Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1721 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Aqeel alias Kaka vs State Ss

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1721 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Aqeel alias Kaka VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 148, 149 & 120-B---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 7 & 23---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, criminal conspiracy, act of terrorism---Firing outside Court premises---Not terrorism---transfer of case from anti-Terrorism Court to the Ordinary Court---It was prosecution's own case that accused persons committed the occurrence when victim of the case came out from the Court and reached on the road---So, accused persons neither went inside the Court premises for committing the occurrence nor made firing upon the victims when they were inside the Court premises---Intention or mens rea i.e. guilty intention was inferred from the acts, facts and circumstances---Hence, prima-facie, there was no intention of the accused persons to target the Court or victims in the Court premises and it was not mentioned in the Crime Report (FIR) that accused made firing at the Court premises and the fire shots hit wall of the Court room or its boundary wall, however, it was claim of prosecution that as per site plan of the place of occurrence, some signs of hitting of bullets at the Court premises had been shown---But perusal of the site plan reflected that signs of some bullets were shown at the outer wall of the Court room situated at the upper storey and at the outer side of the boundary wall of Court---So, by no stretch of the imagination, it could be said that firing was made in the Court or for targeting or hitting the Court premises rather it had been clearly mentioned in case diary in the case that there was previous litigation and grudge between complainant party and accused persons---So, the occurrence took place outside the Court premises and due to previous enmity/vendetta, hence, occurrence neither constituted offence of terrorism as defined under S.6 of the anti-Terrorism act, 1997 and punishable under S.7 of the act ibid nor fell in the Third Schedule of the act, for the purpose of trial by anti-Terrorism Court---Thus, anti-Terrorism Court fell into legal error while holding through impugned order that present case was triable by anti-Terrorism Court---Revision petition stood accepted/allowed and the case was sent to the Court of plenary jurisdiction i.e. Sessions Court. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1721 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Aqeel alias Kaka VS State Ss. 6 & 7---Terrorism---Firing at the Court---Scope---If prima-facie, intention to cause firing in or at a Court premises is not reflected from the act constituting the crime, rather it appears that occurrence is orchestrated to target opponents due to personal enmity outside the Court and as a bye product incidentally some bullets hit the outer wall of the Court premises or outer wall of Court room from distance, then there is absolutely no intention to cause firing in the Court---In such state of affairs, act constituting the offence/crime irrespective of the huge loss of lives or other things, will not be triable by Anti-Terrorism Court under its Third Schedule---Firing in the Court has been mentioned in Third Schedule of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, for making the case triable by Anti-Terrorism Court whereas firing near or around i.e. in the surrounding of the Court is not mentioned in Clause 4(iii) of Third Schedule of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and same cannot be added therein by the Court. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1721 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Aqeel alias Kaka VS State Ss. 6 & 7---Terrorism---Scope and applicability---Offence committed due to personal enmity---In criminal law, mens rea i.e. guilts mind which refers to criminal intent carries vital importance to determine the nature as well as gravity of the alleged act or omission subject matter of the crime and resultantly deciding the question of jurisdiction also---Almost every crime spreads feelings of insecurity, harassment and fear however quantum of said effect i.e. feelings varies from person to person and area to area---Sometime even a pellet fired from air gun hitting bird or animal resulting into oozing of the blood, can cause fear to the person who has never seen such episode earlier in his life and is not acquainted with firearm weapons as well as their use, whereas a person familiar with such events would not take any serious note of it even if assault rifle like Kalashnikov has been used for committing the occurrence---Thus, merely due to magnitude of the effects of the crime, it can not be termed as "terrorism" falling in the ambit of S.6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and punishable under S.7 of the Act ibid, if it has been committed due to personal enmity/vendetta.

Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1721 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Aqeel alias Kaka vs State Ss — 2024 PCrLJ 1721 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PCRLJ