ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Crl. Misc. Appln. No.D-31 of 2014.

DATE OF HEARING

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE.

18.03.2015.

Present:

Mr. Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto,

Mr. Justice Mohammad Junaid Ghaffar,

1. For orders on office objection.

2. For Katcha Peshi.

Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Mahar, advocate for the applicants.

Mr. Khadim Hussain Khooharo, Deputy Prosecutor General.

O R D E R.

NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO, J.- By this order, we intend to dispose of above Criminal Miscellaneous Application filed against order dated 01.7.2014, passed by learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Shikarpur, in Special Case No.19/2014, whereby application filed on behalf of the accused under Section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, seeking transfer of aforesaid special case from the Court of learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Shikarpur to the ordinary Court, was dismissed.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the above application are that complainant Abdullah (now accused) lodged F.I.R at Police Station Chak on 02.3.2014, alleging therein that accused Sanaullah has committed murder of his daughters, namely, Mst. Shahnawaz and Mst. Reema over the matrimonial affairs, by means of firearm injuries. F.I.R was recorded under Section 302, 201, PPC. As it was heinous offence and reported in media, Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan was pleased to take suo moto action regarding the present incident. By order dated 21.3.2014, Hon’ble Supreme Court constituted a team headed by concerned ASP, which included Inspector Abdul Quddoos Kalwar and directed that investigation would be completed expeditiously and final report under Section 173, Cr.P.C shall be submitted within two weeks in the Court. Abdul Quddoos Kalwar on the pointation of accused Niaz Ali recovered dead bodies from the lands of Amanullah and Rehmatullah Mahar, buried in a joint ditch/grave. During investigation accused Niaz Ali produced spade with which ditch / grave was dug.

3. Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Mahar, learned advocate for applicants/accused, contended that actual incident was unwitnessed. He further contended that the action of accused persons did not result in striking terror or creating fear and sense of insecurity among the people in the vicinity of Shikarpur. It is argued that offence did not involve the use of firearms. Lastly, it is argued that learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court has no jurisdiction to try this case under the provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. In support of his contentions, reliance is placed upon the cases reported as Imam Ali alias Shaukat Ali v. Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism (2000 P.Cr.L.J 726), Jawed Ahmed Siddiqui v. The State (2000 P.Cr.L.J 1721), Ch. Bashir Ahmad v. Naveed Iqbal and 7 others (PLD 2001 S.C 521), Bashir Ahmed v. Muhammad Siddique & others (PLD 2009 S.C 11), Ghulam Fareed & others v. The State & others (2013 P.Cr.L.J 603) and Umer Farooque and 2 others v. Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Mirpurkhas and another (2014 P.Cr.L.J 1052).

4. Mr. Khadim Hussain Khooharo, learned D.P.G, argued that two girls have been murdered by accused persons on the pretext of Siyah Kari. He further argued that two Muslim girls without shroud and proper funeral were buried in a ditch. Lastly, he argued that it is immaterial that incident was unwitnessed. Action of accused has created panic and sense of insecurity in the females of vicinity. According to D.P.G, action of killing two innocent girls squarely falls within the ambit of Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. He has relied upon the case of Nazeer Ahmed and others v. Nooruddin and another (2012 SCMR 517).

5. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we have perused the relevant record and impugned order dated 01.7.2014. Relevant portion of order is reproduced as under :-

“I have considered the arguments and have gone through the R & Ps of the case. I find that offence is scheduled offence and falls within the ambit of the case triable by this Court.

Two muslim girls were brutally murdered coupled with motive and thrown in ditch without completing funeral formalities by their own kith and kin by declaring them Kari and this act itself when came in the electronic and print media, certainly created terror in the society at large what to talk of the vicinity.

The word terrorism is defined as act of terrorism which amounts to an activity that involves, violent act or the act dangerous to human life. The act of the accused certainly comes within the definition of terrorism and has got nexus with the section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 and falls within the jurisdiction of special Court.

The authority relied upon by learned counsel for the accused are not helpful as the facts of those cases are distinguishable, besides in those cases Honourable Supreme Court had not taken suo moto notice nor had passed order for investigation of the case afresh through some honest police officer, as is done in the instant case.

For the reasons discussed above, I find no merit in this application same is dismissed.”

6. Investigation reveals that 2^nd investigation officer recovered dead bodies of both girls from land/ditch, not from graveyard on the pointation of accused Niaz Ali. Both girls were buried without shroud (cloth for dead person) in a single ditch/grave. There was nothing adverse against the girls on record regarding their character. Moreover, no license can be granted to any one to take law of land in his own hands and start executing girls on allegation of “Siyah Kari”. Act of accused persons has repeated history of 1400 years old before Islam. Incident was reported in media, which created sense of insecurity amongst the village girls in the vicinity. Its’ overall impact is on society, same amounts to terror and sensation. Such an action of accused persons fell within the ambit of Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. Rightly reliance has been placed by the learned D.P.G on the reported case of Nazeer Ahmed and others v. Nooruddin and another (2012 SCMR 517), in which Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe as under :-

“3. We have heard the learned Advocate Supreme Court and have perused the record. The learned High Court has examined the material at length and has rightly concluded that the act of the petitioners created sense of insecurity amongst the villagers and did destabilize the public at large and, therefore, attracts the provisions of section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act. The learned Advocate Supreme Court in support of his contentions has relied upon the Judgments reported in the case of Muhabat Ali v. The State reported in 2007 SCMR 142 and the case of Bashir Ahmed v. Muhammad Siddiq, reported in PLD 2009 SC 11, which are distinguishable on facts. Neither the motive nor intent for commission of the offence is relevant for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction on the Anti-Terrorism Court. It is the act which is designed to create sense of insecurity and or to destabilize the public at large, which attract the provisions of section 6 of the A.T Act, which in the case in hand was designed to create sense of insecurity amongst the co-villagers.”

7. For the afore-said facts and reasons there is no illegality/error in the impugned order dated 01.07.2014. Therefore, there is no merit in the above application/revision, the same is dismissed. However, trial Court is directed to decide the case expeditiously as provided under the provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.

JUDGE

Qazi Tahir/*