' SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---Petition for leave is directed against judgment dated 25-4-2000 of the learned High Court of Sindh, whereby conviction of the petitioner awarded by Anti-Terrorism Court-I, Karachi, was maintained but the sentence of death was modified to life imprisonment from section 302(b) to section 302(c), P.P.C. He was also convicted under section 7(ii) of the Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997 and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Sentence of whipping was set aside while sentences recorded under sections 324 and 18 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 were maintained.
2. Facts of the case are that Tahir Saeed complainant used to reside with his wife Naushaba in House No,R/5, Block-C, National Cement Housing Society, Karachi. He was employed in Abbas Steel, Korangi Karachi. As usual on 4-11-1998 he proceeded for his duties and after purchase of some household articles returned his house at about 12.00 noon. He left his house again for duty leaving behind his wife Mst. Naushaba and nephew Farman Ali in the house. At about 3.50 p.m. He received a telephonic message that his wife had been injured by some unknown persons. He rushed to his house and found his wife Mst.Naushaba in injured condition and his nephew Farman All lying dead.
He brought his wife to Agha Khan Hospital where she received necessary medical care. On the same day Sub-Inspector Sohrab Khan of Police Station Aziz Bhatti received message from 134 that some unknown persons had injured a boy and a girl in the above-mentioned house. He also received telephonic call from one Khuda Bux, informing him of same occurrence. The said Sub- Inspector proceeded to the place of occurrence and found the dead body of Farman Ali. One small broken knife was also lying on the floor alongwith sufficient blood. He collected blood-stained bed sheets, pillow, yellow coloured clothes stained with blood and blood-stained Chhuri lying on the floor. All these articles were recovered and sealed in presence of Mashirs. After sending the dead body for post-mortem examination to Medical Officer, JPMC, Karachi, he returned to police station where complainant lodged his F.I.R. He recorded 161, Cr.P.C. Statement of Mst. Naushaba who implicated the petitioner and one unknown person in the commission, of the offence. On the same day the petitioner was arrested. On his pointation co-accused Amir Javed was arrested from his house situated in the National Cement Society, who led Police and Mashirs to the roof of his house and from overhead water tank, he produced a Then (pouch) containing robbed golden ornaments which were secured in presence of the Mashirs. On 23-11-1998 the petitioner and acquitted co- accused Amir Javed were put to identification test where they were identified by Mst. Naushaba.
3. Mr. Abdul. Haleem Pirzada, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner contended that the offence as alleged by the prosecution does not fall within the jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court and falls beyond the ambit of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. He further submitted that during commission of the crime an element of terrorism as alleged by the prosecution is, not available as such conviction by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court is corum non judice and for consideration of this question, leave to appeal may be granted in this petition.
4. Mr. Sarwar Khan, learned Additional Advocate-General submits that crime committed by the petitioner is fully covered by section 6(b) of the Act as well as 2(c) of the Schedule attached thereto and the trial Court has rightly exercised jurisdiction and convicted and sentenced the petitioner for the offences committed and the learned High Court rightly maintained the conviction, on sound and cogent grounds.
5. We have carefully considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material on the record and examined and analysed the evidence recorded by the trial Court.
6. For disposal of this petition, it seems necessary to discuss evidence of Tahir Saeed, Mst.
Naushaba and Umeruddin. P.W. Mst. Naushaba in her 164, Cr.P.C. Statement implicated the petitioner in the following manner:- ' "I saw accused Javed. Khaskheli present near the counter of the kitchen. I was bit frightened, therefore, I enquired from him as to why he had entered into the house and where was Farman. The accused told me that he had come to take Ice. The accused also demanded water. Then I immediately gave him water and ice. The bottle of water and ice were kept by the accused on the counter of the kitchen as I told him to leave but he did not go. He told me that he wanted to talk with to me but I refused to toll: to him. Then he suddenly caught hold of my hands and started pulling me to a room near the kitchen. The accused had taken a cloth piece and wrapped it around my neck and thrown me on the bed. I was calling ' Ali' ' Ali', but the accused had threatened me to keep quiet. He had tried to rape me and for that purpose he had pulled down my Shalwar.
My Shalwar was having au elastic tape. The accused had taken out one of his leg from his trousers but I was calling Farman Ali. Then I tried to pull up my Shalwar. But the accused was telling me to keep quiet. When he was not able to do anything he pressed my throat. Then suddenly Farman Ali came and caught hold of the accused from his back. Then the accused pushed Farman Ali. Then accused caused Churri blow on the neck of Farman Ali. I do not know from where the accused had brought Chhuri. Then the accused took Farman Ali to another room and again came to me. Then the accused had caused Chhuri injury to me. I was already shocked, therefore, I became unconscious. I regained my senses but I do not know after how much time I found myself in blood.
With great difficulties I reached the door but I could open it. Then I took the route of kitchen and reached the main gate. The gate was opened. I called for help through hands as I was not able to talk. Then few children of Mohalla came. Then thereafter I became unconscious. When I regained my senses I found myself in Agha Khan Hospital."
' She has further testified that at the time of identification she had informed the Magistrate that accused Javed Khaskheli had entered into the house and attempted to commit rape whereas other accused was standing at the gate.
7. P.W. Tahir Saeed also supported the version of Mst. Naushaba and further stated that he went to his house and found that ornaments of his wife were missing which were lying in wooden almirah.
The almirah was opened and keys were fixed in the locks. The drawers of almirah were opened.
One wrist watch having golden colour was also missing. The Ornaments were two golden Kara, six Chooris, two necklaces, six tops, six ear rings, four rings, one bracelet, one nose ring, one chain with locket. All these articles were made of gold. In evidence he has implicated the petitioner as under:- - ' "On the same night at 10.45 p.m. I had accompanied the police. The accused Javed Khaskheli was also with us and he took us to the house in National Housing Society and on the pointation of accused Javed Khaskheli, accused Aamir Javed was arrested. They had enquired the name of accused who disclosed his name as Amir..
' Accused Amir Javed took us to the roof of his house. Accused Javed Khaskheli was also there.
Then he pointed out at the roof of water tank by disclosing that ornaments were lying there. Then he produced one shopping bag before the police. It was opened in my presence and I found the ornaments owned by us. It was lying in it. The ornaments were two Karas, six Chooris, six tops, six ear rings, one bracelet, two necklaces, one nose ring, one chain with locket. All were made of gold."
8. P.W. Umeruddin, the Mashir of recovery, also supported the prosecution case as narrated hereinabove.
9. In view of the evidence referred to hereinabove, it is crystal clear that the charge-sheet was properly submitted before the Court having jurisdiction and the trial Court on proper assumption of jurisdiction convicted and sentenced the petitioner. While hearing appeal, learned High Court modified the sentence. According to section 6(b) of Act, 1997, a person is said to commit a terrorist act if he commits a scheduled offence, the effect of which will be, or likely to be, to strike terror, or create a sense of fear and insecurity in the people, or any section of the people, or to adversely affect harmony among different sections of the people. From the evidence it is abundantly clear that petitioner committed an offence provided in the Schedule attached to the Act.
10. For the facts, circumstances and reasons, we do not find any illegality and jurisdictional error in the judgment of the High Court warranting any interference by this Court. There is no substance in this petition which is accordingly dismissed and leave is refused.