IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa 
Mr. Justice Gulzar Ahmed 
Mr. Justice Dost Muhammad Khan 
 
 
Criminal Appeal No. 337 of 2015 
(Against the judgment dated 25.05.2015 passed by the High Court 
of Balochistan, Quetta in Criminal Revision No. 32 of 2015) 
 
 
 
Khuda-e-Noor 
…Appellant 
 
 
 
 
 
versus 
 
The State  
 
  
 
 
     …Respondent 
                  
 
             
For the appellant: 
Mr. Kamran Murtaza, ASC 
 
For the State: 
Mr. Tahir Iqbal Khattak, Additional 
Prosecutor-General, Balochistan 
 
On Court’s call: 
Mr. 
Sohail 
Mehmood, 
Deputy 
Attorney-General for Pakistan 
 
Date of hearing: 
 
 
11.11.2015  
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J.: The appellant is an accused 
person in case FIR No. 19 registered at Levies Station Dasht, 
District Mastung on 16.06.2014 in respect of an offence under 
section 302, PPC read with section 34, PPC. According to the 
allegation leveled in the FIR the appellant and his co-accused had 
murdered one Mst. Samreen, a sister of the appellant, because she 
was living with her mother after her mother had obtained a divorce 
from the deceased’s father which factor had annoyed the accused 
party. After completion of the investigation a Challan in respect of 
this case was submitted before the learned Sessions Judge, 
Criminal Appeal No. 337 of 2015 
 
2
Mastung and during the trial the prosecution improved its case vis-
à-vis the motive and it was alleged that Mst. Samreen deceased 
was not enjoying good moral character as she had developed illicit 
relations with one Atta Ullah and due to that reason she had been 
done to death by the appellant and his co-accused. On the basis of 
such factor having become available on the record the learned 
Sessions Judge, Mastung formed an opinion that the case in hand 
was one of honour killing and such killing amounted to “terrorism” 
within the purview of section 6(2)(g) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 
1997 and, thus, the case against the appellant and his co-accused 
was transferred to an Anti-Terrorism Court. While forming such 
view the learned Sessions Judge, Mastung had been influenced by 
the law declared by the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta in the 
case of Gul Muhammad v. The State (PLD 2012 Balochistan 22). 
The said order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mastung 
was assailed by the appellant through a revision petition filed 
before the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta which revision 
petition was dismissed by the High Court through the impugned 
order dated 25.05.2015. Hence, the present appeal by leave of this 
Court granted on 12.08.2015.  
 
2. 
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the 
learned Deputy Attorney-General for Pakistan and the learned 
Additional Prosecutor-General, Balochistan appearing for the State 
and have gone through the record of the case with their assistance.  
 
3. 
The crucial question involved in this appeal is as to whether 
the learned Sessions Judge, Mastung was justified in holding that 
the case in hand was one of honour killing and, thus, it was a case 
of “terrorism” attracting the exclusive jurisdiction of an Anti-
Terrorism Court or not. It also needs to be examined as to whether 
the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta was justified in declaring in 
the case of Gul Muhammad (supra) that by virtue of the provisions 
of section 6(2)(g) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 all cases of 
honour killing are to be tried by an Anti-Terrorism Court. We have 
minutely gone through the said judgment passed by the High 
Criminal Appeal No. 337 of 2015 
 
3
Court of Balochistan, Quetta and have found that for holding that 
all cases of honour killing attracted the definition of “terrorism” the 
High Court had only relied upon the provisions of section 6(2)(g) of 
the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997  without appreciating that by virtue 
of the provisions of section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997  any 
action falling within any of the categories of cases mentioned in 
subsection (2) of section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 could 
not be accepted or termed as “terrorism” unless the said action 
was accompanied by a “design” or “purpose” specified in section 
6(1)(b) or (c) of the said Act. If the interpretation of section 6(2)(g) of 
the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 advanced by the High Court of 
Balochistan, Quetta in the said judgment were to be accepted as 
correct then all cases of a person taking the law in his own hands 
are to be declared or accepted as cases of terrorism but that surely 
was not the intention of the legislature. The provisions of section 6 
of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 which define “terrorism” clearly 
show that the said section is divided into two main parts, i.e. the 
first part contained in section 6(1)(b) and (c) of the said Act dealing 
with the mens rea mentioning the “design” or the “purpose” behind 
an action and the second part falling in section 6(2) of the said Act 
specifying the actions which, if coupled with the mens rea 
mentioned above, would constitute the offence of “terrorism”. This 
scheme of section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 had 
unfortunately not been considered by the High Court of 
Balochistan, Quetta while rendering the judgment mentioned 
above and, thus, we have every reason to declare that the said 
judgment passed by the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta had not 
laid down the law correctly and had in fact misconceived the legal 
position contemplated by section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.  
 
4. 
The case in hand was a case of a private motive set up in the 
FIR and during the trial the motive set up in the FIR was changed 
by the prosecution and an element of honour killing was 
introduced but even that did not change the character of the 
offence which was nothing but a private offence committed in the 
privacy of a home with no design or purpose contemplated by 
Criminal Appeal No. 337 of 2015 
 
4
section 6(1)(b) or (c) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. We have, 
thus, entertained no manner of doubt that the allegations leveled 
against the appellant and his co-accused in the present criminal 
case did not attract the jurisdiction of an Anti-Terrorism Court,  
the learned Sessions Judge, Mastung was not justified in 
transferring the case to an Anti-Terrorism Court and the High 
Court was also not legally correct in dismissing the appellant’s 
revision petition. This appeal is, therefore, allowed, the impugned 
orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mastung as well as 
the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta are set aside and it is 
declared that the appellant’s case is to be tried by a court of 
ordinary jurisdiction.  
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad 
11.11.2015 
Approved for reporting.  
 
Arif 
