Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 324,353,34

Law: Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997

Section: XXVII,6,7

Law: Sindh Arms Act, 2013

Section: V,23(1)(a)

Law: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898

Section: 342,340(2)

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 324, 353 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013), S. 23(1)(a)---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, common intention, possessing illicit weapon, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Whether act of terrorism---Accused were charged that they made firing on police party when they were signaled to stop, police also made firing in retaliation, as a result of which one culprit was injured---Allegations against the accused were that on the fateful day ASI police along with the police party while patrolling in the area considering the accused to be suspicious signaled them to stop but instead of stopping they accelerated their motorbike and the accused sitting on the rear seat of the motorbike started firing upon the police and in retaliation the police also fired upon the accused persons---Resultantly, the accused sitting on the rear seat of the motorbike received a fire arm injury on his left leg and both the accused persons fell down and were apprehended along with unlicensed weapons, that is .30 bore pistols and a stolen motorbike---Accused persons were convicted under S.7(1) (ff) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 ('ATA, 1997')---Legality---No doubt, the offence was heinous one, however, it did not appear in subsection (2) of S.6 of the ATA, 1997, hence, the said offence did not fall within the cognizance of the Anti-Terrorism Courts---Further the mode and manner of the occurrence did not suggest design of accused persons for creating fear and terror in the public rather their only aim was to flee from the scene---Mere gravity or brutal nature of an offence would not provide a valid yardstick for bringing the same within the definition of terrorism---Thus, the offences in the present case did not qualify the meanings of S.6, which is punishable under S.7 of the Act---In such state of affairs, S.7 of the Act was not applicable to the present case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved the charge against the accused persons beyond shadow of reasonable doubt---Resultantly, appeal, being bereft…