Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 110 of 1968, decided on 24th June 1968.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated 23rd February 1968, in Criminal Appeal No. 413 of 1967).
S. 302 aced Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 464‑Accused found guilty of offence under S. 302, P. P. C. but trial Court relying on medical evidence that ac cused was of unsound mind at time of occurrence acquitted him‑Ap peal against acquittal dismissed summarily by High Court‑Special Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court to consider whether acquittal was justified in view of fact that at no stage action under S. 464, Cr. P. C. had been taken and further the plea of unsoundness of mind was not only belated one but without any basis as well.
Lal Khan v. Crown P L D 1952 Lah. 502 ref.
Raja Said Akbar Khan, Advocate‑General West Pakistan Lahore (Malik Muhammad Jaffar, Advocate with him) instructed by Ijaz Ali, Attorney Supreme Court for the State.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 24th June 1968.
.‑This petition for leave to appeal by the State is from a judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan at Lahore, dismissing summarily an appeal filed against an order of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, acquitting the respondent of a charge under section 302, P: P. C. for the murder of one Zahoor Ahmad.
The trial Court found that the respondent was responsible for the death of Zahoor Ahmad on the 20th May 1965, at about 4‑00 a.m. by inflicting a number of knife injuries.
The accused took the plea that at the time of the occurrence he was suffering from insanity and therefore not liable to be punished for what he did. In support of this plea Dr. Rashid Chaudhry, D. W. 3, was examined. The witness deposed that the respondent was a mental case right from 1952 up to 1964 and was also admitted in the mental hospital after this incident. In view of this evidence the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that it was possible that at the time of the occurrence the accused was not in a normal state of mind and therefore entitled to acquittal.
The learned Judges in the High Court took the view that the appeal before them being an appeal against acquittal the only question which they had to decide was whether the reasons given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for acquittal of the respondent were perverse or grossly unreasonable. As according to them they were not so, the case did not call for their interference and the benefit of doubt given to the respondent was richly deserved by him.
The learned Advocate‑General has contended that it was for the accused to show that at the time of the incident by reasons of unsoundness of mind he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law. It has been argued that the onus lay on the accused to prove the above tact an6 the medical evidence on which reliance has been placed is not sufficient to discharge that onus. Reliance in this connection has been placed on the decision in the case of Lal Khan v. Crown (P L D 1952 Lah. 502).
The learned Advocate‑General has then said that in the present case no stage of the proceedings any action under section 464, Cr. P. C. was taken. The respondent had a motive to kill the deceased and he killed whom he wanted to kill. These facts show that the plea taken by the accused was not only a belated one but had no basis.
The questions raised merit consideration. We accordingly grant leave. Bailable warrant to issue for the arrest of the respondent in the sum of Rs. 5,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A. D. M., Lahore.
Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer