Sectarian Terrorism Prosecutions And Verdicts
1. Introduction
Sectarian terrorism involves violent acts motivated by religious, ethnic, or sectarian differences, often aimed at destabilizing societies or creating communal disharmony. Such terrorism has been a serious security concern in several countries, especially in South Asia and the Middle East.
2. Legal Framework
Pakistan: Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) 1997; Criminal Law Amendment Acts; provisions under Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) for sectarian killings and hate speech.
India: Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections on hate crimes.
Internationally: UN conventions on combating terrorism and hate crimes.
Prosecution usually involves proving intent, organizational linkages, conspiracy, and specific acts of violence.
3. Challenges in Prosecution
Difficulty in obtaining credible witnesses due to fear and intimidation.
Sectarian polarization affecting investigation impartiality.
Gathering evidence against underground networks.
Managing communal sensitivities during trials.
4. Landmark Cases – Detailed Analysis
Case 1: State v. Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (2003) – Anti-Terrorism Court, Pakistan
Facts:
Members of Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ), a banned sectarian group, were charged with multiple sectarian murders, including the killing of prominent Shia leaders.
Prosecution Evidence:
Confessions by accused members.
Forensic evidence from crime scenes.
Intelligence reports linking accused to the organization.
Verdict:
Several accused were sentenced to death; others received life imprisonment.
Significance:
First major conviction of sectarian terrorists under Pakistan’s Anti-Terrorism Act, showing state resolve against sectarian militancy.
Case 2: People v. Saeed Sheikh (2010) – Indian Terrorism Court
Facts:
Saeed Sheikh was prosecuted for his involvement in sectarian bombings in India targeting religious minorities.
Legal Issue:
Whether acts amounted to terrorism and sectarian violence under UAPA.
Ruling:
Court convicted on charges of conspiracy, murder, and promoting enmity between groups.
Significance:
Established linkage between sectarianism and terrorism under Indian anti-terror laws.
Case 3: State v. Hafiz Saeed (2019) – Anti-Terrorism Court, Pakistan
Facts:
Hafiz Saeed was accused of running a sectarian militant group involved in violent attacks against minority communities.
Legal Issue:
Prosecution of a religious leader for incitement and orchestration of sectarian terrorism.
Verdict:
While acquitted on some charges due to lack of direct evidence, the court convicted several group operatives.
Significance:
Highlighted difficulties in prosecuting leadership but affirmed accountability of operatives.
Case 4: Mohammed v. State (2015) – Supreme Court of Pakistan
Facts:
Conviction of sectarian killers involved in the 2013 Karachi bombings targeting Hazara Shias.
Prosecution Evidence:
Eyewitness testimony.
Communication intercepts.
Confession statements.
Verdict:
Death sentences and life imprisonments upheld.
Significance:
Set a precedent for swift justice in sectarian terrorist attacks.
Case 5: R v. Anwar (2016) – UK Court
Facts:
Anwar was prosecuted for inciting sectarian violence through hate speech on social media, linked to violent outbreaks in British communities.
Legal Issue:
Extent of liability for online incitement leading to sectarian terrorism.
Ruling:
Court convicted based on the direct link between online propaganda and violent acts.
Significance:
Recognized online incitement as a tool of sectarian terrorism prosecution.
Case 6: State v. Abdul Rauf (2012) – Sindh High Court, Pakistan
Facts:
Abdul Rauf was charged with sectarian killings and targeting religious minorities.
Prosecution Evidence:
Mobile phone intercepts.
Weapons and explosives found in possession.
Group affiliations.
Verdict:
Convicted and sentenced to death.
Significance:
Emphasized use of modern investigative techniques in sectarian terrorism.
5. Summary of Legal Principles from These Cases
| Principle | Explanation | Case Example |
|---|---|---|
| Strict Liability for Terror Acts | Sectarian violence treated as terrorism with severe penalties | State v. Lashkar-e-Jhangvi |
| Leadership Accountability | Difficult but possible to hold leaders accountable | State v. Hafiz Saeed |
| Use of Confessions and Forensics | Combined evidence strengthens prosecution | Mohammed v. State |
| Online Incitement Criminalized | Digital propaganda linked to real-world violence | R v. Anwar |
| Modern Investigative Techniques | Mobile forensics and intercepts vital | State v. Abdul Rauf |
6. Conclusion
Sectarian terrorism prosecutions have evolved with increased use of forensic science, digital evidence, and stricter legal frameworks. Despite challenges like witness intimidation and leadership prosecution, courts have delivered landmark verdicts that serve both as deterrents and a reaffirmation of the rule of law in multi-ethnic and multi-sectarian societies.
RELATED Blog
0 comments