Muhammad Tariq Abbasi, J.--This writ petition, calls in question, the order dated 15,02.2017, passed by the learned Judge Anti-Terrorism Court, Dera Ghazi Khan, whereby application under Section 23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), moved by the petitioner, has been dismissed.
2. The FIR No, 580, dated 24.12.2012, under Section 302, PPC, at Police Station. Kot Mithan, District Rajanpur, was got lodged by Umer Khan S.I. with the precise contentions that dead body of a woman having strangulation in her neck was recovered and that forehead, left cheek and feet of the body were also cut by some animal.
3. The case was investigated when the present petitioner end six others, namely, Muhammad Saleem, Rana Mehmood Ahmed Muhammad Ahmad Pais Rasool, Muhammad Ghulam Mustafaand Qui Ghulam Abbas , were found to be involved, ham arrayed aeesed. It was found that in the occurrence and we also used, therefore offence under Section 330:B, PPC, wa.s added and consequently matter was retorted to the learned Judge Anti-Terrorism Court, Dera Ghazi Khan.
4. During proceedings before the Anti-Terrorism Court, the petitioner, through on application under Section 23 of the Ad had requested thatfrom the attending facts and circumstances applicability of Section 336-B, PPC, was not found, hence the case was triable by an ordinary Court and as such, it may be transmitted to the said Court. The learned Judge Ant-Terrorism Court, through the impugned order had turned down the above said request of the petitioner: Resultantly, the writ petition in hand.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has re-iterated the grounds taken in the writ petition: Whereas the learned Law Officer well the learned counsel for the Respondent No, 2/complainant has opposed the petition, while holding the impugned order to be justified and call of the day:
6. Arguments advanced by all the sides have been heard and the record has been perused.
7. The main question before us is, whether from the attending facts and circumstances well as material available on the record, the offence, defined under section 330-A, PPC, which has been made punishable under Section 336-B PPC, is made out or otherwise. The said provisions read as under: "336-A. Hurt caused by corrosive substance. Whoever with the intention or knowingly causes or attempts to muse hurt by means of a corrosive substance or any substance which is deleterious to human body when it is swa llowed, inhaled, comes into contact or received into human body or otherwise shall be said to cause hurt by corrosive substance.
336-B. Punishment for built by corrosive substance. Whoever caused hurt by corrosive substance shall be punished with imprisonment for life or imprisonment of either description which shall not be less than fourteen years and a minimum fine of one million rupees."
8. In the above mentioned provisions, hurt to a human being is stated. Therefore, it is clear that if by using of a corrosive substance, including acid, any hurt is caused to a human being, only then the above mentioned provisions will come in field.
9. Evidence of Mst. Hameeda Mai complainant (PW-5) and Muhammad Saeed (PW-6), is available on the record, whereby both have deposed that after strangulation, dead body of Mst. Kalsoom was thrown in a sugarcane crop and to conceal its identity, acid was poured on face of the body.
Meaning thereby that corrosive substance i,e, acid was poured on the dead body of the above named lady.
10.Another point before the Court is that when a harm is caused to a dead body, through a corrosive substance, even then the accused shall be dealt with, under the above mentioned provisions or otherwise.
"Hurt" has been defined, in Section 332, PPC, in the following words:-- "332. Hurt. (1) Whoever causes pain, harm, disease, infirmity or injury to any person or impairs, disables, disfigures, defaces or dismembers any organ or the body or part thereof of any person without causing his death, is said to cause hurt."
11. Plain reading of the said provision suggests that if hurt is caused to a living human being, only then it shall be considered as an injury and punishable accordingly: Therefore, it can safely be said that if a corrosive substance is thrown on a dead body, it does amount to hurt, as defined under Section 332 or 336-A, PPC and punishable under Section 336-B, PPC.
12. In the situation in hand, as stated above, the acid has been poured on the dead body, so that its identity may be concealed. Therefore at the most offence under Section 201, PPC may be applicable and Section 336, PPC would not attract, and as such the case does not come, within jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court.
13. As result of what has been discussed above, the instant writ petition is accepted, the impugned order dated 15.02.2017 is set aside and reversed. Meaning thereby that application under Section 23 of the Act, moved on behalf of the petitioner, is allowed, with a direction to the learned Judge Anti- Terrorism Court, Dera Ghazi Khan, to transfer the file of the case to the Court of ordinary jurisdiction. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.