Muhammad Asif vs State Ss — 2026 YLR 1222 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

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

Muhammad Asif VS State Ss. 302(b), 365-a & 34---Explosive Substances act (VI of 1908), Ss. 4 & 5---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Sindh arms act (V of 2013), S.23(1)(a)---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting for extorting property, valuable security, etc., common intention, making or possessing explosive substances under suspicious circumstances, possession of illicit weapon---appreciation of evidence---anti-Terrorism act, 1997---Not applicable---Sentence, modification of---accused were charged for committing murder of the father of complainant after kidnapping him for extorting money---as per record, on the pointation of accused persons, one hand grenade was recovered from an accused, one unlicensed 30-bore pistol with a loaded magazine was recovered from other accused and one unlicensed 30-bore pistol with a loaded magazine was recovered from another accused---Mere inclusion of offences such as kidnapping for ransom or the unlawful use or control of explosive substances within subsection (2) of S.6 of the anti-Terrorism act, 1997 (aTa), or their listing in the Schedule appended thereto, did not per se empower the Court to invoke the sentencing provisions contained in S.7(1)(e) or 7(1)(ff) of the act---Moreover, it would be contrary to legislative logic to simultaneously treat such offences as Schedule Offences and, in the same breath, presumed them to constitute acts of terrorism without satisfying the definitional threshold prescribed under S.6---Legislature had deliberately drawn a distinction between offences enumerated in the Schedule and those that, by their nature and circumstances, fulfilled the criteria of terrorism under S.6---Statutory scheme of the anti-Terrorism act clearly reflected that the application of S.7 was conditional upon the establishment of a substantive nexus between the alleged act and the elements of terrorism-namely, the creation of terror, insecurity, or panic among the public with intent, act, purpose or design for terrorism---In the absence of such linkage, the Court was bound to restrict its sentencing jurisdiction to the penal consequences provided under the Schedule or the substantive law governing the offence---Therefore, the attempt to prosecute the appellants under the anti-Terrorism act framework was legally misconceived and unsupported by the factual matrix---accordingly, sentencing under Ss.7(1)(e) & 7(1)(ff) of the anti-Terrorism act were not sustainable in law and could not be upheld---Prosecution had produced witness of memo of recovery and arrest and his evidence was firm and straightforward and he had also produced memo of arrest and personal search as well as Head Constable; Investigation Officer had also recorded his evidence---Evidence of these three official witnesses' was firm and trustworthy coupled with the facts of recovery which had not been shaken by the defense side---Therefore, the appeal was partly allowed by setting aside convictions and sentences awarded under Ss. 7(1)(e) & 7(1)(a) of anti-Terrorism act and Ss.365-a & 302(b) P.P.C while the sentence awarded by the Trial Court was maintained with modification that the sentence awarded under S.7(1)(ff) anti-Terrorism act, 1997 to appellant No. 1 was converted into S.5 of the Explosive Substances act, 1908 for 14 years, and the conviction and sentence for 7 years awarded by the Trial Court under S.23(1) of the Sindh arms act, 2013, to each appellant was maintained---With said modification in sentence, the appeal was partly allowed.

Muhammad Asif vs State Ss — 2026 YLR 1222 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 YLR