ISLAMABAD:The Supreme Court of Pakistan has ruled that the mere commission of a grave or brutal murder does not automatically bring a case within the ambit of terrorism. The Court held that for the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) to apply, the prosecution must establish a legally recognizable nexus between the offence and the objective of creating terror or fear in society.
According to a detailed judgment approved by a three-member bench comprising Justice Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, Justice Salahuddin Panhwar and Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim, the Court decided Jail Petition No. 131 of 2015, maintaining the death sentence awarded to convict Fatah Sher in a triple murder case while setting aside his conviction under the Anti-Terrorism Act.
The judgment relates to an incident that occurred on May 18, 2008, in Mitha Tiwana, District Khushab, where the accused entered a house and murdered Safia Bibi, her daughter Shaheen Kausar, and her son Wali Ahad Shehzada.
According to the prosecution, the killings stemmed from a family dispute and resentment over the engagement of Shaheen Kausar.
The Court observed that the testimony of eyewitnesses Saira Yasmeen and Rustam Shehzada, both close relatives of the deceased and present at the scene of the crime, was reliable, consistent and fully corroborated by medical evidence. The judgment noted that close family members generally do not shield actual offenders and falsely implicate innocent persons, particularly when the accused themselves belong to the same family.
The Supreme Court found that Fatah Sher had personally slit the throat of Shaheen Kausar with a dagger and played a direct and active role in the commission of the offence. The Court remarked that two women were brutally slaughtered and three individuals were murdered inside their own home, reflecting the extreme gravity and brutality of the crime.
In view of the nature of the offence, the Court held that the convict did not deserve any leniency or mitigation of sentence. Consequently, the death penalty and other punishments awarded under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code and related provisions were upheld.
However, while examining the applicability of the Anti-Terrorism Act, the Court relied on its earlier ruling in Ghulam Hussain vs the State (PLD 2020 SC 61). It reiterated that offenses arising out of personal enmity, family disputes or other private motives did not fall within the definition of terrorism unless it was proven that the act was intended to create fear, insecurity or panic in society at large, as envisaged by the Anti-Terrorism Act.
The Court concluded that the murders in the present case were the result of a private family dispute and that the prosecution had failed to establish any direct connection between the crime and the objectives contemplated under the anti-terrorism law. As a result, the conviction and sentence awarded under Section 7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act were set aside.
The Supreme Court converted the jail petition into an appeal and partly allowed it, removing the anti-terrorism conviction while maintaining all other convictions and sentences, including the death penalty. The ruling underscores the principle that the application of anti-terrorism laws must be based on strict legal requirements and cannot be extended to every heinous crime solely because of its brutality.