IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE GULZAR AHMED, C.J. 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
 
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS NO. 365-L/2020 
AND 96-L/2021 IN/AND JAIL PETITION NO.491 OF 2017 
(Compromise – Against the judgment dated 17.05.2017 of the Lahore High 
Court, Lahore passed in Capital Sentence Reference No.29-T/2014 and 
Criminal Appeal No.1506/2014) 
 
 
Muhammad Akram 
 
…Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s) 
Versus 
The State 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Applicant(s)/ 
Petitioner(s): 
Mr. Qamar Pervaiz Zia, ASC 
Mian Ghulam Hussain, AOR 
 
 
For the State: 
Mr. Muhammad Jaffar, Addl.P.G. Punjab 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
07.10.2021 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Petitioner Muhammad 
Akram was tried by the learned Anti Terrorism Court-II, Gujranwala, 
pursuant to case registered vide FIR No. 280/2013 dated 
26.06.2013 offence under Sections 302/324/353/337-D PPC read 
with Section 6/7 of the Anti Terrorism Act, 1997, at Police Station 
Khiyali, District Gujranwala. As per the contents of the crime report 
the petitioner has committed the murder of Mst. Sidra Nazir, his 
wife, and caused firearm injuries to Umar Farooq, Constable. The 
learned Trial Court after framing the charge found the allegation 
against the petitioner to be true and vide judgment dated 
03.07.2014 convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:- 
 
 
 
(i) 
Under Section 353 PPC 
Awarded sentence for imprisonment of 02 years RI 
alongwith fine of Rs.2000/-, in case of default to 
further undergo six months SI. 
 
 
Crl.M.As.No.365-L/2020 & 96-L/2021 in/and J.P.No.491/2017 
-: 2 :- 
 
(ii) 
Under Section 337-D PPC 
Awarded sentence for imprisonment of 05 years RI 
alongwith payment of Arsh which shall be 1/3rd of 
Diyat of schedule of that year to be paid to Umar 
Farooq injured PW. 
 
 
(iii) 
Under Section 324 PPC 
Awarded sentence for imprisonment of 05 years RI 
alongwith fine of Rs.25000/-, in case of default to 
further undergo six months SI. 
 
 
(iv) 
Under Section 302(b) PPC 
Awarded sentence of death. 
 
 
(v) 
Under Section 7 of the Anti Terrorism Act, 1997 
Awarded 
sentence 
of 
death 
alongwith 
fine of 
Rs.25000/- or in default whereof to further undergo 
six months SI.  
 
All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 
Benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. was also extended.  
 
2. 
 
The judgment of the Trial Court was assailed before 
the learned High Court in appeal which was adjudicated upon by 
the learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court and while 
maintaining the conviction under substantive offence under 
Section 302(b) PPC and Section 7(a) of the Anti Terrorism Act, 
1997, it reduced the sentence of death into imprisonment for life, 
however, as the learned Trial Court had not directed for payment 
of compensation while awarding sentence under Section 302(b) 
PPC, it also directed for payment of compensation amounting to 
Rs.100,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased under Section 544-
A Cr.P.C. or in default whereof to further undergo SI for six 
months. All the other sentences were, however, maintained and 
ordered to run concurrently. Benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C was 
also extended to the petitioner. 
3. 
 
The facts of the case as given in the judgment of the 
learned Trial Court are as under:- 
“Succinctly, the facts of the case enumerated in the complaint 
are that Sifat Hussain ASI, Police Station Khiyali on 
26.06.2013 got lodged complaint Exh.PA on basis of which 
FIR Exh.PA/1 was registered by Abdul Hameed HC (PW1) 
that on 26.06.2013 at about 2.05 PM, Hanif Hussain ASI 
alongwith 
Muhammad 
Younas 
HC, 
Umar 
Farooq, 
Muhammad Arif constables armed with SMG rifles, Tehseen 
Raza constable armed with SMG, Muhammad Yousaf PQR, 
Rehana Kausar lady constable in a case FIR No.251/13 
dated 13.06.2013 u/s 380 PPC registered at Police Station 
Khiyali, against accused under arrest namely Mst. Sidhra 
Crl.M.As.No.365-L/2020 & 96-L/2021 in/and J.P.No.491/2017 
-: 3 :- 
Nazir daughter of Nazir Ahmad (wife of Muhammad Akram 
accused), caste Arian, R/o Khiyali, Gujranwala were going to 
be produced before the Illaqa magistrate on an official vehicle 
No.2461-GAW driven by Shahid Maqbool constable, as soon 
the vehicle reached in front of office of Zong Mobile phone 
company because vehicle could not enter in the Police Station 
building, Mst. Sidhra Nazir was going to be boarded in the 
official vehicle to be taken to the court of Illaqa Magistrate 
and complainant was going to take seat in the vehicle, 
suddenly husband of Sidhra Nazir namely Muhammad 
Akram complainant of case FIR No.251/13 came while 
running from the other side of the road from fodder market 
and took out his pistol from his folder and made firing on his 
wife namely Sidhra Nazir resulting into serious injuries 
sustained by Sidhra Nazir and Umar Farooq constable who 
on sustaining the injuries fell on the ground. Muhammad 
Akram accused with the help of other police officials was 
apprehended at the spot alongwith .30 bore pistol and was 
sent to the Police Station in custody of Muhammad Arif 
constable. Regarding recovery of pistol .30 bore without 
having any license by Muhammad Akram, a separate case 
u/s 13/20/65 Arms Ordinance was registered. The 
complainant alongwith other police officials took the injured 
to the hospital on official vehicle where Sidhra Nazir 
succumbed to the injuries in the hospital while Umar Farooq 
was provided medical treatment.” 
 
4. 
 
During the pendency of the Jail Petition, Criminal 
Miscellaneous Application Nos. 365-L/2021 & 96-L/2021 were 
filed for acquittal of the petitioner on the basis that the 
compromise has been arrived at between the parties with the 
intervention of elders of the locality. This Court vide orders dated 
11.11.2020 and 16.03.2021 sought report from the learned 
Sessions Judge, Gujranwala about the genuineness or otherwise 
of the compromise with a specific direction to ensure that the 
interest of the minors, if any, be safeguarded. The reports have 
been received, which show that the deceased Mst. Sidra Nazir  
was survived by her minor children, namely, (i) Sabir Hussain, (ii) 
Maryam Bibi, (iii) Zainab Bibi whereas the husband of the 
deceased Mst. Sidra Nazir was excluded from consideration. The 
children of the deceased are being brought up by Mst. Zahida 
Parveen, who was duly appointed by the Court as the Guardian. 
The reports further show that the guardian of the minor children 
has entered into a compromise with the petitioner on their behalf 
and has forgiven him in the name of Allah Almighty and also 
waived their right of Qisas. The interest of the minors has been 
safeguarded 
by 
purchasing 
Defence 
Savings 
Certificates 
Crl.M.As.No.365-L/2020 & 96-L/2021 in/and J.P.No.491/2017 
-: 4 :- 
amounting to Rs.28,00,000/- in their names which was equivalent 
to their shares of Diyat. It is note worthy that the injured PW Umar 
Farooq, who happens to be a police constable also has forgiven 
the petitioner by waiving his right to collect Arsh equivalent to 
1/3rd of Diyat. These Criminal Miscellaneous Applications were 
earlier fixed on 05.10.2021, however, an opportunity was 
provided to the learned counsel for the parties to assist the Court 
on the point whether a compromise can be affected between the 
parties when the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced 
under the provision of Section 7 of the Anti Terrorism Act, 1997.  
5. 
 
Today, during the course of proceedings before this 
Court, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the 
occurrence has taken place as an outcome of personal vendetta 
and the provisions of Sections 6 and 7 of the Anti Terrorism Act 
are not applicable. Contends that the petitioner has committed the 
murder of his wife due to very specific reason that she was 
arrested in a case of theft and she was being produced for 
physical remand which could not be tolerated by the petitioner 
and under the impulses of ‘ghairat’ he has committed the murder. 
Contends that the injury caused to the police personnel was not 
intended to, rather the same was inflicted as per chance with no 
intent to commit any offence against law enforcing agencies. 
Lastly, it has been argued that the substantive offence has 
already been compromised between the parties, therefore, this 
Court can ignore the provisions of Section 7 of the Anti Terrorism 
Act especially when the injured PW has forgiven the right of arsh 
in the name of Allah Almighty.  
6. 
 
On the other hand, learned Law Officer contended 
that no doubt the compromise has been affected between the 
parties but a sense of fear and insecurity was sensed by the 
members of the society due to act of the petitioner, therefore, the 
provision of Section 6 of the Anti Terrorism Act punishable under 
Section 7 thereof was fully applicable and as such the same 
cannot be ignored when the learned High Court has already taken 
a lenient view while converting the sentence of death into 
imprisonment for life.  
Crl.M.As.No.365-L/2020 & 96-L/2021 in/and J.P.No.491/2017 
-: 5 :- 
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. 
Section 302(b) is genuine, and (ii) whether Section 6 of the Anti 
Terrorism Act punishable under Section 7 thereof 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 
parties has been affected with the intervention of the elders of the 
locality which fact is reported to be genuine by the learned Sessions 
Judge while making his report dated 25.11.2020. As far as the 
interest of the minors is concerned, it is clearly described in the 
report that Defence Saving Certificates to the tune of Rs.28,00,000/- 
have been purchased against the name of three minors of the 
deceased as share of their Diyat, as such the legal formalities of the 
law are fully adhered to. Hence the law of the land is fully applied 
as far as the first aspect of the case is concerned. So far as the 
question as to whether the provisions of Section 6 of the Anti 
Terrorism Act punishable under Section 7 thereof are applicable in 
the given circumstances, it is noteworthy that the petitioner had 
committed the crime due to very specific reason. It is nowhere 
mentioned that the petitioner is a person of desperate character 
having any previous antecedents of criminal activities, rather the 
offence was committed under the impulses of ‘ghairat’. The 
possibility cannot be ruled out that the petitioner could not afford the 
insult incurred because of the act of his wife and he has lost control 
and under the impulses of disgrace and humiliation he opted to 
commit the crime. The injury caused to the police personnel was not 
in direct conflict with the law enforcing agencies, rather as Mst. 
Sidra Nazir was in custody of the police constable the injury caused 
by him could be result of misdirected shot due to heat of passions. 
In United Kingdom, the framers of the law enacted an Act called 
“Homicide Act, 1957” in which they have dealt with such like 
situation under the ‘dictum’ ‘diminished liability’. It is a legal 
doctrine that absolves an accused person of part of the liability for 
his criminal act if he suffers from such abnormality of mind as to 
substantially impair his responsibility in committing or being a party 
Crl.M.As.No.365-L/2020 & 96-L/2021 in/and J.P.No.491/2017 
-: 6 :- 
to an alleged violation, which is committed due to love and affection 
and injury to reputation. The doctrine of diminished responsibility 
provides a mitigating defense in cases in which the mental disease 
or defect is not of such magnitude as to exclude criminal 
responsibility altogether. It is most frequently asserted in connection 
with murder cases requiring proof of a particular mental state on the 
part of the accused. While drawing analogy from said legislation 
when there is no allegation available on the record that the petitioner 
intended to cause injury to the police personnel stricto sensu and his 
only aim was to take the life of his wife under the impulses of 
‘ghairat’, the situation has become altogether different. Even 
otherwise, the learned Trial Court had convicted the petitioner under 
Sections 337-D & 324 PPC for causing injury on the person of the 
police personnel and the said injured has also affected a 
compromise with the petitioner and has forgiven him and has also 
waived his right to collect Arsh equivalent to 1/3rd of Diyat. In the 
case reported as Ghulam Hussain Vs. The State (PLD 2020 SC 61), 
this Court has categorically held that only 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 just a byproduct, a fallout or an unintended 
consequence of a private crime and mere shock, horror, dread or 
disgust created or likely to be created in the society does not 
transform a private crime into terrorism. In Farooq Ahmed Vs. The 
State (2020 SCMR 78), the accused had committed murder of a 
person in the premises of Sessions Court due to previous enmity and 
was convicted and sentenced under Section 302(b) PPC and 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 
petitioner under Section 7 of the Anti Terrorism Act on the ground 
that murder was committed due to personal enmity and the 
petitioner/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 and he was convicted and 
Crl.M.As.No.365-L/2020 & 96-L/2021 in/and J.P.No.491/2017 
-: 7 :- 
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 
petitioner 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 provisions of Section 6 of 
the Anti Terrorism Act are not attracted in the present case, 
therefore, the conviction and sentence recorded under Section 7 of 
the Anti Terrorism Act is set aside. Now that when the parties have 
compromised the offence under Sections 302(b)/337-D/324 PPC and 
we have set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 7 of the 
Anti Terrorism Act, the only punishment left to the petitioner is under 
Section 353 PPC, which is not compoundable. However, we have 
been informed that the petitioner has already undergone the period 
of his sentence of 2 years RI. 
8. 
 
For 
what 
has 
been 
discussed 
above, 
Criminal 
Miscellaneous Applications No. 365-L/2020 & 96-L/2021 are 
allowed with the result that Jail Petition No. 491/2017 is converted 
into appeal and partly allowed. The petitioner is acquitted of the 
charge of murder and of causing injury on the person of Umar 
Farooq constable. He shall be released from jail forthwith unless 
detained/required in any other case.  
 
 
 
CHIEF JUSTICE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
Announced on 08.11.2021 at Islamabad. 
Approved For Reporting 
Waqas Naseer 
