IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
 
 
  (Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
 
Present: 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, HCJ 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE MUSHIR ALAM 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL 
 
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 69 OF 2015 
(On appeal from the judgment dated 
28.08.20104 of the Lahore High Court, 
Lahore passed in W.P. No. 20018 of 
2014) 
 
 
Shahbaz Khan alias Tippu and others  
 
Appellants  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
Learned Special Judge ATC No.3 Lahore  
and others    
 
 
 
 
 
Respondents  
 
For the appellants  
Raja Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, Sr. ASC 
 
 
 
 
Ch. Irshad Ullah Chattha, ASC 
 
For respondent No.2 
Mr. Waqar Hasan Mir, ASC 
 
 
On Court’s Notice  
Mr. Mudassar Khalid Abbasi, Addl. PG, Pb.  
Mr. Ahmed Raza Gillani, Addl.P.G. Pb. 
 
Date of Hearing   
15.09.2015 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.— The leave granting order dated 
26.01.2015 notes the following questions for the Court’s 
consideration in this appeal:  
 
“(i) whether the High Court in exercise of writ 
jurisdiction could have interfered in the Order of 
the ATC dated 02.07.2014 considering that the 
order had been passed for valid reasons 
appearing 
therein 
and 
was 
within 
the 
competence and jurisdiction of the ATC; and 
(ii) whether the principles of law enunciated in the 
case titled Ahmed Jan Vs. Nasrullah and others 
(2012 SCMR 59) and the case titled Bashir 
C.A. NO. 69 OF 2015 
2
Ahmed Vs. Muhammad Siddique and others 
(PLD 2009 SC 11) were adhered to by the High 
Court.”     
 
2. 
 
Briefly the facts of the case are that on 26.03.2014,  
FIR No. 247 of 2014 was lodged with Police Station Harbanspura, 
District Lahore  for offences under Sections 302, 324, 148, 149, 
PPC read with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (“ATA”). 
The complainant Muhammad Ashraf states in the FIR that his 
sister Mst. Shabana alongwith her husband Muhammad Ijaz and 
their children reside in the house belonging to her father-in-law 
Mehraj Din situated in Fatehgarh, Harbanspura, Lahore. Mehraj 
Din’s daughter Mst. Saira Bibi and her husband Muhammad 
Jahangir have fraudulently got the said house transferred to the 
name of Mst. Saira Bibi. In civil litigation Mehraj Din has 
obtained an injunctive order against the said transfer. On 
25.03.2014 at 09:30 p.m. Mst. Saira Bibi, her husband 
Muhammad Jahangir, his brother Muhamad Saleem Shahzad, 
two gunmen Yousaf and Shahbaz and four unknown armed 
persons came to the said house for securing its possession from 
Mst. Shabana and her  husband. Mst. Shabana informed her 
father Muhammad Umer on the phone who alongwith his four 
sons Muhammad Akram, Muhammad Rafaqat, Ali Raza and 
Muhammad Ashraf, the complainant, reached Mst. Shabana’s 
house to attempt a settlement between the two sides. Other 
relatives of Mst Shabana were also present at the house. During 
the discussion Mst. Saira Bibi and her side suddenly abandoned 
the reconciliation process. Thereupon the two armed gunmen 
Yousaf and Shahbaz and the accompanying four unknown armed 
C.A. NO. 69 OF 2015 
3
persons opened indiscriminate firing on the complainant party. In 
the attack the complainant’s father Muhammad Umer and his 
three brothers Muhammad Akram, Rafaqat Ali and Ali Raza were 
killed and two of his cousins Muhammad Kashif and Muhammad 
Kamran were injured. Mst. Saira Bibi’s husband, Muhammad 
Jahangir, also got killed in the indiscriminate shooting. According 
to the site plan of the occurrence, all the five deceased were killed 
at different locations on the street outside the disputed house. A 
private complaint was filed by the appellants’ side about the said 
occurrence but that was dismissed by the competent Court. The 
said decision remains unchallenged by the appellants.  
 
3. 
 
Learned counsel for the appellants has forcefully 
contended that the learned High Court’s judgment dated 
28.08.2014 is wrong in reversing the learned Anti Terrorism 
Court (“ATC”) judgment dated 02.07.2014 that had sent the case 
for trial by a learned Sessions Court exercising ordinary criminal 
jurisdiction. The alleged occurrence was triggered by a civil 
dispute between the complainant party and the accused party. 
Both sides have suffered loss of life and injuries in the ensuing 
fight. The cause of the occurrence is a private property dispute 
and not a design by the accused party to intimidate or overawe 
the public or to create a sense of fear or insecurity in the society 
within the meaning of Section 6(1)(b) of ATA. In a case where a 
sense of fear or insecurity in society follows as a by-product of a 
privately motivated crime, this Court has in the case of       
Bashir Ahmed vs. Muhammad Siddique (PLD 2009 SC 11) held 
that the commission of such offences have no nexus with the 
C.A. NO. 69 OF 2015 
4
object of ATA and fall outside the statutory definition of terrorism. 
Moreover, it is argued that if the selection of the competent Court 
to try the offences in this case is postponed to a decision taken by 
the learned ATC after recording of evidence, then the appellants 
shall suffer double jeopardy contrary to the guarantee under 
Article 12 of the Constitution. In case the learned ATC concludes 
on the basis of evidence recorded during trial that it lacks 
jurisdiction to try the offences alleged in the present case, the 
appellants shall be made to suffer the rigours of a de novo trial 
before the learned Sessions Court.  
4. 
 
On the other hand, learned counsel for the 
complainant who is fully supported by the Additional Prosecutor 
General, has defended the impugned judgment of the High Court 
that orders trial of offences in the present case by the learned 
ATC. He explains that the crime committed in the occurrence has 
certain shocking features: prima facie, the killing of five unarmed 
persons including one person belonging to the appellants’ side, is 
the result of random and unchecked firing by the appellants’ 
gunmen. The deceased were not killed within the confines of the 
disputed house but on a public street lined by private houses. 
The deaths were not committed by parties to the dispute but by 
six gunmen who acted callously and ruthlessly in executing their 
instructions. The attributed private object of the crime is far 
exceeded by the scale and enormity of the heinous acts 
committed in the occurrence. More importantly, the residents of 
the locality were directly exposed to the sight, noise and 
commission of the offences. He adds that it is natural and 
C.A. NO. 69 OF 2015 
5
inevitable that the incident has grossly intimidated such 
residents and instilled insecurity and fear amongst them.  
5. 
 
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties 
and have perused the record of the case carefully.  
6. 
 
The jurisdiction of a learned ATC for taking 
cognizance and conducting trial of offences is to be initially 
determined on a tentative assessment of the prosecution material 
that is presented before a learned trial court. At the pre-trial stage 
the relevant record for the consideration of the said question is 
the police report under section 173 Cr. P.C and the investigation 
materials attached thereto. Section 6 of ATA furnishes the 
statutory criteria for selecting a case for trial by a learned ATC 
under Section 12 of ATA. In the context of the present case, 
causing death or committing grievous violence [Section 6 (2)(a) 
and (b) ATA] are actions that would amount to the commission of 
“terrorism” if the same also involved, inter alia, the following 
elements laid down in Section 6 (1)(b) of ATA: 
 
“6. Terrorism.-- (1) In this Act, “terrorism” means the use or   
threat of action where: 
(a)  the  action  falls  within the  meaning  of sub-  section (2);  and 
 
(b) the use or threat is designed to coerce and intimidate or    
overawe the Government or the public or a section of the public or 
community or sect or a foreign government or population or an 
international organization or create a sense of fear or insecurity in 
society; or…”  
 
7. 
 
It is clear from a textual reading of Section 6 of ATA 
that an action categorized in sub-section (2) thereof constitutes 
the offence of terrorism when according to Section 6 (1)(b) ibid it 
is “designed” to, inter alia, intimidate or overawe the public or to 
C.A. NO. 69 OF 2015 
6
create a sense of fear or insecurity in society. Therefore, the three                         
ingredients of the offence of terrorism under Section 6(1)(a) and 
(b) of ATA are firstly, taking of action specified in Section 6 (2) of A 
TA; secondly, that action is committed with design, intention and 
mens rea; and thirdly, it has the impact of causing intimidation, 
awe, fear and insecurity in the public or society. In relation to the 
above mentioned elements of the offence of terrorism, the 
following features of the present case are relevant for determining 
whether or not the case involves commission of that offence for its 
trial by a learned ATC. Firstly, the place of occurrence where five 
persons have been killed is spread over different spots on a public 
street in the locality of the disputed house. There are houses 
along both sides of this street where members of the public 
reside. Secondly, the five murders are a result of unchecked and 
random shooting that hit the fleeing victims in front of different 
houses on the street. Indiscriminate firing is also indicated by the 
death of a member of the accused party, Muhammad Jahangir. 
Thirdly, the persons attributed lethal firing by the prosecution are 
neither alleged to nor personally nurture the stated private motive 
narrated in the FIR. They are gunmen on a job impervious to the 
consequences of their actions. Fourthly, the occurrence took 
place within the sight and the earshot of the persons from the 
public who reside in the locality.  
8. 
 
There is no doubt that the brutal killing of five 
unarmed persons on a public street would have stricken panic, 
fear and insecurity among the residents in the locality. However, 
because of the motive of a family dispute given in the FIR, there is 
C.A. NO. 69 OF 2015 
7
a challenge that the required third element of “design,” intention 
or mens rea to commit terrorism is lacking in the present case. 
This element of the offence of terrorism has been treated as the 
pivotal criterion for ascertaining the jurisdiction of a learned ATC 
in the two judgments referred in the leave granting order: namely 
Bashir Ahmed vs. Muhammad Siddique (PLD 2009 SC 11) and 
Ahmed Jan vs. Nasrullah (2012 SCMR 59). The judgment in 
Ahmed Jan’s case ibid endorses the law enunciated in Bashir 
Ahmed’s case ibid to the effect that under Section 6(1)(b) of ATA a 
design that is intention or mens rea of an accused to cause the 
prescribed public or social reaction to an action specified in 
Section 6(2) of ATA is essential for the commission of the offence 
of terrorism.  
9. 
 
In order to assess whether the offences committed in 
the present case qualify for trial by a learned ATC it would be 
useful to first comprehend the matrix of facts and legal reasoning 
given in Bashir Ahmed’s case ibid. Very briefly the complainant 
party in that case was attacked in their motorcars while crossing 
the haveili of Naseem @ Mithoo in Village Fatoowala, Sharaqpur 
Sharif. The accused party suddenly emerged from the said haveili 
and fired indiscriminately at the complainant party, killing four 
and injuring one of its members. Thereafter the assailants 
escaped while doing aerial firing creating terror and insecurity in 
the locality. The motive of the occurrence as stated in the FIR is a 
blood feud between the parties. Considering the provisions of 
Section 6(1)(b) of ATA, this Court concluded that previous enmity 
and private vendetta had triggered the occurrence in the case. It 
C.A. NO. 69 OF 2015 
8
could therefore not be implied that the offences in question were 
committed with a design or intention to spread fear and 
insecurity in society or to intimidate the public. The analysis of 
Section 6 of ATA undertaken in Basharat Ali vs. Special Judge, 
Anti-Terrorism Lahore Court-II (PLD 2004 Lahore 199) was 
approved to hold that fear and insecurity in the society which 
results as a byproduct or an unintended consequence of a private 
crime falls outside the pale of the offence of terrorism under the 
ATA. It is only when such a reaction by the public and 
consequence on society is intended by the perpetrator of the 
offence that an offence of terrorism can, prima facie, be said to 
have been committed. In the facts of that case it was held that 
because a private blood feud had precipitated the occurrence, 
therefore, the case fell outside the purview of the ATA.  
10. 
 
The view taken in Bashir Ahmed’s case ibid receives 
support from the seminal judgment by the full Court in Mehram 
Ali vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1998 SC 1445). The 
following observations on the subject of jurisdiction of an ATC 
established under the ATA are made by the full Court:  
“Offences mentioned in the schedule should 
have nexus with the object of the Act and 
the offences covered by sections 6, 7 and 8 
thereof. It may be stated that section 6 
defines terrorist acts, section 7 provides 
punishment for such acts, and section 8 
prohibits acts intended or likely to stir up 
sectarian hatred mentioned in clauses (a) to 
(d) thereof. If an offence included in the 
Schedule has no nexus with the above 
sections, in that event notification including 
C.A. NO. 69 OF 2015 
9
such an offence to that extent will be ultra 
vires.” 
Nexus with the object of ATA and the offences covered in Sections 
6, 7 and 8 thereof is a pre-requisite for offences being tried by a 
learned ATC. To elucidate the point, the judgment in Mehram 
Ali’s case ibid goes on to explain that if a murder is committed 
“solely” on account of personal enmity, such murder will have no 
nexus with the above mentioned provisions of the ATA and will 
not be triable under the said Act. The other authorities quoted in 
Bashir Ahmed’s case ibid include Bashir Ahmed vs.  Naveed 
Iqbal (PLD 2001 SC 521) and Muhammad Mushtaq vs. 
Muhammad Ashiq (PLD 2002 SC 841) emphasize the importance 
of motive for constituting the offence of terrorism but the 
decisions turn on other grounds. The first of these precedents 
derives support from the repealed definition of terrorism that 
required the use of bombs, dynamite or other explosive 
substances as an essential ingredient for the commission of the 
said offence. The use of the said substances is no longer a 
necessary ingredient of the said offence under Section 6(2) of ATA. 
The judgment in the second precedent considers mens rea as 
significant for the commission of terrorism but treats the impact 
of the overt acts and surrounding circumstances in a case as an 
indication of the object of the crime.  
11. 
 
Primarily, the rule laid down in Bashir Ahmed’s case 
ibid requiring the ascertainment of the design, intention and 
mens rea of an act for establishing the jurisdiction of a learned 
ATC rests on dicta given in Mehram Ali’s case ibid. However, 
C.A. NO. 69 OF 2015 
10
Bashir Ahmed’s case ibid does not consider the ways and means 
by which the design, intention or mens rea, for an act of 
terrorism, requiring in essence the proof of an assailant’s state of 
mind, should be ascertained by a Court of law. Whether the Court 
should 
mechanically 
consider 
the 
motive 
alleged 
by 
a 
complainant in the FIR to be decisive or should it also scrutinize 
other aspects of an occurrence to assess if the culprits had any 
design, intention or mens rea to commit a terrorist act?  
12. 
 
In most cases, the nature of the offences, the manner 
of their commission and the surrounding circumstances 
demonstrate the motive given in the FIR. However, that is not 
always the case. When offences are committed by persons with 
impunity disregarding the consequence or impact of their overt 
action, the private motive or enmity disclosed in the FIR cannot 
be presumed to capture their true intent and purpose. In such 
cases, it is plain that action taken and offences committed are not 
instigated “solely” by the private motive alleged in the FIR. It is 
settled law that intention, motive or mens rea refer to the state of 
mind of an offender. It is equally well established that a state of 
mind cannot be proven by positive evidence or by direct proof. 
The intention of an accused for committing an offence is to be 
gathered from his overt acts and expression. It has been held in 
the case of State vs. Ataullah Khan Mangal  (PLD 1967 SC 78) 
that an accused person “must be deemed to have intended the 
natural and inevitable consequences of his action.” Thus apart 
from the overt acts of the accused, the injuries caused by him or 
consequences ensuing from his actions and the surrounding 
C.A. NO. 69 OF 2015 
11
circumstances of the case are all relevant to ascertain the design 
intention or mens rea that instigated the offences committed. 
These principles are enunciated in Zahid Imran vs. The State 
(PLD 2006 SC 109) and Pehlwan vs. Crown (1969 SCMR 641). 
Intention is presumed when the nature of the act committed and 
the circumstances in which it is committed are reasonably 
susceptible to one interpretation. In such event, the rule of 
evidence that the natural and inevitable consequences of a 
person’s act are deemed to have been intended by him is 
applicable: Jane Alam vs. The State (PLD 1965 SC 640). In 
Muhammad Mushtaq  vs. The State (PLD 2002 SC 841) the 
inevitable consequence of an act was considered as its design. 
Four persons were killed to settle a blood feud while they were on 
their way for a Court hearing at the nearby District Courts, 
Lahore. This Court observed that the learned ATC was the 
competent trial forum in the case:  
“7. 
It would thus appear that ordinary crimes are not to 
be dealt with under the Act. A physical harm to the victim 
is not the sole criterion to determine the question of 
terrorism. What is to be seen is the psychological effect 
produced by the violent action or with the potential of 
producing such an effect on the society as a whole or a 
section thereof. There may be a death or injury caused in 
the process. Thus where a criminal act is designed to create 
a sense of fear or insecurity in the minds of the general 
public disturbing even tempo of life and tranquility of the 
society, the same may be treated to be a terrorist act. There 
may be just a few killings, random or targeted, resorted to 
with single-mindedness of purpose. But nevertheless the 
impact of the same may be to terrorize thousands of people 
by creating a panic or fear in their minds”. 
C.A. NO. 69 OF 2015 
12
8. 
In the present case, we, prima facie, find that the 
occurrence took place during the peak hours of the day on 
the busy Court Road near the District Courts, Lahore, 
wherein four persons while on their way to attend the Court 
were allegedly murdered by the use of kalashnikovs. The 
cumulative fall-out of the occurrence as to the time, place 
and manner of the act created a sense of the fear and 
insecurity in society. The case was, therefore, triable by the 
Anti-Terrorism court established under the said Act …” 
13. 
 
When wanton overt acts committed by an accused 
lead to horrendous consequences then the motive given in the FIR 
merely indicates the background. The presumption that the 
natural and inevitable consequences of the acts of an accused are 
deemed to be intended, provides a reliable touchstone for 
gathering the design, intention or mens rea of an assailant in the 
context of Section 6(1)(b) of ATA.  
14. 
 
Indeed neither Mehram Ali’s case nor Bashir 
Ahmed’s case ibid have confined judicial recourse solely to the 
motive disclosed in the FIR for ascertaining the mens rea for the 
offence of terrorism. For the existence or otherwise of mens rea of 
the said offence, a Court of law may rightfully interpret the 
different aspects of a prosecution case noted above in order to 
ascertain the design behind the acts committed by an assailant. 
In the present case the assailants who committed the brutal acts 
of causing the death of five persons had no personal grouse 
against their victims. Prima facie, they executed the instructions 
given by the other accused. This was done with impunity because 
doing the job was material and not the consequence and impact 
of their overt action. A dispute about the possession of a family 
house thus exploded disproportionately to a scale depicting 
wanton ruthlessness and impunity in the multiple killing of 
C.A. NO. 69 OF 2015 
13
victims in a public place inhabited by public residents. To our 
minds, the motive of a domestic family property dispute is merely 
the spark that triggered the occurrence, or metaphorically, the 
fire. The rule that the accused in the present case are deemed to 
intend the natural and inevitable consequences of action taken is 
apt and accurate in depicting their design, intention and mens 
rea. The three ingredients under Section 6 of ATA that constitute 
the offence of terrorism are prima facie available in the present 
case.  
15. 
 
Therefore, the approach in the impugned judgment to 
interpret overt acts of the accused and the surrounding 
circumstances of the case in order to ascertain whether the case 
falls within the ambit of the ATA, is justified. Equally, the reliance 
placed by the learned ATC solely on the motive disclosed in the 
FIR No. 247 of 2014 lodged by the complainant in the case adopts 
a course meant for simple cases wherein the motive disclosed in 
the FIR is duly demonstrated by the other criteria for 
ascertainment of mens rea.   
16. 
 
The learned counsel for the appellants has expressed 
the apprehension that a re-trial of the appellants would 
automatically follow if the learned ATC concluded during or after 
the recording of evidence that a scheduled offence is not made 
out. The anxiety expressed is completely misplaced because 
Section 23 of ATA expressly provides that a Court having 
jurisdiction under the Cr.P.C. 1898 “to which the case is 
transferred may proceed with the trial of the offence as if it had 
taken cognizance of the offence.” Accordingly, the trial of the 
offence resumes from the stage at which it was transferred by the 
learned ATC.  
C.A. NO. 69 OF 2015 
14
17. 
 
The foregoing are the reasons of our short order of 
even date which is reproduced herein-below: 
“We have heard the arguments of learned 
ASCs for the parties as well as the learned 
Law Officers. For the reasons to be recorded 
separately, this Civil Appeal is dismissed.”  
   
 
 Chief Justice 
 
        
 
Judge 
 
 
     
 
Judge  
 
Islamabad 
15.09.2015 
Naseer /*      
 
 
APPROVED FOR REPORTING   
