MUHAMMAD MURAD vs STATE
This matter arises from a criminal petition for leave to appeal filed against the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court. The core legal questions involve the applicability of Section 311 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in cases of Ta'zir as opposed to Qisas following a compromise and acquittal, and whether an offence constituting private revenge falls within the definition of terrorism under Section 6 read with Section 7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The Supreme Court considered the contentions raised by the petitioner regarding the legal lacunae in the convictions under Section 311 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. Holding that the contentions merit serious examination, the Court allowed the petition and granted leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that leave to appeal is appropriately granted when substantial questions regarding the correct application of penal and anti-terrorism provisions following a compromise and acquittal require authoritative determination.
- Are the provisions of Section 311 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 relevant to a case of Ta'zir or only to a case of Qisas?
- Does an act of private revenge attract the definition of terrorism contained in Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
- Can a convict be sentenced under Section 311 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 despite having been acquitted of the main murder charge on the basis of a compromise?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 147, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 311, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 6, Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997
- Section 7(a), Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997
ORDER
Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J.
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No, 204 of 2012 Instead of pressing this miscellaneous application before this Court the learned counsel for the applicant wishes to withdraw the same so as to approach the High Court of Balochistan for the desired relief. This miscellaneous application is, therefore, disposed of as not pressed.
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No, 205 of 2012
2. For the reasons mentioned in this miscellaneous application the same is allowed and the delay in filing of Criminal Petition No, 91 of 2012 is condoned.
Criminal Petition No, 91 of 2012
3. It has inter alia been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the compromise affected by the heirs of the deceased and the injured victim with the petitioner had been accepted by the learned trial Court and, resultantly, the petitioner had been acquitted by the learned trial Court of the charge in respect of the offences under Sections 302, 147 and 149, PPC but despite that acquittal the petitioner had been convicted and Sentenced by the learned trial Court for an offence under Section 311, PPC which had no application to the case in hand. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the case of Khan Muhammad v. The State (2005 SCMR 599) to maintain that the provisions of Section 311, PPC are relevant only to a case of Qisas and not to a case of Ta'zir and the case in hand was definitely a case of Ta'zir. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the petitioner's conviction and sentence under Section 7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 were also legally laconic as the case in hand was a case of a private revenge which did not attract the definition of `terrorism' contained in Section 6 of the Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997. In this respect the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the cases of Basharat Ali v. Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court-II, (PLD 2004 Lahore 199), Bashir Ahmad v. Muhammad Siddique and others (PLD 2009 SC 11) and Ahmad Jan v. Nasrullah and others (2012 SCMR 59). With these submissions the learned counsel for the petitioner has maintained that if the provisions of Section 7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and of Section 311: PPC are held to be inapplicable to the case in hand then the petitioner already stands acquitted of the charge in respect of murders as well as murderous assault.
4. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner noted above need consideration. This petition is, therefore, allowed and leave to appeal is granted to consider inter alia the contentions noted above.
Cited by 1 case
- DAULAT KHAN Versus State 2019 PCrLJN 13