "Defiling, etc., of Holy Qur'an", whereas 295-C deals with the "use of derogatory remarks, etc., in respect of the Holy Prophet."
In the immediate aftermath of the case the university cancelled Junaid’s admission to MPhil programme, terminated his teaching contract and his house allotment. Moreover, the university banned his entry to the campus without conducting an impartial inquiry, which is violative of the university by-laws.
The academic's counsel has slammed the decision as "most unfortunate", pledging "we will appeal against this verdict". "The prospect of Hafeez getting even a semblance of fair trial had come under question when his counsel Rashid Rehman was murdered in his chamber," Hafeez's family said in a written statement after the verdict. "Those involved in Rehman's murder were never apprehended. Rehman's murder resulted in a wave of fear, preventing other lawyers from taking up his defence. "The failure to apprehend those who killed Rehman dead was encouraging for other would-be vigilantes. Could any judge in such circumstances take the risk of doing justice? Those who could were transferred from the district or brought under pressure by groups of lawyers operating as mafias," the family said. "An appeal in the high court will be filed soon against the verdict and it is hoped that justice will be served without delay," the statement said.
"In five years, at least eight judges have heard Hafeez’s case, making a fair trial virtually impossible," the HRCP wrote in response to the verdict. "Meanwhile, he [Hafeez] has undergone six years’ imprisonment in solitary confinement. Aasia Bibi, who was charged similarly, was acquitted after eight years’ incarceration. There are grave implications here for access to justice in such cases. The "HRCP reposes its faith in the higher judiciary and hopes that the verdict will be overturned in appeal."
Meanwhile, the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) is dismayed by the verdict handed down to academic Junaid Hafeez by the Multan district and sessions court on charges of blasphemy.
The HRCP believes that the blasphemy laws are heavily misused. This is compounded by a trial process ridden by delays and pressures at the level of the lower judiciary. The offence itself is already associated with vigilantism and entrenched impunity – underscored by the 2014 murder of Hafeez’s lawyer, Rashid Rehman. The resulting pressure on lower courts becomes apparent when most such verdicts are overturned by the High Court or Supreme Court, it added.
