Pakistan Case LawTHE STATE Versus JAVED AHMED SIDDIQUI and others
This matter originated from a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that set aside convictions and sentences awarded by an Anti-Terrorism Court. The respondents had been convicted for the murder of three family members, with the trial court invoking provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act. The High Court had previously ruled that the Anti-Terrorism Court lacked jurisdiction, reasoning that the crime—committed with a sharp-cutting weapon (knife) rather than explosives or specific firearms—did not fall under the definition of terrorism provided in the Act, and subsequently remanded the case to the Sessions Court. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the brutal nature of the killings prima facie attracted the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act, specifically regarding acts creating terror and insecurity. The Court emphasized that criminal jurisprudence requires a dynamic approach, cautioning against setting aside convictions on technical grounds when the conscience of the Court is satisfied regarding the guilt of the accused, and sought to determine if the remand order was legally sustainable.
- Whether a crime committed with a sharp-cutting weapon can fall within the jurisdiction of an Anti-Terrorism Court under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
- Is a High Court order remanding a case from an Anti-Terrorism Court to a Sessions Court sustainable when the offence prima facie attracts terrorism provisions?
- Does the creation of terror and a sense of insecurity in the public satisfy the requirements for an offence to be tried under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
ORDER
DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Sindh. Dated 21-3-2000 whereby conviction and sentence awarded to the respondents by the Anti-Terrorism Court No,1, Karachi in Special Case No,198 of 1999 was set aside and the case was remanded to Sessions Judge, Karachi East for trial afresh.
2.Facts of the case are that an F.I.R. Was lodged on 30-12-1998 at Police Station Jauharabad wherein unwitnessed murder of three members of family was reported by one of the members of the family i.e, Mst. Asma Nawab. During investigation police found that Mst. Asma Nawab as well was involved in the crime in addition to accused Javed Ahmed Siddiqui, Farhan Khan and Wasim Ahmed. Deceased persons namely, Nawab Ahmad, Asif Ahmad and Mst. Ibrar Khatoon were parents and brothers of Mst. Asma Nawab. After usual investigation police submitted charge-sheet in the Court of Anti-Terrorism Court No,IV, Karachi. At the conclusion of the trial, the trial Court convicted all the four accused under section 392 read with section 34, P.P.C. Three of them were also convicted under section 7(1)(a) and section 34, P.P.C., and sentenced to death, rigorous imprisonment and fine.
3.Before the learned High Court, respondents raised a preliminary question about the jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court whether on the allegations made by the prosecution the case fell within the meaning of section 6 of the Act. It was also pointed out that the weapons alleged by the prosecution in commission of the crime were not one mentioned in section 6(a) of the Act which include death caused by use of bombs, dynamite, other explosive or inflammable substances, or such fire-arms or other lethal weapons as may be notified or poisons or noxious gases or chemical whereas in the present case death was caused by sharp cutting weapon such as knife. It was agitated by the respondents before the Appellate Court that section 6(b) of the Act was also not attracted in the case.
4.After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, learned High Court accepted plea of the defence that crime committed by the respondents was not covered by section 6 of the Act. Accordingly charge under section 7 of the Act was found untenable. On the point of jurisdiction learned High Court held that Anti-Terrorism Court had no jurisdiction and allowed the appeals, set aside the conviction and sentences and remanded the case to the Sessions Judge, Karachi East for trial afresh.
5.Mr. Muhammad Sarwar Khan, learned A.A.-G., referred to preamble of the Act which provides that "Whereas it is expedient to provide for the prevention of terrorism, sectarian violence and for speedy trial of heinous offences and for matter connected therewith and incidental thereto;" and section 6(b) of the Act and Schedule 2(c). He also referred to State through Advocate-General, Sindh, Karachi v. Farman Hussain and others (PLD 1995 SC 1) and Mehram Ali v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1998 SC 1445).
5-A. In Mehram Ali's case (supra) we may observe the following observations:--
' "We may point out that this Court is not oblivious of the factum that the law and order situation has been considerably deteriorated and new types of terrorism have emerged due to tremendous progress made in the field of technology. This Court in more than one cases has held that the approach of the Court while considering criminal matters should be dynamic and it should take into consideration the surrounding situation obtaining in the country and should not lightly set aside a conviction on technical ground if the Court's conscience is satisfied that factually the convict was guilty of the offence."
6.We have given our anxious thought to the contentions of learned counsel for the parties, the case-law and have also carefully gone through the impugned judgment. The manner in which three innocent persons were done to death prima facie attracts the provisions of section 6(b) of the Act read with section Schedule (2(c) of the Act. For the safe administration of criminal justice we grant leave in these petitions to consider, inter alia, the following points of law:--
Judges on this bench
- Deedar Hussain Shah95 judgments
- Hamid Ali Mirza1,100 judgments