Acid thrown on a victim-336-B---Hurt by corrosive substance (acid)-Acid thrown on a victim---Whether an act of terrorism Acid attacks can sometimes be............

 Ss. 336, 336-B & 337-L---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7(c)---Hurt by corrosive substance (acid)---Re- appraisal of evidence---Acid thrown on a victim---Matter between convict and victim---Not an act of terrorism---[Per Jamal Khan Mandokhail, J. [Majority view]: Prosecution witnesses supported the contentions of the complainant and established contents of the FIR to the extent of throwing acid upon the victim---Courts below after going through the record, reached the correct conclusion that the prosecution had succeeded in proving its case---Conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner under sections 336-B and 337-L, P.P.C. were just and proper, hence, the same were maintainable---As far as conviction of the petitioner under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was concerned, though the complainant in his FIR had alleged that the act of the petitioner had created fear and panic in the area, but such fact had not been established by the prosecution-- -Even, the complainant did not level the allegation of terrorism against the petitioner---Present occurrence was a matter between the petitioner and the victim, which did not fall within the definition of section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Courts belcw had erred by not considering this aspect of the case and had wrongly considered the act of the petitioner as an act of terrorism---Under such circumstances, the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner under section 7(c) of the Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997 was not sustainable---Petition was converted into an appeal and was partly allowed; the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner under section 7(c) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was set aside, however, the conviction and sentence awarded to him under section 336-B, P.P.C. was maintained---[Per Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, J. [Minority view]: Acid attacks limit the fundamental freedoms enjoyed by the victim such as right to life, healthcare, education, freedom of movement, enjoyment of highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, amongst various others---Acid attacks have devastating consequences, particularly for women--- These attacks result in severe pain, permanent disfigurement, infections, blindness, psychological and economic hardships--- In the present case, the criminal act of the petitioner was not motivated by personal vendetta or domestic dispute rather he intended to instill fear in the society---Petitioner sprinkled acid on the victim and her face, neck, and body were burnt---This incident terrorized all girls attending schools/colleges situated in the vicinity and accused did not intent to frighten the victim only---It created a sense of insecurity in the young girls attending schools/colleges---Invoking the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (in cases of acid attack) sends a powerful message that such heinous acts will not be tolerated, and the perpetrators will be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law---High Court had rightly maintained the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under section 7(c) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997].

2024 SCMR 2024

336-B---Hurt by corrosive substance (acid)-Acid thrown on a victim---Whether an act of terrorism Acid attacks can sometimes be classified under the meaning of terrorism, depending on the context and intent behind the act---If an acid attack is intended to create widespread fear or panic amongst a population, it could be seen as an act of terrorism, as terrorism is often defined by the intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population---Additionally, if the attack is motivated by political, ideological, or religious beliefs and aims to further these objectives through violence or the threat of violence, it could be classified as terrorism---Broader impact on societal order and security is another factor; if an attack disrupts public order, causes significant fear, and undermines confidence in security institutions, it may be seen as an act of terrorism--- However, not all acid attacks are classified as such, as many are criminal acts motivated by personal vendettas or domestic disputes---Classification depends on the specific circumstances, motives, and broader impact of the attack---Act of terrorism is to be seen in peculiar facts and circumstances of each case---If act's effect whether actual, intended or potential, is to create fear and insecurity, etc. in the society at large, it qualifies to be act of terrorism---Courts have only to see whether the act was such which would have the tendency to create sense of fear or insecurity in the minds of the people or any section of the society---Venue of the commission of a crime, the time of occurrence, the substance used in causing hurt or death, and the sense of fear or insecurity the act created are few of the factors to meet the standard of terrorism.

Acid thrown on a victim---Whether an act of terrorism---Use of coercive substance falls under section 336-B, P.P.C., however, keeping in view its gravity it has been included in Third Schedule to the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 ('ATA') for the purpose of expeditious trial---In case, it is proved that the offence/the said act is done with an intention to commit terrorism and the allegation is proved against accused, he shall be convicted under section 7 of the ATA---In case the prosecution fails to prove the allegation of terrorism, but otherwise succeeds in establishing its case, in such a scenario, the case shall still be tried by the Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, and the accused shall be convicted under the normal offence of the PPC, instead of convicting and sentencing him. under section 7 of the ATA.

2024 SCMR 2024