Whether every murder will be considered as terrorism and the

accused shall be tried under section 7 of ATA, 1997 or there could

be a difference?

No, every murder or offence shall not consider as terrorism there is certain merit
that determine the difference.

In order to determine that an offence falls in the limits of section 6 of Anti-

Terrorism Act (ATA), 1997 it is essential to look over the facts, allegations and the
surroundings. It is also to be noted whether the offences have any nexus with the
case object as contemplated under section 6 and 7 of said Act (ATA).

Whether the certain act is an act of terrorism or not, the object, causes, motives and
intentions is to be seen. It is also to be seen that the act done has created sense of
insecurity and fear in surroundings or peoples or in any particular area so such act
falls under the section 6 of ATA and shall be subjected to special court which is
Anti-Terrorism court (ATC).

SECTION-6 of ATA

Section 6(a) provides the definition of “terrorism” and 6(b) which provides the
definition of “terrorist act” as stated:

[6. Terrorism.-(1) in this Act, “terrorism” means the use or threat of action
where:-

(b) The use or threat is designed to coerce and intimidate or overawe the
Government or the public or a section of the public or community or sect or create
a sense of fear or insecurity in society.

By reading of above provisions law makes it clear that Courts have to see whether
act have tendency to create sense of fear and insecurity in the public or in the
section of any public.
The State through Advocate General, N.W.F.P. Peshawar v. Muhammad Shafiq
PLD 2003 SC 224 has held as under:

“We have to see the psychological impact created upon the minds of the
people. It is also not necessary that the said act must have taken place within
the view of general public so as to bring it within the encompass of the Act.
Even an act having taken place in a barbaric and gruesome manner, if it had
created fear and insecurity, would certainly come within the purview of the
act.”
ARGUMENTS:

1. In this case, Saalar’s employee harassed Jahangir’s sister and then chased
Jahangir and shot him dead in public with an unregistered gun. The acts
committed by the accused are nexus.The chasing and shooting in a group
with common intention is an act that creates sense of fear and insecurity in
the public. And later the sparked outrage across the country was evident that
the act falls under ATA because it disturbs the tempo of life and tranquility
of the society.

Relevant Judgement:
Mirza Shaukat Baig versus Shahid Jamil and others (PLD 2005 SC 530)
it is held that, “there could be no second opinion that where the
action of an accused results in striking or creating fear, panic,
sensation, helplessness and sense of insecurity among the people in
a particular vicinity it amounts to terror and such an action
squarely falls within the ambit of section 6 of the Act.”

2. “the act or murder has been committed on the basis of personal or previous
enmity and that’s the reason this offence would fall under the jurisdiction of
Anti-Terrorism court” is also without any merit because personal enmity,
motive, intend for commission of offence is relevant to determine the
jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court.

Relevant Judgement:
Nazeer Ahmed and others Vs. Nooruddin and another (2012 SCMR 517).
it is held that, “there could be no second opinion that where the
action of an accused results in striking or creating fear, panic,
sensation, helplessness and sense of insecurity among the people in
a particular vicinity it amounts to terror and such an action
squarely falls within the ambit of section 6 of the Act.”