livelawpk.com - The Heinous Crimes like Acid Attack have a Broader ---

The Heinous Crimes like Acid Attack have a Broader Societal Impact and should be categorized as Terrorism --- Supreme Court of Pakistan

3 months, 1 week
113

The Heinous Crimes like Acid Attack have a Broader Societal Impact and should be categorized as Terrorism --- Supreme Court of Pakistan

Islamabad 14-09-2024: The Supreme Court of Pakistan has partially allowed the appeal of Hasnain Salim, who was convicted in an acid attack case, setting aside his conviction under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (ATA) but upholding his conviction under the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC).

A three-member bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, comprising Mr. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Mr. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, and Mr. Justice Musarrat Hilali, issued the judgment with a 2-1 split. The majority ruled that the act of throwing acid on a schoolgirl, though heinous, did not fall within the definition of terrorism under the ATA as the prosecution failed to prove that it caused public fear and panic.

The incident took place on September 11, 2013, when the accused, Hasnain Salim, threw acid on the victim, Naila Shahid, a 9th-grade student, causing severe injuries and permanent disfigurement. Salim was charged under Section 336-B and 337-L of the PPC, along with Sections 6 and 7(c) of the ATA, by the Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) in Gujranwala. His conviction and sentence were upheld by the Lahore High Court in February 2016, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court of Pakistan.

The majority judgment, delivered by Mr. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, held that although the acid attack was a brutal and cruel act, it did not meet the legal criteria for terrorism. The Court ruled that for an act to be classified as terrorism, it must be proven that the act was intended to cause widespread fear or panic among the public. In this case, the prosecution could not substantiate that the attack created fear or terror in society, despite allegations to that effect in the First Information Report (FIR).

As a result, the Court set aside the conviction under Section 7(c) of the ATA, while maintaining the conviction under Sections 336-B and 337-L of the PPC, which relate to the use of corrosive substances and causing bodily harm. The Court also affirmed that Salim’s sentences would run concurrently, with the benefit of Section 382-B of the Criminal Procedure Code.

In a dissenting opinion, Mr. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi disagreed with the majority, arguing that the acid attack created significant fear and insecurity among the public, particularly young girls attending schools in the area. He emphasized that such heinous crimes have a broader societal impact and should be categorized as terrorism. Mr. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi referenced past judgments, including Noor Muhammad Vs. State (1999 SCMR 2722), to highlight the importance of adopting a strict approach to heinous offenses and deterring future criminal acts.

The Court cited several notable precedents, including Ghulam Hussain Vs. The State (PLD 2020 SC 61), which clarified that if an offense fails to meet the threshold of terrorism, it should be tried under the regular provisions of the PPC, even if heard in an Anti-Terrorism Court. The judgment also referred to Imtiaz Latif Vs. The State (2024 SCMR 1069) and Javed Iqbal Vs. The State (2024 SCP 195) to support its reasoning.

This ruling highlights the Supreme Court of Pakistan nuanced approach to defining terrorism under the ATA. The judgment reinforces the principle that while crimes like acid attacks are undoubtedly heinous, they do not automatically qualify as terrorism unless they are proven to have been committed with the intent to spread fear or panic within society.

The decision to maintain the PPC conviction but set aside the ATA charge is expected to have significant implications for how similar cases are prosecuted and tried in the future.

The Supreme Court of Pakistan ruling in this acid attack case underscores the careful distinction between heinous crimes and acts of terrorism, while also reaffirming the importance of evidence in proving the element of public fear necessary for convictions under the Anti-Terrorism Act. This judgment serves as a key legal precedent in acid attack cases and provides clarity on the scope of the ATA.