LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has set aside the life sentence of a ‘mentally ill’ man in a murder case of his wife and directed the trial court to determine, in view of the Supreme Court’s observations, the capability of the convict to face trial.
Niaz Khan was tried by a sessions court which held him guilty under section 302(b) of PPC in the impugned judgement passed on Feb 15, 2021 and sentenced to imprisonment for life with compensation of Rs100,000 payable to legal heirs of the deceased.
The man challenged the conviction before the high court and his counsel mainly argued that the appellant was incapable to face trial or defend himself. He said the trial court was cognisant of this fact but could not determine this issue under the law, which caused miscarriage of justice.
Allowing the appeal of the convict, Justice Sardar Ahmad Naeem observes in his judgement that the record shows that the trial court noted that the appellant appeared to be abnormal when produced during the trial. A medical board filed its report to the trial court suggesting behavioral disorder/schizophrenia but the court concluded that the appellant was fit to stand trial.
Justice Naeem regrets that at the time of final arguments, the mental illness was argued by the defence counsel but the impugned judgment is totally silent about this aspect of the case. He notes that despite the fact that the trial court itself referred the appellant for evaluation of his capability to stand trial but concluded that the appellant was able to defend himself.
“No question, whatsoever, was put by the learned trial court for its satisfaction,” the judge adds.
The judge observes that it is an inalienable right of every citizen to be treated in accordance with law as envisaged by Article 4 of the Constitution. The judge says Islam also gives a great deal of attention to all groups within society, each has their own rights, including individuals with a disability.
He notes that there are 650 million individuals in the world, who are disabled as a result of mental, physical and sensory impairments. He says Chapter XXXIV of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 provides a mechanism for the trial and other related matters of a person who appears to the court to be of unsound mind. He explains that a person of unsoundness is a person who from infirmity of mind is incapable of managing himself or his affairs.
Justice Naeem observes that the abnormality of the appellant was observed by the trial court itself and at some stage an application was moved by the defence for summoning head of the special medical board as a witness, who opined that the appellant was suffering from schizophrenia. But, he says, strange is the fact that this application was rejected by the trial court without application of mind.
“I am unable to understand what was the haste on the part of the learned trial court to deal with this aspect of the case in such a summary and slipshod manner, notwithstanding the fact that this is a mandate of the statute itself,” the judge says.
The judge maintains that the trial court failed to determine the issue of mental illness and proceeded with undue haste and decided the case contrary to the law and observations of the apex court thus, judgment of conviction cannot be sustained.
Published in Dawn, June 22nd, 2022
