1. ' BASHIR A. MUJAHID, J.---Through the instant Constitutional petition order, dated 7-3-2004 passed by the learned Judge, A.T.A., Court-II, Multan has been challenged by the Government of Punjab whereby application moved by the respondents under section 23 of Anti-Terrorism Act was allowed and case was transferred to the Court of ordinary jurisdiction.
2. ' The case vide F.I.R. No.446 of 2003, dated 14-11-2003 under section 302, P.P.C. Was got registered at Police Station, Gulgasht, Multan at the instance of Rashid Rehman, Advocate/Co-ordinator of Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, Multan, alleging therein that Afsheen Musarrat daughter of Musarrat Sahoo, Advocate/ respondent No.5 was forcibly married to her cousin Luqman Ahmad.
3. She being not happy with the marriage left the house of her husband shifted to the house of her maternal cousin at Rawalpindi. She was brought from Rawalpindi two days before her death in mysterious circumstances and was buried in village of her parents without post-mortem examination. The complainant suspected that she has been done to death through electric shock.
4. The body of Afsheen Musarrat was exhumated and as per post-mortem examination the cause of death was found by strangulation. After investigation of the case respondents Nos.3 to 6 were arrested and challan against them was submitted in Anti-Terrorism Court under sections 302/364/34, P.P.C. Read with section 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. Respondents Nos.3 to 6 filed application under section 23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 challenging the jurisdiction of the Court and for transfer of the case to the Court of ordinary jurisdiction, the same was allowed through the impugned order.
5. ' Learned Law Officer has argued that the learned trial Court has wrongly placed reliance on judgment passed in Writ Petition No.15843 of 2003 which now has been reported in PLD 2004 Lah.199 for giving expressions/definition of 'Terrorism' and has maintained that the women folk of the country are victims of male shevoneism with a paranoid approach by the male, ruled society and the element of revenge alleging family honour and murder of Afsheen Musarrat was not only barbaric and gruesome but has created fear and insecurity with the women folk of the country and on the strength of judgments reported as 2002 SCMR 908 Mst. Raheela Nasreen v. The State and another, 2003 SCMR 1323 Mst. Najam un Nisa v. Judge, Special Court constituted under Anti- Terrorism. Act, 1997, 2003 SCMR 1934 Abdul Ghafoor Bhatti v. Muhammad Saleem and others and PLD 2003 SC 224 State through Advocate-General, N.-W.F.P. v. Muhammad Shafiq it has been argued that even the occurrence took place inside the house, the same was likely to strike terrorism leading to the feelings of insecurity among the women folk, therefore, by analogy it has nexus with sections 6, 7 and 8 and case is triable by the Special Court before whom the challan has been submitted, so the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
6. ' We have heard the learned Law Officer and examined the case law referred to at the bar.
7. ' In case 2002 SCMR 908, the facts were different as Major Sajjad Naseer, serving officer in Pakistan Army was killed by his wife with the connivance of his Batman and they were nominated in the F.I.R.
8. And the case was transferred for trial to the Special Court and the writ petition filed by the accused for transfer of case to the Court ordinary jurisdiction was dismissed and Hon'ble Supreme Court in para-8 of the judgment observed as under:--- "The learned Judges of the High Court came to the conclusion that a Batman who was a trusted person of an Army Officer if he kills as alleged his master in connivance with his (master's) wife, the same was likely to strike terror or feeling of insecurity among the army officers which reasoning in our view are based on relevant consideration having logical nexus with dip relevant law and do not suffer from any legal infirmity."
9. ' In case 2003 SCMR 1323, the accused persons were involved in murder of 7 persons in a house at night time at the Dera of Muhammad Ahsan, complainant and the challan was submitted before the Court established under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and the application moved by one of the accused for transfer of the case to the Court of ordinary jurisdiction was dismissed. The writ petition filed by the accused was also dismissed by the High Court and the High Court observed as under:--- "The crucial question is whether the said crime had or had not the effect of striking terror or creating a sense of fear and insecurity in the people or any section of the people. Needless to mention here that a crime of the kind in hand committed even in a remote corner does not remain unnoticed in the area in which is committed or even in the country on account of the print and electronic media. Seven persons being butchered in a house at night is not the kind of occurrence which would not create terror and horror in the people or any section of the people."
10. ' So we find that the facts of said case are distinguishable from the case in hand'
11. ' The next case is 2003 SCMR 1934 wherein two minors were abducted for ransom by the miscreants and such-like offence certainly got the tendency to create sense of fear and insecurity in the minds of the people or any section of the society, so the facts of cited case are different.
12. In this case the complainant had shown suspicion that Afsheen Musarrat has been done to death by electric shock. The complainant has not admittedly witnessed the occurrence. After exhumation of the dead body the cause of death was found as "strangulation leading to asphxia because of injury No.1 which is antemortem and is with ligature that is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature". No direct evidence has been collected by the prosecution. Its case is based on circumstantial evidence. It is yet to be determined after recording of evidence by the trial Court whether it was a case of suicidal or homicidal death. So, we find in this case that entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence and if the arguments of the learned Law officer are accepted then every murder case creates fear and terror and all the cases should be tried by the Special Court. It is also to be noted that respondents have also been challaned under section 302, P.P.C. And the sentence for the offence is the same as provided under section 7 of Anti-terrorism Act, 1997, therefore, the prosecution is not to be prejudiced by the impugned order. Regarding the quick decision of case, it is right of every person/accused to get the early decision of the case and the prosecution may take steps for early decision of the case even before the Court of ordinary jurisdiction. The case-law referred to by the learned Law Officer is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, therefore, we do not find any force in the petition, so the same is dismissed.