IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN  
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE EJAZ AFZAL KHAN 
MR. JUSTICE DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN  
MR. JUSTICE MAQBOOL BAQAR   
 
 
 
Criminal Appeal No.104 of 2010 
(On appeal from the judgment dated 20.5.2009 passed by the 
Lahore High Court, Lahore in Crl.Appeals No.722-724/06 and 
Crl.Appeals No.127/J and 128/J/2007 and M.R.No.27-T/06)  
 
 
 
1. 
Waris Ali 
2. 
Babar 
3. 
Abdul Sattar 
4. 
Sajjad 
5. 
Tariq  
6. 
Mubarak Ali @ Makha 
 
…Appellants  
VERSUS  
The State 
..Respondent  
 
 
For the appellants: 
Ch. Fawad Ahmed, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Faisal Hussain Ch. ASC 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Mahmood-ul-Islam, AOR (absent) 
 
For the State: 
 
Rana Abdul Majeed, Addl. P.G. Pb. 
 
Date of hearing: 
 
4.5.2017 
 
 
 
  
JUDGMENT 
 
 
  
Dost Muhammad Khan, J.—  
 
Brief Fact:- The gory incident of bloodbath took place in 
village, “Behroop Garh” attached to PS Alipur Chatha, District 
Gujranwala on 24.4.2001 at about 8:30 pm.  Four persons, 
namely, (i) Nazir Ahmed, (ii) Muhammad Saleem, (iii) Ghulam 
Abbas, and a child, namely, Sumbal, aged 8/9 years were killed, 
while (i) Mst. Safia Bibi, (ii) Mst. Tayyaba, (iii) Muhammad 
Crl.A.104/2010 
2 
Ramzan (PW-17), (iv) Farzana, (v) Khalid, (vi) Mst. Attya Bibi, 
(vii) Baby Sana, aged about 3/4 years and (viii) Sarmad, a child 
of 8/9 years, were the victims of firearm injuries.  
2. 
  
Besides the six appellants, six other co-accused, one of 
whom is still proclaimed offender, were charged for the gruesome 
incident, 
attributing 
them 
distinct 
roles of firing at the 
victims/deceased. The crime report was lodged at the spot by 
Miskeen Ali (PW-19) at 10:15 pm on the arrival of Sub-Inspector of 
Police. On the basis of “Murasila Report” case FIR No.103 dated 
24.04.2001 was registered at the above Police Station, District 
Gujranwala for crimes U/Ss. 302/324/452/436 PPC read with 
sections 148 and 149 PPC. Subsequently sections 6 and 7(a) of the 
Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (Special Act) were added thereto. 
3. 
 
Charge-sheet was filed in the Anti Terrorism Court. 
During the trial, the prosecution examined 23 witnesses in all and 
after recording the statements of the accused u/s 342 Cr.P.C. and 
of some u/s 340(2) Cr.P.C. and also of five defence witnesses, the 
Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court-II, Gujranwala vide judgment dated 
25.04.2006, awarded death sentences to all the six appellants and 
also to pay fine of Rs. 100,000/- each. Appellants 1, 2 and 3 were 
further convicted and sentenced to five years R.I., under section 
449 PPC with a fine of Rs.20,000/- each, or in default thereof they 
had to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each on both 
counts. 
4. 
 
Appellants No.4, 5 and 6 were also convicted and 
awarded death sentence on two counts u/s 7(a) of Special Act and 
had to pay a fine of Rs.100,000/- each on two counts or in default 
Crl.A.104/2010 
3 
thereof, they had to undergo three months simple imprisonment 
each on two counts. They were also convicted and sentenced under 
section 7(c) of the Special Act to ten years R.I. on two counts each 
for causing injuries to Sana and Sarmad with fine of Rs.25,000/- 
each on two counts or in default thereof, to undergo one month 
simple imprisonment. They were further convicted and sentenced 
u/s.449 PPC to five years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 20,000/- each 
or in default thereof, to undergo S.I. for one month each on two 
counts. Benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C. was extended to them. Co-
accused, Mukhtar, whose case was almost at par with the 
appellants, was convicted u/s 7(c) of the Special Act and was 
sentenced to 10 years R.I. with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default 
thereof, to suffer one month’s simple imprisonment. He was 
further convicted and sentenced u/s 458 PPC to three years R.I. 
with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- or in default thereof, one month S.I. 
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently with benefit 
of section 382-B Cr.P.C.  
Abdul Salam and Shehzad @ Sajjad co-accused both were 
acquitted, extending them benefit of doubt. 
5. 
 
The appeals, filed by the appellants were dismissed 
through the impugned judgment by the Lahore High Court, Lahore 
along with appeal of Sabir Hussain and Murder Reference, sent by 
the Trial Judge was answered in the affirmative, hence this appeal 
filed with the leave of the Court. 
 
We have heard the learned ASC for the appellants and the 
learned Additional Prosecutor General and have carefully perused 
the record/evidence.  
Crl.A.104/2010 
4 
6. 
  
The report of the crime was lodged at the crime spot 
after more than two hours. Except 2/3 minor victims, Mst. Safia 
Bibi (PW-16), Muhammad Ramzan (PW-17) and two other were 
majors and of considerable maturity. They were having the stamps 
of injuries and according to the Medical Officer, they were able to 
speak coherently but the complainant, namely, Miskeen Ali (PW-
19) lodged the crime report, sidetracking the injured witnesses.   
 
Why the injured victims with bleeding wounds and in a very 
painful condition were kept at the spot for hours, till the time 
police arrived there; why they were not moved quickly to the 
hospital for medical aid and management/treatment, is another 
begging question, which shall put the Court on guard.  
7. 
  
Admittedly, the motive for the crime did relate to the 
complainant however, he was not caused even a minor harm, 
though, he was chasing the accused like a shadow during the 
commission of the crimes at different successive stages and had 
witnessed different transactions in different houses. Being a prime 
target for the accused, sparing his life, is another aspect, leaving 
behind a room for debate.   
8. 
  
The above infirmities and mysteries apart, the crucial 
point for the Court, requires determination is the application of 
sections 6 and 7(a) of the Anti Terrorism Act, 1997. Whether in 
view of the specific personal motive to take revenge, set up by the 
Prosecution, which was maintained upto the end of the trial, is 
fact, taking out the case from the fold of terrorism. 
Crl.A.104/2010 
5 
 
The preamble to Anti Terrorism Act, 1997 provides as 
follows:- 
“An Act to provide for the prevention of terrorism, 
sectarian violence and for speedy trial of heinous 
offences, it is hereby enacted as follows:-…….” 
The provision of clause (x) of section 2, provides that “terrorism” or 
“act of terrorism” has the meaning as assigned to it in section 6. 
 
Sub-section (1)(a) (b) of section 6 states as follows:- 
“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 create a sense of 
fear or insecurity in society.” 
Sub-section (2) of section 6 provides as follows:- 
“(2)  
An “action” shall fall within the meaning of sub-
section (1) if it: 
(a) 
involves the doing of anything that causes death; 
(b) 
involves grievous violence against a person or 
grievous bodily injury or harm to a person; 
…………” 
The provision of section 7 of the Act ibid provides as follows:- 
“7. Punishment of acts of terrorism.—(1) Whoever 
commits an act of terrorism under Section 6, whereby-- 
(a) 
death of any person is caused, shall be punishable, 
on conviction, with death or with imprisonment for life, 
and with fine; or 
Crl.A.104/2010 
6 
(b) 
he does anything likely to cause death or endangers 
life, but death or hurt is not caused, shall be 
punishable, on conviction, with imprisonment of either 
description for a term which shall be not less than ten 
years but may extend to imprisonment for life and 
with fine; 
(c) 
grievous bodily harm or injury is caused to any 
person, shall be punishable, on conviction, with 
imprisonment of either description for a term which 
shall not be less than ten years but may extend to 
imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to a 
fine; ………………” 
(The rest are not relevant for construction in this case) 
9. 
  
Under the jurisprudence, “mens rea”  is an essential 
ingredient of every crime, needs to be attended first by the Courts 
of law however, in cases of terrorism or terrorist activities the 
“mens rea”  becomes twofold, i.e. the first object is to commit a 
crime, while the primary object of “the mens rea” in the second fold 
speaks of terrorism related ideology, purpose and object, the most 
nefarious and detestable designs to commit crimes, creating sense 
of fear, insecurity and instability in the society and community 
with the ultimate object to destabilize the State as a whole. The 
true and perceivable object of this second “mens rea” is to create 
chaos, large scale disturbances, widespread sense of insecurity in 
the society/public and to intimidate and destabilize the State as a 
whole by means of terrorist activities. 
10. 
  
In cases of this nature, “mens rea”  is essentially with 
an object to accomplish the act of terrorism and carrying out 
terrorist activities to overawe the State, the State Institutions, the 
public at large, destruction of public and private properties, make 
Crl.A.104/2010 
7 
assault on the law enforcing agencies and even at the public at 
large. The ultimate object and purpose of such acts is to terrorize 
the society or to put it under constant fear while in ordinary crimes 
committed due to personal vengeance/blood feud or enmity, the 
element to create fear or sense of insecurity in the society, public 
by means of terrorism is always missing.   
11. 
  
True, that the offences contained in the Schedule to 
the Anti-Terrorism Act would fall within the definition of terrorism 
and terrorist activities but the crimes committed due to private 
revenge or to say traditional crimes, cannot be dragged into the 
fold of terrorism and terrorists activities.  
12. 
  
The mere fact that the crimes for personal motive are 
committed in a gruesome or detestable manner, by itself would not 
be sufficient to bring the acts within the meaning of terrorism or 
terrorist activities. The Courts of law should not lose sight of the 
fact that terrorism and terrorist activities are committed and are 
carried out by a person, group of persons and well equipped 
organizations, whose primary aim and object is to destabilize the 
society and the State as a whole through such activities. The object 
and “mens rea” behind such activities is clearly spelled out from 
the nature of the crime committed, which must be attended to by 
the Courts with a deep judicial thought, as in the latter category 
the sole object/purpose in committing different crimes is to cause 
alarm, dread, fright inducing sense of insecurity in the mind of the 
people.  
13. 
  
The acts of terrorism and terrorist activities are 
committed and carried out in a wolfish manner by terrorists and 
Crl.A.104/2010 
8 
terrorist groups, to whom training and skills are imparted, their 
brainwash is made in a planned manner so that, while committing 
gruesome and sickening crimes, they have to act in cruel manner 
and in pursuance of creating terror, the prime and ultimate object 
to be accomplished. The suicidal attacks and blasts in busy 
markets/business places, hospitals, mosques, other religious and 
educational institutions where peoples are slaughtered/butchered 
and their limbs are blown apart through bomb blast, are some of 
the instances of such activities, conveying dreadful message to the 
community/society at large of terror, for no motive other than the 
one to create fear and sense of insecurity.  
14. 
 
Albeit, murder, attempted murder, causing bodily 
harm or hurt and damage to property and some other offences 
have been included in the Third Schedule, appended to the Anti 
Terrorism Act however, on plain reading, it becomes apparent that 
these offences are triable by the Special Courts, constituted under 
the Special Act but, there is no reference either expressed or 
implied in the Schedule that the Special Court shall award 
punishment under section 7 read with section 6 of the Act to 
accused persons charged for such crimes.  
 
There is another category of offences, which are squarely 
mentioned in the substantive provision of section 7 read with 
section 6 of the Special Act, which are specifically described to be 
acts of terrorism and shall fall within that definition however, the 
qualifying words, attached thereto, create a subtle distinction 
between the ordinary crimes, committed out of personal revenge, 
enmity or private motive and those committed for the object of 
Crl.A.104/2010 
9 
creating terror. This aspect needs to be interpreted and construed 
in a meaningful and objective manner so that the two categories of 
crimes i.e. ordinary crimes and those related to terrorism, are 
neither mixed up nor intermingled because construction placed on 
it at random without judicial thoughts, the cardinal principle 
relating to construction of Statute, would be defeated and ordinary 
crimes having no nexus with terrorism or terrorist activities would 
be incorrectly or wrongly placed in the grey category of crimes, 
which is not the object and intent of the Legislature. If ordinary 
crimes committed due to personal revenge or motive are given the 
colour of terrorism or terrorist activities, hundreds and hundreds 
of Criminal Courts (Sessions Courts) and other Courts would be 
rendered inoperative and their vested jurisdiction would be taken 
away for no justifiable reason. The Prosecution and disgruntled 
complainants have been noticed making crude attempts to paint 
an ordinary crime as an act of terrorism so that the rival/opposite 
party is put to maximum mental agony. Here, it becomes the duty 
of the Court of law to draw a fine distinction between two kinds of 
crimes, which are definitely pole apart.  
15. 
  
In 
construing 
and 
interpreting 
Statute, 
the 
fundamental principle is to discover the true intent of the 
Legislature enacting a particular law to meet a particular situation 
and to confront a specific emerging threat. What were the reasons 
and background, which influenced the mind of the Legislature in 
enacting special law of this nature, one has to look upon the 
history of events, which had occurred preceding the enactment of 
the law by the Legislature because that is of much help to the 
Court of law to reach at a proper and fair conclusion.  
Crl.A.104/2010 
10
 
The Legislature consists of human being susceptible to 
receive impact and is influenced by the events necessitating the 
new legislation to meet a specific emerging threat so that to curb it, 
providing harsh measures and punishment and while doing so, 
Article 25 of the Constitution to some extent, is sidetracked 
because drawing a distinction, between different classes of people 
on reasonable differentia and sound rationale, is a permissible 
course.  
16. 
  
Due to geographic importance of our homeland, when 
revolution occurred in the neighbouring country in the West, a 
mess of unmanageable disturbances prevalent there, crossed into 
our homeland through western border. Due to the intervention of 
alien powers on account of clash of interest, the neighbouring 
country was made intense battle ground. Sophisticated weapons 
were generously distributed amongst the so called crusaders, the 
impact of which was felt in our homeland within no time.  
17. 
  
The civil war in the neighbouring country caused 
annoyance to looser. A wave of terrorism and terrorist activities 
was unleashed in our homeland, sparing none. When a Federal 
Minister of the country was assassinated in a bomb blast in the 
campus of the Peshawar University and when the terrorists posed 
a potential threat to the society, the Suppression of Terrorist 
Activities Ordinance, 1974 (repealed) was enacted in emergency, 
which was made Act of the Parliament. The Schedule to the said 
Act was amended from time to time. When the Seaport, the 
metropolitan city of Karachi was subjected to similar terrorist 
activities, besides the explosive substances, Kalashnikov rifles and 
Crl.A.104/2010 
11
T.T. pistols were frequently used for carrying out such activities, 
the offences of murder and damage to properties, caused through 
such means were also included in the Schedule of the Act ibid.  
 
When the terrorism and terrorist activities got momentum 
and emerged as a potential threat to the society and the State 
both, the Legislature enacted the present Anti Terrorism Act, 
1997 to confront and curb the same. With the passage of time, due 
to need and requirements of the day, amendments were introduced 
in the substantive provisions of the Act ibid as well as the 
Schedule, appended thereto.  
18. 
  
However, in the resent past when the law & order 
situation became worst assuming the status of evil monster, the 
Pakistan Armed Forces were called in aid of Civil Administration in 
different parts of the country. The terrorists, captured during the 
military operation, were suggested to be tried by the Court Martial 
or Field General Court Martial and for that purpose through 21st 
Constitution 
Amendment, 
“Pakistan Protection Act” 
was 
enacted, the Military Laws, were amended, authorizing these 
Courts Martial to try civilians (terrorists) to prevent further damage 
to the State and the writ of the State. In the two military 
operations, one carried out in “Malakand” and “Sawat” area and 
the other in North and South “Wazirastan” tribal areas, the 
headquarters and bases of the terrorists and militants were 
destroyed and they were flushed out from those areas and writ of 
the State was re-enforced.  
Crl.A.104/2010 
12
 
  
The above narrative of the events history would show 
that the Legislature was constrained to enact harsh laws and for 
speedy trial of terrorists through Special Courts, mentioned above.  
19. 
  
Keeping in view the above narrative, it is thus essential 
to look at the legislation and the new enactments, as to how these 
were introduced and what was the purpose & object of the same. 
The conventional and ordinary crimes of murder, hurt, etc. were 
being committed due to personal motives however, in committing 
these crimes unlike in the past, where the same were being 
committed through clubs, sharp weapons, shotguns or non-
automatic rifles, the old crime weapons were substituted by 
sophisticated weapons, fully or semi automatic which fell in the 
hands of the majority of the peoples. Now invariably these crimes 
are committed with modern weapons, which has no doubt a 
devastating effect. However, this category of crimes is committed 
due to longstanding blood feud and is the result of personal 
motive. There is no intention (mens rea) in committing these crimes 
to create fear, terrorize the society/community at large or to put it 
under constant fear and terror. In terrorism cases, evil elements 
are always persuasive factor and integral parts of it, therefore, due 
care and caution shall have to be observed by the Courts so that 
ordinary crimes might not be pushed to the grey area of terrorism 
or terrorist activities to be dealt with under the law, meant for a 
particular class of peoples, group of persons/organizations, which 
are to be treated altogether differently under the special law.  
 
The careful reading of all the relevant provisions of Anti 
Terrorism Act, 1997 would show that the sole and primary object 
Crl.A.104/2010 
13
of the same is to curb and eliminate terrorism and terrorist 
activities and also the groups involved in the same, besides to 
eliminate the sectarian and factional violence committed with the 
same object therefore, ordinary crimes due to personal motive or 
revenge shall not be taken at par with acts of terrorism or terrorist 
activities, the sole object of which is nothing but to terrorize the 
society/community and the State as a whole. There is a sky high 
difference between the crimes of the old category and the new one, 
for which special law has been enacted.  
20. 
  
Another cardinal principle for construing a Penal 
Statute is that if the same transgresses upon the liberty, property 
and life of the citizens, it shall be so construed and interpreted to 
preserve such rights and not in a manner to destroy the same, 
thus, at random application of the provisions of the Special Act to 
the crimes of ordinary nature like the instant one, would be neither 
desirable nor appropriate being not permissible under the law. In 
the case of The State v. Syed Qaim Ali Shah (1992 SCMR 2192) 
the same principle was laid down by this Court.  
21. 
  
In enactments, meant to deal with particular subject 
and purposive in nature, the Courts are required not to depart 
from its literal construction, the same shall be narrowly 
interpreted. Widening the scope of such Statutes would defeat the 
legislative intent therefore, indulging in straining by enlarging the 
scope of the Special Law, intended to cover specified crimes and 
special object, is not permissible course because the result and 
object intended to be achieved by the Legislature, shall go waste. 
Unnecessarily bringing conventional crimes within the mischief 
Crl.A.104/2010 
14
provision of the special law may result into chaos and the very 
object of Article 175 of the Constitution and the laws would be 
defeated besides the clear intent of the Legislature.  
22. 
  
As has been discussed earlier, Penal Statute and that 
too of a harsh nature, must be narrowly examined and by no 
stretch of imagination it shall be given extended meaning to cover 
crime/crimes, not clearly falling within the ambit of the same. 
Carrying forward any legal fiction on any other consideration, is 
not a permissible course in view of the universal principle relating 
to construction of Statute. The society has already suffered at the 
hands of the devils and evil minded people, indulging in terrorism 
and terrorist activities, thus, ordinary citizens, charged for crimes 
committed 
due 
to 
personal 
vendetta, 
irrespective 
of 
the 
consequences, ensuing in the consummation of a crime, shall not 
be lightly labeled as terrorists on account of the damage caused as 
it is not a determinative and decisive factor, as the most 
lethal/sophisticated weapons, fully automatic are conveniently 
available almost in every part of the country. The use of such 
weapons, even by a single person would thus cause multiple 
injuries or even multiple casualties.  
 
The situs of the crime with certain limitations is relevant to 
bring it within the fold of mischief provision of Special Act, as the 
offences committed in specified places are squarely mentioned in 
para-4, clause (ii) and (iii) which are as follows:- 
“(ii) 
Use of fire arms or explosive by any device, 
including bomb blast in a mosque, imambargah, 
church, temple or any other place of worship, whether 
or not any hurt or damage is caused thereby; or 
Crl.A.104/2010 
15
(iii) 
firing or use of explosive by any device, 
including bomb blast in the court premises.” 
 
Under section 34 of the Special Act, the Legislature has 
delegated powers authorizing the government to amend the 
Schedules, so as to add any entry thereto or to modify it, therefore, 
when the Legislature has specifically authorized the government to 
make amendment in the Schedule then, the Courts of law are not 
supposed to interpret the provision of the Special Act in a way  by 
including any other place in the Third Schedule or to exclude any 
place, specifically mentioned therein because it would amount to 
encroachment on the power of the government without any 
justifiable reason, unless and until the provisions of the Third 
Schedule are struck down by the Court on the ground being 
violative or ulta –vires of the mandatory provision of the 
Constitution. 
23. 
  
It may also be clarified that in the Third Schedule, 
some offences like abduction or kidnapping for ransom have been 
specifically mentioned as acts of terrorism while about the other 
offences, reference is made to the substantive provisions.  
 
If the entire scheme of the Special Act is carefully studied, 
combinedly with the Schedules appended thereto, it would suggest 
that the Special Act was enacted by the Legislature with an intent 
to meet and confront a particular class of criminals and specified 
crimes, posing threat to the society and the State attributable to 
terrorists. Many of these organizations have been duly proscribed, 
while some have been placed under watch/observation, as 
authorized by Schedules I, II and other related provisions. The 
Crl.A.104/2010 
16
raising of funds by such organizations is prohibited and the funds 
raised, are liable to be forfeited in favour of the State; the money 
laundering by various suspect organizations is scanned and 
checked by the law enforcing agencies. All suspected financial 
transactions and accumulation of assets through terrorism have 
been brought within the ambit of the provision of the Special Act 
and are liable to forfeiture by the State.  
 
Not only the preamble to the Special Act but majority of the 
substantive provisions are clearly directed to deal with terrorists, 
terrorist activities and terrorist organizations. After careful study of 
the entire scheme of the Special Act, with a deep thought, the only 
legitimate conclusion thus would be that barring specified crimes, 
the conventional or customary crimes like murder, attempted 
murder, causing hurt and theft, etc. are not included in the 
scheme of the Special Act. In the same way, offences of murder, 
causing bodily harm or hurt with whatever weapon in places other 
than those mentioned in the Schedule where, element of terrorism 
is not perceivable from the facts of a particular case, the same 
shall not come within the mischief of terrorism or terrorist 
activities. The courts of law shall not lightly ignore that being a 
harsh law, enacted to punish terrorists, hardcore militant and 
those involved in offences, specifically mentioned in the Schedule 
or other provisions of the Special Act, the same cannot be liberally 
extended to cover criminals who commit crime of murder, hurt or 
of attempted murder for any reason or motive, having no nexus 
with terrorism or militancy.  
Crl.A.104/2010 
17
24. 
  
True, that in section 6 read with section 7 of the 
Special Act, offences of murder, attempted murder or causing 
bodily hurt or injury have been made cognizable by the Special 
Court, however, from the qualifying words, preceding the 
description of offences under sub-section(1) of section 6 read with 
the provisions of section 7 the intention of the Legislature becomes 
perceivable/visible that in committing these crimes essentially the 
element of “terrorism” shall be persuasive factor however other 
category of crimes duly specified and listed in Special Act shall fall 
within the ambit of provision of same being act of terrorism in that 
regard. The manifest intent of the Legislature does not leave 
behind any doubt for debate.  
25. 
  
In certain circumstances, offences of murder or bodily 
harm, committed by the individuals in a sudden fight, even at 
public places, due to sudden flare up where the reason preceding 
such fight is concealed by both the parties, shall also not fall 
within the definition of terrorism because the object to be achieved 
is not terrorism or to carry out terrorist activities, therefore, courts 
shall not hurriedly jump at the conclusion that any such offence(s) 
are acts of terrorism in all open and shut cases of ordinary crimes 
where object is not terrorism nor the culpable act committed is 
directed to carry out terrorist activities, shall not be forcibly 
brought within the ambit of the provisions of Special Act.  
26. 
  
The famous Jurists on construction and interpretation 
of Statute are almost in agreement that whenever Penal Statute 
requires interpretation then, it shall be so interpreted, which 
favours the accused person and not the State. Reference may be 
Crl.A.104/2010 
18
made in this regard to the case of Brig.(rtd.) F.B.Ali and another 
v. The State (PLD 1975 SC 506) and the case King v. Aung 
Nyum [ (Q.B) 42 Crl.L.J.125]. In the above cited precedents the 
principle that Penal Statute has to be strictly construed was 
adopted. Question of carrying forward any legal fiction does not 
arise in such cases and whenever there is a room where a Penal 
Statute is susceptible to two interpretations, then it must be 
interpreted in favour of the accused.  
27. 
  
If the Legislature intended to bring the crimes of 
routine murder, attempted murder or causing bodily hurt within 
the ambit of the provisions of the Special Act then, it would have 
not employed the word of terrorism or terrorist activities. The 
comprehensive list of terrorism related offences against the public 
at large/society and in particular places of worship and 
educational institutions, offences against law enforcing agencies, 
armed forces, is the clear manifestation of intent of the law givers. 
This fact by itself signifies the intention of the Legislature what it 
actually intended to achieve. Although, incidentally, in ordinary 
crimes sometimes, the damage caused to human life might be 
devastating, gruesome and heart sickening, however, this by itself 
would be not sufficient reason to bring the crime within the fold of 
terrorism or to attract the provision of section 6 or section 7 of the 
Special Act, unless the object intended to be achieved was falling 
within the category of crimes, clearly perceivable to create terror in 
people or/and sense of insecurity.  
28.    
Another crucial aspect which cannot be lightly 
ignored, the provisions relating to “Qisas and Diyat Laws” (now 
Crl.A.104/2010 
19
the integral part of the PPC). These rights based on Islamic 
Injunction are personal rights of the legal heirs of a deceased 
person (wali) or the victims, while the State is placed next to it. 
These vested rights of individuals cannot be lightly disturbed or 
taken away by the provisions of Special Act in crimes, not related 
to terrorism or terrorist activities. Bringing these crimes at random 
within the mischief provisions of Anti Terrorism Laws, (Special Act) 
would certainly deprive the legal heirs of the deceased of taking 
“Qisas” in the case of “Qatl-i-amd” or “Diyat” and the victims of 
hurt from the right of “Qisas, Diyat, Arsh or Daman”. In the 
event of conviction under the penal provisions of the Special Act, 
the fine imposed along with other similar penalties shall go to the 
public exchequer and in this way these rights recognized by the 
Islamic injunctions as indefeasible and unavoidable would be 
defeated for no justifiable reason. For this reason too, crimes 
against human body or property not clearly falling within the 
definition of terrorism and terrorist activities shall not be 
construed as such because by adopting that course these rights 
would be infringed, which are of overriding and superimposing 
effects.  
29. 
  
The provision of Article 4(1) of the Constitution in 
commanding language, directs as follows:- 
“To enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in 
accordance with law is the inalienable right of every citizen, 
wherever he may be, and of every other person for the time 
being within Pakistan.” 
 
The phrase used “to be treated in accordance with law” 
includes that every citizen must be dealt with according to law 
applicable 
to 
him, 
subject, 
of-course, 
to 
the 
facts 
and 
Crl.A.104/2010 
20
circumstances of the case. If any citizen is triable under the 
ordinary penal law of the land, then, treating him harshly under 
special law, not clearly applicable to him would be a violation of 
the command of the Constitution.  
 
Under Article 227 of the Constitution, “all existing laws shall 
be brought in conformity with the injunction of Islam as laid down in 
the Holy Quran and Sunnah, in this part referred to as the 
Injunctions of Islam, and no law shall be enacted which is 
repugnant to such Injunctions.” Thus, the combined effect would be 
that the two categories of crime, the one committed in an ordinary 
manner due to personal vengeance/revenge/private motive or due 
to sudden fight where the essential ingredient of terrorism is not 
involved, shall in no manner affect the personal right of Qisas, 
Diyat, Arsh or Daman of the legal heirs of the deceased (wali) or 
the victims of the assault as the case may be superimposing the 
provision of Anti Terrorism Act, i.e. sections 6 and 7 thereof, 
because it will also defeat the prohibitory language contained in 
the above Article of the Constitution and to that extent any such 
order of any Court shall be deemed to void and be inoperative.  
30. 
  
In 
the 
present 
case, 
besides 
many 
infirmities 
highlighted in the earlier paras of the judgment, it appears that the 
noose was thrown wider, the act/acts, the crimes committed and 
executed were the consequence of personal motive and in the 
course of the transaction no element of terrorism defined by 
Legislature was involved, although it was gruesome in nature, 
however, the punishment provided u/s 302(a) and (b) PPC is also 
death sentence besides compensation too was awardable u/s 544-
Crl.A.104/2010 
21
A Cr.P.C. therefore, in the matter of punishment there is no 
marked distinction, if the penal provision of PPC is applied. The 
parties are having a blood feud since long and the object to be 
achieved was to take revenge for the previous murder and 
attempted murder, therefore, in our considered view, both the 
Courts below have not taken due care by applying correct provision 
of law to the established facts of the case. The construction on the 
provisions of Anti Terrorism Act and the principle laid down in the 
cases cited at the bar ie. Shahbaz Khan @ Tippu v. Special Judge 
Anti-Terrorism Court (PLD 2016 SC 1) and Kashif Ali v. The Judge 
Anti-Terrorism Court, No.II, Lahore( PLD 2016 SC 951) proceeds on 
different premises, both legal and factual and are not attracted to 
the facts and circumstances of the present case.  
31. 
  
Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants u/s 7(a) 
of the Special Act, is set aside and the same is converted to one 
u/s 
302(b) 
PPC 
however, 
keeping 
in 
view 
the 
peculiar 
circumstances of the case, this Court is influenced by caution and 
for securing the ends of justice in the matter of sentence because 
all was not well with the complainant and the Prosecution, the 
possibility that innocent persons amongst the guilty one were also 
involved, could not be altogether ruled out, thus, the death 
sentences awarded to all the appellants are reduced to life 
imprisonment on the counts mentioned in the impugned judgment 
but u/s 302(b) PPC and the conviction and sentences awarded to 
them u/s 6 read with section 7 of the Special Act are set aside. 
Similarly, the conviction and sentences of the appellants for 
causing hurt to the injured victims are converted from section 7(a) 
etc. of the Special Act to one u/s 324 PPC read with S.337-A(a)(iii) 
Crl.A.104/2010 
22
PPC in the case of Mst. Tayyba Bibi, while in the case of Khalid 
Mehmood to one u/s 337-E(c) PPC. In the case of Muhammad 
Ramzan u/s 337-E(c) PPC, in the case of Sarmad Ali to one u/s 
337-A(i) PPC, in the case of Mst. Farzana u/s 337-E(c) PPC, and in 
the case of Mst. Safia Bibi to one u/s 337-A(i) PPC. The fine 
amount imposed, except for offences under Ss. 449 and 452 PPC 
are converted to ‘Daman’ in all cases of the injured victims, while 
rest of the compensation amount payable by the appellants for the 
murder of the deceased is maintained or in default thereof, the 
appellants shall have to undergo six months S.I. However, rest of 
the convictions recorded and sentences awarded to them under 
above Penal Provisions i.e. Ss. 449 and 452 PPC along with 
compensation amount and sentences of fine amount imposed upon 
them are maintained. It is directed that all the substantive 
sentences of imprisonments shall run concurrently, with benefit of 
section 382-B Cr.P.C to all the appellants.   
 
These are the detailed reasons for our short order of even 
date, which is as under:- 
 
“For the reasons to be recorded later, we partly allow this 
appeal, convert sentences of death of the appellants into 
imprisonment for life under section 302(b), PPC.” 
 
 
Judge  
 
 
Judge  
 
 
Judge  
Islamabad, the   
4th May, 2017 
Nisar /-  
 
 
“Approved for reporting’ 
