2026 P Cr. L J 422

 2026 P Cr. L J 422

[Sindh]

Before Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry and Tasneem Sultana, JJ

SHER MUHAMMAD---Petitioner

Versus

The STATE and others---Respondents

Criminal Revision Application No. D-40 of 2024, decided on 26th

August, 2025.

Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)---

----Ss. 23 & 7---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd,

common intention, act of terrorism---Application for transfer of case

from Anti-Terrorism Court to the Ordinary Court was allowed---

Validity---Complainant lodged FIR alleging that accused persons

committed murder of his son/Head Constable---Prima facie, the

investigation demonstrated that the accused and his associates had

threatened and attacked the deceased because as a Police Officer he

resisted their unlawful Manpuri/Gutka business and facilitated their

arrest---Thus, it could not be ruled out at this stage that the design

or object of the act was not personal revenge simpliciter, but the

silencing of a law enforcement officer and the intimidation of the

police force and local community---Fact that the deceased was not

on duty or in uniform at the time of attack was not sufficient to

dislodge the stated test of 'terrorism'---Thus, it was premature of the

Trial Court to opine that the case did not constitute terrorism---

Revision application was accordingly allowed by setting aside

impugned order with the direction that the case shall remain on the

file of the Anti-Terrorism Court until there was evidence to rule out

terrorism.

Ghulam Hussain and others v. The State PLD 2020 SC 61 rel.

Nemo for Applicant.

Abrar Ali Khichi Assistant P.G for Respondent No. 1.

Ajab Khan Khattak for Respondent No. 2.

Date of hearing: 21st July, 2025.

JUDGMENT

TASNEEM SULTANA, J.---The instant Criminal Revision Application

has been filed to challenge the validity and legality of the Order dated

25.01.2024 passed by the learned Judge of Anti-Terrorism Court No. XIX, Karachi Division in Special Case No. 32 of 2023, arising out of FIR

No. 229 of 2023 for the offence under Sections 302 and 34 Pakistan

Penal Code, 1860 (P.P.C) read with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act,

1997 (ATA) registered at Sharafi Goath Police Station, Karachi, whereby

the application filed by the respondent under Section 23 of ATA, 1997

for transfer of case of the Ordinary/Sessions Court was allowed.

2. Brief facts as per prosecution case are that complainant Sher

Muhammad lodged report that on 19.08.2023 his son H.C. Zahid Ali

was sitting outside of the house in street, meanwhile at abot 10:25 p.m.

he heard gunfire sound in the street and he came out of the house and

saw that three suspects on one 125cc motorbike were fleeing towards

Allah Dad Goath. Out of them one was identified as Rashid son of

Muhammad Yaqoob, who was from their vicinity, and two unknown

suspects residing of area also converged. He saw that his son had

sustained gunfire shots on his left arm, forehead, and left cheek. His

son was drenched in blood and succumbed to injuries on the spot. He

lodged by FIR that his son had been murdered on account of unknown

enmity.

3. During investigation, further developments surfaced. The

complainant nominated three additional accused: Amir, Abdul

Rehman, and Naseem. An application dated 28.06.2023, said to

submitted by the deceased himself to the SHO of P.S. Sharafi Goth, was

traced. In that application, Zahid Ali had complained that Rashid and

his associates, who were engaged in the business of manpuri/gutka

and other unlawful acts, had fired upon his house and threatened to

kill him. He had linked the threats to his role as a police officer

resisting their illegal activities and facilitating their arrest. This

document, authored by the deceased prior to his murder, if proved at

trial, sheds light on the motive and purpose behind the subsequent

killing. It suggests that Zahid Ali was under threat because of his law

enforcement role, and that his ultimate murder was the culmination of

that threat.

4. Statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. seem to

corroborate this narrative. The widow of the deceased stated that her

husband had repeatedly told her that Rashid and his associates bore

him enmity for having resisted their unlawful trade, and that they

would one day kill him. She further confirmed that firing had earlier

been resorted to at their house by the same accused. Other witnesses

of the locality, too, confirmed that Zahid Ali had earned the hostility of

criminal elements due to his official stance. Thus, even if the FIR

initially recorded "unknown enmity," the subsequent investigation and

documentary record point to a targeted killing motivated by the

victim's official role as a police officer. 5. It may be out of place to mention here that this Court stayed the

proceedings of trial Court vide Order dated 10.12.2024. Thereafter

learned counsel for the applicant did not put his appearance to make

his submissions. Whereas lastly viz: 21.07.2025 widow of deceased Mst.

Naila appeared and requested for adjournment but same was not

taken into consideration on the ground that proceedings are stayed.

6. However, in order to consider the pleadings of applicant, we have

gone through the memo. of revision application, wherein the applicant

has challenged the impugned Order on the grounds "that the trial

Court did not consider the facts and material available on record and

has not exercised its judicial mind: that the impugned Order is bad in

the eyes of law and based on surmises and conjectures: that the

deceased was serving as Head Constable in Police Department but the

trial Court has failed to appreciate that murdering a public servant

creates a sense of terror and fear; that the deceased Head Constable

was murdered outside of his house, which is congested residential

area, therefore, a sense of fear and terror was created in the vicinity;

that the trial Court has also failed to appreciate that deceased during

his lifetime also moved application with regard to threats extended by

the accused Rashid just because deceased decided to stand against the

selling of manpuri/gutka by the accused persons."

7. Whereas the learned Assistant P.G as well as learned counsel for

the respondent No.2 supported the impugned Order by arguing that a

bare reading of the FIR reflects that complainant himself claimed that

his son was murdered on account of unknown enmity rather while

performing his official duties; that mere stating that his son was

serving in Police Department does not bring the case within the

purview of Section 6(c) of ATA and that at the time of incident neither

the deceased was in official uniform nor was performing his official

duties, therefore, this incident at any count cannot be said to be an act

of terrorism.

8. The learned trial Court while deciding the application under

Section 23 ATA, brushed aside aforesaid material and held that since

the FIR referred to "unknown enmity," and as the deceased was not on

duty or in uniform at the time of the occurrence, the case could not be

treated as terrorism. Such reasoning betrays a misunderstanding of

the law as settled by the apex Court. It amounts to a selective reliance

upon a part of the record while ignoring other pieces of evidence. It

also reflects a return to the discarded "effect-based" approach, which

treated terrorism as synonymous with any heinous act producing fear,

an approach which the Supreme Court has decisively rejected.

9. At this stage, it is necessary to recall the statutory provisions.

Section 6 of the ATA defines terrorism. Subsection (1) states that terrorism means the use or threat of action where:

(a) the action falls within the meaning of subsection (2):

(b) the use or threat is designed to coerce or intimidate or overawe

the Government or the public or a section of the public, or to

create a sense of fear or insecurity in society:

(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a

religious, sectarian or ethnic cause, or intimidating and

terrorising the public, social sectors, media persons, business

community or attacking civilians including government officials,

lawyers, judges, personnel of law enforcement agencies and

armed forces.

Clause (n) of subsection (2) enumerates an act that "involves serious

violence against a member of the police force".

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ghulam Hussain and

others v. The State PLD 2020 SC 61, where a seven-Member Bench

explained that it is not the effect but the object of the act which

determines whether an offence is terrorism. The Hon'ble Supreme

Court undertook a comprehensive review of the ATA and prior case

law, and formulated a precise twofold test. The Court held that.

firstly, the actus reus element must be satisfied -meaning that the

action in question must fall within the category of violent acts

specifically enumerated in Section 6(2), such as killing, grievous

bodily harm, kidnapping, firing upon law enforcement, arson, or

bomb blasts.

Secondly, and equally importantly, the mens rea element must also

be satisfied-the action must be designed to intimidate, coerce, or

overawe the Government, the general public, a section thereof,

or to terrorise law enforcement or advance a prohibited

ideological cause. The Court cautioned that both elements must

co-exist; the absence of either would disqualify the act from the

ambit of terrorism,

In passing the impugned order, the learned trial Court did not notice

the aforesaid twofold yardstick.

11. Prima facie, the investigation demonstrates that the accused

Rashid and his associates had threatened and attacked the deceased

because as a police officer he resisted their unlawful manpuri/gutka

business and facilitated their arrest. Thus, it cannot be ruled out at this

stage that the design or object of the act was not personal revenge

simpliciter, but the silencing of a law enforcement officer and the

intimidation of the police force and local community. The fact that the deceased was not on duty or in uniform at the time of attack is not

sufficient to dislodge the stated test of "terrorism".

12. Considering the foregoing discussion, it was premature of the

trial Court to opine that the case does not constitute terrorism. The

revision application is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated

25.01.2024 passed by the learned Anti-Terrorism Court-XIX, Karachi, is

set aside. The case shall remain on the file of the Anti-Terrorism Court-

XIX, Karachi until there is evidence to rule out terrorism.

JK/S-71/Sindh Revision allowed.