4a1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
PRESENT:
MR. JUSTICE LIAZ IlL AHSAN
MR. JUSTICE MUNIB AKHTAR
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALl AKBAR NAQVI
A
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.1581 OF 2021 IN/AND
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.193 OF 2020 AND CRIMINAL APPEALS NO.194 AND
195 OF 2020
(Compromise)
(Against the judgment dated 20.06.2018 passed by the 
High CourtS)h4
Sukkur Bench in Criminal Appeal Nos. 0-36/2011, 0-132/2017, D-
133/2017)
1.
Muneer Malik and Nadeem Ahmed 
In CrI.M.A.1581/2021
Vs. The State through P.C. Sindh 
& Crl.A.193/2020
2.
Munir Malik Vs. The State through In Cri.A.194/2020
P.G. Sindh
3.
Nadeern Ahmed Vs. The State In Crl.A.195/2020
through P.C. Sindh
For the Applicant(s)/ 
Barrister Umer Aslam, ASC
Appellant(s): 
Raja Muhammad Rizwan Satti, ASC
Ch. Akhtar Au, AOR
(In all cases)
For the State: 
Mr. Zafar Ahmed Khan, Addl. P.C. Sindh
Date of Hearing: 
11.05.2022
JUDGMENT
SAYVED MAZAHAR ALl AKBAR NAQVI. J.- Appellants Muneer Ahmed @
Muneer Malik and Nadeem Ahmed along with two co-accused (who were
declared proclaimed absconders and were tried in absentia) were tried by
the Anti Terrorism Court, Khairpur Mirs, pursuant to case registered vide
Crime Nos. 35/2007, 37/2007 & 38/2007 under Sections 302/324/34 PPC
read with Section 7 of the Anti Terrorism Act, 1997 and 13(e) of the Arms
Ordinance for committing murder of Bashir Ahmed and Chiraguddin,
CRL. MISC. APPLICATION NO. 1581 OF 2021 IN/AND CRL. APPEAL NO. 193 OF 2020 
-. 2
AND CRL. APPEALS NO. 194 AND 195 OF 2020
father and cousin of the complainant and for causing injuries to Muneer
Ahmed and Khalil Rehman, brother and cousin of the complainant.
2.
The facts of the case as given in the complaint lodged by
the complainant are as under:-
"Complaint is that lam driver of Tractor. Yesterday at night time there
arose exchange of some harsh words between us and Muhammad
Amin Malik and others over the issue of children, on that Muhammad
Amin Malik and others said that they will see us. Today at morning
time I and my deceased father Bashir Ahmed, brother Munir Ahmed
and cousin Khalil Rehman, after completing the work at land, were
going back, when we reached at bus stop Behlani, there at about 2.15
hours of noon, my deceased cousin Chiraghuddin son of Chulam
Muhammad also joined us. There we found acused. They were
Muhammad Amin son of Muhammad Ashraf Malik, who was having
MP-5 rifle in his hand, (2) Munir Ahmed son of Muhammad Ashraf
Malik who was having Kalashnikov in his hand, (3) Nadeem son of
Muhammad Ashraf Malik who was having T.T. pistol in his hand, (4)
Bashir Ahmed son of Muhammad Ashraf who was having T.T. pistol in
his hand. Soon after their arrival accused Muhammad Amin malik said
that today we will not be spared. After saying so, accused Muhammad
Amin Malik made direct fires with his rifle upon Chiraguddin with
intention to commit his murder. Those fires hit him at his chest, on
that he raised cries and fell down on the ground. Accused Munir
Ahmed Malik fired burst of Kalashnikov upon my father Bashir Ahmed
who also raised cries and fell down on the ground. Accused Nadeem,
Muhammad Amin, Munir Ahmed and Bashir Ahmed fired with their
respective weapons upon my brother Munir Ahmed and cousin Khalil
lehman with intention to commit their murder. They by raising cries
fell down on the ground. Then land above said injured raised cries, on
our cries and fire shot reports Umerdin Shaikh, Abdul Sattar Shaikh,
Nawab Shaikh, Ashiq Ali Shaikh and other co-villagers came from hotel
and shops. They also saw the accused persons making fires. Then all
the four accused making fires went away to their houses by raising
slogans. We and all the witnesses found that my father Bashir Ahmed
and cousin Chiraguddin had died after sustaining fire shot injuries. My
brother Munir Ahmed and cousin Khalil Rehman were found lying in
injured condition. We brought the injured at Behlani Hospital for
immediate treatment. I left the witnesses over the dead bodies of both
the deceased for security purpose and then myself proceeded there
from. Now I have appeared and state that above named accused on
account of their annoyance over issue of children in furtherance of
their common intention have committed murder of my father Bashir
Ahmed and cousin Chiraguddin and have caused injuries to my brother
Munir Ahmed and cousin Khalil Rehman."
3.
The learned Trial Court vide its judgment dated 02.04.2011
convicted the appellants as under:-
CRL. MISC. APPLICATION NO. 1581 OF 2021 IN/AND CRL. APPEAL NO. 193 OF 2020 
-. 3
AND CRL. APPEALS NO. 194 AND 195 OF 2020
(i)
Under Section 302/34 PPC
Convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment
for life for two times with payment of compensation
amounting to Rs.200000/- each to be paid to the legal
heirs of both deceased or in default whereof to further
suffer RI for a period of six months each.
(ii)
Under Sections 324/34 PPC
Convicted and sentenced to suffer RI for a period of seven
years and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each or in
default thereof to further undergo SI for two months
more.
(iii)
Under Section 7 of the ATA, 1997
To suffer rigorous imprisonment for life for two times and
to pay fine of Rs.200,000/- each or in default thereof to
further undergo RI for one year.
(iv)
Under Section 13(e) of the Arms Ordinance
To suffer RI for a period of seven years each and to pay a
fine of Rs.5000/- each or in default whereof to further
undergo SI for one month each.
All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
Benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. was also extended.
4. In appeal, the learned High Court of Sindh, vide its
judgment dated 20.06.2018, maintained the conviction and sentences
recorded by the learned Trial Court, Being aggrieved by the impugned
judgment of the High Court, the appellants filed Criminal Petition Nos.
877, 878 & 879/2018 wherein leave was granted and Criminal Appeal
Nos. 193, 194 & 195/2020 have arisen out of the same. During the
pendency of these appeals, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.
1581/2021 was filed for acquittal of the appellants on the ground that
the parties have entered into compromise and as such the legal heirs of
the deceased have pardoned the appellants in the name of Allah Almighty.
This Court vide order dated 07.12.2021 sought report from the learned
Sessions Judge, Nowshero Feroz, to ascertain the factum of compromise
between the legal heirs of the deceased along with the injured witnesses
in order to verify the genuineness of the compromise as claimed by the
appellants. The Sessions Judge was also directed to confirm as to whether
the deceased is survived by any minor legal heir and, if so, whether the
CRL. MISC, APPLICATION NO. 1581 OF 2021 IN/AND CRL. APPEAL NO. 193 OF 2WU 
-. 4
AND CRL. APPEALS NO. 194 AND 195 OF 2020
interest of the minors has been fully secured and safeguarded. The report
has since been received, which shows that the deceased Bashir Ahmed
was survived by three sons and four daughters including one minor
daughter whereas the deceased Chiraguddin was survived by a widow,
three sons including a minor son aged 16 years and two daughters
including a minor daughter aged 14 years. The report states that a
compromise has been affected between the parties and the same has
been made voluntarily without any duress or coercion. The legal heirs
of the deceased have forgiven the appellants in the name of Allah
Almighty and have waived their right of Qisas and Diyat and they do not
want to receive any Badl-e-Sulah or compensation. So far as the interest
of three minors is concerned, a land measuring 00-39 '/z ghuntas out of
Survey Nos. 62 and 65 situated in Deh Behlani has been transferred in
the name of the three minors. However, since the market value of the
land was around Rs.800,000/- to 10,00,000/- whereas the diyat share
amount of minor legal heirs was Rs.18,24,328.39/-, therefore, a notice
was issued to the appellants to deposit the amount of the minors as per
their due share. In response to the notice, the requisite amount has
been deposited with the Accountant of the Sessions Court. In this view
of the matter, the interest of the minors has been safeguarded. The
injured witnesses have also confirmed the factum of compromise with
the appellants and extended no objection if the appellants are
acquitted on the basis of such compromise.
S. During the course of proceedings before this Court,
learned counsel for the appellants contended that the occurrence has
taken place over a petty issue arising out of quarrel between children,
which has taken place in open land and as the same is the outcome of
personal vendetta, therefore, provision of Section 7 of the Anti
Terrorism Act is not applicable in the present case. Contends that so far
as the remaining conviction and sentences under the provisions of
302/324/34 PPC is concerned, the legal heirs of both the deceased
along with the injured witnesses have affected a compromise and have
settled the matter, as such, the appellants deserve to be acquitted of
I
CRL. MISC. APPLICATION NO. 1581 OF 2021 IN/AND CRL. APPEAL NO. 193 OF 2020 
-. 5
AND CRL. APPEALS NO. 194 AND 195 OF 2020
the charge. Contends that so far as the conviction of the appellants
under Section 13(e) of the Arms Ordinance is concerned, the recovery
was affected from open place, which is otherwise joint one, such
recovery is inadmissible in nature, hence, it is totally artificial, doubtful
and flimsy and is liable to be set aside.
6.
On the other hand, learned Law Officer contended that no
doubt the compromise has been affected between the parties but fear
and insecurity was sensed by the members of the society due to the act
of the appellants, therefore, the appellants were rightly convicted
under Section 7 of the Anti Terrorism Act, which cannot be
compounded.
7.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the record.
There are two aspects of the case, which need our
consideration: (i) whether compromise in the substantive offence i.e.
Sections 302/324/34 'PC is genuine, and (ii) whether Section 7 of the Anti
Terrorism Act was applicable in the instant case. As far as the first aspect
of the case is concerned, there is no denial to this fact that the
compromise between the legal heirs of both the deceased along with
injured witnesses has been affected, which fact is reported to be genuine
by the learned Sessions Judge while making his report dated 12.01.2022.
So far as the Interest of three minors is concerned, a land measuring 00-
39 'A ghuntas out of Survey Nos. 62 and 65 situated in Deh Behlani has
been transferred in the name of the three minors. However, since the
market value of the land was around Rs.800,000/- to 10,00,000/- while
the diyat share amount of minor legal heirs was Rs.18,24,328.39/-,
therefore, pursuant to a notice issued to the appellants to deposit the
amount of the minors as per their due share, the requisite amount has
been deposited with the Accountant of the Sessions Court. Therefore,
the interest of the minors has been safeguarded. Hence, it can safely be
said that the compromise between the parties is genuine. So far as the
question as to whether the provision of Section 7 of the Anti Terrorism Act
CRL. MISC. APPLICATION NO. 1581 OF 2021 IN/AND CRL. APPEAL NO. 193 OF 2020 
-. 5
AND CRU. APPEALS NO. 194 AND 195 OF 2020
is applicable in the given circumstances, the perusal of record clearly
reflects that the occurrence took place over scuffle between the children
and the appellants had no specific motive to create terror or insecurity
among the society coupled with the fact that it was not pre-meditated
rather ultimately resulted into the instant occurrence. In Ghulam
Hussain Vs. The State (PLD 2020 SC 61), a five members' bench of this
Court has categorically held as under:-
"Thus, it is no longer the fear or insecurity actually created or
intended to be created or likely to be created which would
determine whether the action qualifies to be termed as
terrorism or not but it is now the intent and motivation behind
the action which would be determinative of the issue
irrespective of the fact whether any fear and insecurity was
actually created or not. After this amendment in section 6 an
action can now be termed as terrorism if the use or threat of
that action is desi gned to coerce and intimidate or overawe the
Government or the public or a section of the public or
community or sect, etc. or if such action is desi gned to create a
sense of fear or insecurity in the society or the use or threat is
made for the purpose of advancin g a religious, sectarian or
ethnic cause. etc. Now creating fear or insecurity in the society
is not by itself terrorism unless the motive itself is to create
fear or insecurity in the society and not when fear or insecurity
is ust a byp roduct, a fallout or an unintended consequence of a
private crime."
(Underlined to lay emphasis)
8. In Muhammad Akram Vs. The State (2022 SCMR 18), the
accused murdered his wife (who was accused of theft in a criminal case)
under the impulses of 'ghairat' while she was being taken to Court in a
police vehicle. He was subsequently convicted under Section 302(b) PPC
read with Section 7 of the Anti Terrorism Act and was sentenced to
imprisonment for life. During the pendency of his appeal before this Court,
the parties compromised. This Court while setting aside the conviction of
the accused under Section 7 of the Anti Terrorism Act by holding that he
committed murder due to a very specific reason of 'ghairat', which cannot
be termed as terrorism, accepted the compromise and acquitted him of
the charge of murder, In Faroog Ahmed Vs. The State (2020 SCMR 78), the
accused had committed murder of a person in the premises of Sessions
CRL. MISC. APPLICATION NO.1581 OF 2021 IN/AND CRL. APPEAL NO. 193 OF 2020 
-. 7
AND 0Th. APPEALS NO. 194 AND 195 OF 2020
Court due to previous enmity and was convicted and sentenced under
Section 302(b) PPC read with Section 7 of the Anti Terrorism Act to death.
However, during the pendency of his appeal before this Court, the parties
entered into a compromise and this Court while accepting the
compromise under Section 302 PPC, set aside the conviction and sentence
of the accused under Section 7 of the Anti Terrorism Act on the ground
that murder was committed due to personal act and the accused/convict
did not want to create fear, insecurity or terror in the society. The same
was the case in Dilawar Mehmood Vs. The State (2018 SCMR 593) wherein
the murder was committed in a cattle market due to previous enmity. The
accused was convicted and sentenced to death by the Trial Court under
Section 302(b) PPC read with Section 7 of the Anti Terrorism Act, which
was reduced to imprisonment for life by the High Court. During the
pendency of the jail petition filed by the accused before this Court, the
parties entered into a compromise and compounded the offence under
Section 302(b) PPC. So far as the conviction and sentence of the accused
under Section 7(a) of the Anti Terrorism Act is concerned, this Court set
aside the same on the ground that the occurrence was the result of
previous enmity between the parties, therefore, there was no element of
terrorism. In view of the facts and circumstances narrated above, we are
of the view that the provision of Section 7 of the Anti Terrorism Act is not
attracted in the present case as the occurrence was the result of personal
vendetta, therefore, the conviction and sentence recorded under Section 7
of the Anti Terrorism Act is set aside, So far as the conviction of the
appellants under Section 13(e) of the Arms Ordinance is concerned, we
have noted that recovery memo and site plan reveal that on 27.05.2007
accused persons while in Police custody jointly led to the recovery of
weapons of offence i.e. one Kalashinikov and a T.T. Pistol from a fish pond
of one Muhammad Hanif Malik, which in all eventualities is an open place.
Nothing has been mentioned as to which of the appellant had first led to
the recovery or pointed out the place of recovery and in absence of the
same, joint recovery of weapons of offence is of no evidentiary value.
Furthermore, the record shows that eight empties of Kalashnikov and six
CRL. MISC. APPLICATION NO. 1581 0F2021 IN/AND CRL. APPEAL NO. 193 0F2020 
-. 8--
AND CRL, APPEALS NO. 194 AND 195 OF 2020
empties of T.T. pistol were recovered from the scene of occurrence on the
same day i.e. 17.052007 through recovery memo but the said crime
empties were neither kept in safe custody nor sent to Chemical Examiner
immediately after recovery. The weapons of offence and the crime
empties were jointly sent to the office of Chemical Examiner after a delay
of more than two months i.e. on 13.07.2007 for which no plausible
explanation has been given by the prosecution. In these circumstances,
the recoveries are inadmissible in evidence and cannot be relied upon to
sustain conviction of the appellants. We, therefore, set aside the
conviction of the appellants under Section 13(e) of the Arms Ordinance.
9. For what has been discussed above, Criminal Miscellaneous
Applications No. 1581/2021 and Criminal Appeal Nos. 193, 194 &
195/2020 are allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside. The
appellants are acquitted of the charge of murders and of causing injuries
to injured witnesses. They shall be released from jail forthwith unless
detained/required in any other case. 
Islamabad, the
11 t May, 222
Na(Approvd1 Vor Reporting
