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. 150 of 1967, decided on 9th October 1967.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 5th May 1967, in Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 1964).
S. 84‑Insanity‑Burden of proof‑Crucial point of time at which unsoundness of mind to be established‑Time when act constituting offence is committed-- Burden of proving entitlement to benefit of exemption‑Lies on accused.
----S. 302 read with S. 84‑Con viction for murder‑Leave to appeal sought on ground that Courts below here not justified in rejecting plea of insanity‑Accused failing to prove that at time he committed offence he was incapable of knowing what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law‑‑Petition dismissed‑Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 58(3).
Dr. Javed Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mushtaq Ahmad Khawaja, Senior Attorney for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 9th October 1967.
.‑The petitioner Jalal Din stands convicted under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to transportation for life for the murder of one Yosuf. He has also been convicted under sections 307, 326 and 324, P. P. C. and sentenced to various terms of rigorous imprisonment.
The fact that he committed the murder and also injured various persons has not been challenged before us.
The learned counsel has, however, contended that the Courts below were not justified in rejecting the plea of insanity of the accused. No doubt, the evidence of the Doctor shows that the accused was a chronic patient of schizophrenia and that he was subject to, occasional fits of insanity. Under section 84, P. P. C. the crucial point of time at which unsoundness of mind should be established is the time when the act constituting the offence is committed and the burden of proving that the accused is entitled to the benefit of this exemption, is upon him.
The accused has, however, failed to prove that at the time when he committed the offence he was incapable of knowing that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law. On the other hand, from the facts, evidence and circumstances of the case it appears that the attack was directed against those who were considered as his enemies. The fact that he selected his victim from those against whom he bore ill‑will establishes that it was a crime not committed in a sudden fit of insanity but one that exhibited pre‑meditation. The Courts below have, therefore, rightly rejected the plea of insanity.
It is proper to add that the State will take steps to have the accused treated in a Mental Hospital if and when be gets attack of schizophrenia, during his imprisonment.
The petition is accordingly dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer