| Case ID |
d7e5b546-5ea9-4955-9d62-5a2d957f7962 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Jail Appeal No. 77 of 2017 |
| Decision Date |
Jun 11, 2019 |
| Hearing Date |
Mar 12, 2019 |
| Decision |
The appeal was dismissed as the prosecution proved the charge against the appellant, Muhammad Sikandar, beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found that the actions of the appellant constituted acts of terrorism as defined under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, given that he created a psychological impact of fear and insecurity in the public by using his family as human shields and engaging in violent acts while armed. The court upheld the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court, emphasizing that the necessary mens rea and actus reus were present in this case. |
| Summary |
In the case of Muhammad Sikandar vs. The State, the Islamabad High Court addressed significant questions regarding the application of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The appellant, Muhammad Sikandar, was convicted for committing acts of terrorism by brandishing firearms and creating a situation of public fear while using his family as human shields during a standoff with police. The court emphasized that the definition of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act requires both mens rea and actus reus to coexist, which was established in this case. The judgment analyzed evidence, including witness accounts and forensic reports, concluding that the appellant's actions were designed to intimidate the public and disrupt peace. The court reaffirmed the importance of the psychological impact of violent acts, aligning with precedents that interpret terrorism broadly to include actions that instill fear, regardless of whether actual harm occurred. This ruling contributes to the evolving legal landscape surrounding terrorism and public safety in Pakistan, highlighting the judiciary's role in applying stringent measures against such offenses. Keywords: Anti-Terrorism Act, public safety, psychological impact, terrorism definition, Islamabad High Court. |
| Court |
Islamabad High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
The State
|
| Judges |
MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB,
ATHAR MINALLAH
|
| Lawyers |
Malik Riaz,
Malik Awais Haider
|
| Petitioners |
Muhammad Sikandar
|
| Respondents |
The State
|
| Citations |
2019 SLD 3308,
2019 PLD 527
|
| Other Citations |
Mehram Ali and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 1998 SC 1445,
Ch. Bashir Ahmed v. Naveed Iqbal and 7 others PLD 2001 SC 521,
Mst. Raheela Nasreen v. The State and another 2002 SCMR 908,
Muhammad Mushtaq v. Muhammad Ashiq and others PLD 2002 SC 841,
State through Advocate-General N.-W.F.P. Peshawar v. Muhammad Shafiq PLD 2003 SC 224,
Naeem Akhtar and others v. The State and others PLD 2003 SC 396,
Sh. Muhammad Amjad v. The State PLD 2003 SC 704,
Muhammad Farooq v. Ibrar and 5 others PLD 2004 SC 917,
Mohabbat Ali and another v. The State and another 2007 SCMR 142,
Bashir Ahmed v. Muhammad Siddique and others PLD 2009 SC 11,
Nazeer Ahmed and others v. Nooruddin and another 2012 SCMR 517,
Shahbaz Khan alias Tippu and others v. Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court No.3, Lahore and others PLD 2016 SC 1,
Malik Muhammad Mumtaz Qadri v. The State and others PLD 2016 SC 17,
Khuda-e-Noor v. The State PLD 2016 SC 195,
Kashif Ali v. The Judge, Anti-Terrorism, Court No.II, Lahore and others PLD 2016 SC 951,
Waris Ali and 5 others v. The State 2017 SCMR 1572
|
| Laws Involved |
Anti Terrorism Act, 1997,
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
|
| Sections |
6,
6(1)(2)(b)(c)(d)(h)(i),
7,
8,
25,
173,
342
|