Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 302(b) 324,353

Law: Sindh Arms Act, 2013

Section: 24

Law: Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997

Section: 7(a) & 7(b),7(h)

Law: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898

Section: 382-B

Summary 

The Supreme Court examined whether a targeted attack�originally motivated by private enmity but executed inside a judicial lockup and causing grave injuries to police officers on duty�constituted terrorism under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The Court clarified that such acts, where law enforcement officials performing official duties are deliberately targeted or foreseeably harmed in the course of an attack, can amount to terrorism, even if the motive is personal. Ultimately, convictions under the ATA were slightly modified: convictions under Sections 7(a) and 7(b) were set aside and replaced by conviction under Section 7(h), and the relevant sentences adjusted accordingly, while PPC and Arms Act convictions were upheld.

Core Points

• The attack originated from a personal vendetta but was carried out in a judicial lockup in police presence.
• Police officials were gravely injured while performing official duties, not due to personal enmity.
• The Court distinguished between attacks that incidentally harm officials and those where police are foreseeable obstacles and are thus deliberately endangered.
• For acts to constitute terrorism, there must be both serious violence (actus reus) and a specific intent to intimidate, overawe, or undermine law enforcement/state authority (mens rea).
• Harm to officials executing their duties during such targeted attacks can amount to terrorism under Section 6(2)(n) and Section 6(2)(m) ATA.
• However, harm to law enforcement solely from personal enmity (not in official capacity) is not terrorism under the ATA.
• The convictions under PPC and Sindh Arms Act were upheld; those under Sections 7(a) & 7(b) ATA were altered to Section 7(h) ATA with a reduced sentence.

Relevant Laws and Sections

JUDGMENT