LAHORE: The hearing of an appeal by a convict may be prejudiced if it is heard while he is ‘mentally unsound’, as it would deny them the right to be heard, the Lahore High Court (LHC) has ruled.

A two-judge bench, headed by Justice Tariq Saleem Sheikh, recently issued the ruling on the appeal of a Wapda engineer who killed a director and wounded another at Wapda House in 2004.

When appellant Iqbal Ansari was in lock-up, his relatives applied for the constitution of a medical board, saying he had lost his mental balance and was unfit to stand trial.

However, an anti-terrorism court (ATC) had indicted him.

Medical board says appellant suffers from ‘schizoaffective disorder’; court holds appeal can only be heard once convict declared to be of sound mind

When the ATC judge received the medical board’s report confirming the appellant was unfit, he suspended further proceedings and directed the board to submit periodical updates.

In 2005, the trial judge received the board’s report stating that the appellant had regained health. The judge resumed the proceedings, without a fresh indictment. The suspect was found guilty and sentenced to death.

The high court upheld the sentence.

However, in 2015, the Supreme Court remanded the case back to the trial court with a directive to conduct fresh proceedings as the appellant was mentally incompetent when the ATC indicted him.

The SC observed that the trial court judge was required to frame the charges afresh after the board’s certification that the suspect could stand trial.

On Aug 22, 2016, the trial judge framed the charge against the appellant afresh, to which he pleaded not guilty.

The trial judge then recorded evidence and on the completion of the trial, convicted and sentenced the appellant by the impugned judgement passed on Oct 25, 2016.

When the two-judge IHC bench took up the appeal, the appellant’s counsel said his client had relapsed into mental ailment.

The bench then directed the medical superintendent of the Punjab Institute of Mental Health (PIMH) Lahore to form a board to evaluate the appellant’s health.

The board reported that the appellant suffers from schizoaffective disorder and is unfit to face legal proceedings.

The appellant’s counsel urged the high court to adjourn the hearing until the appellant recovers.

However, a deputy prosecutor general opposed this suggestion. He said Section 465 of CrPC (procedure in case of a person sent for trial before a court of sessions or high court being lunatic) applies only at the trial stage and no legal impediments prevent the court from deciding the appeal.

The judgement authored by LHC Justice Sheikh noted that Section 464 of CrPC deals with the proceedings before a magistrate, while Section 465 relates to trials before the sessions court and the high court.

It said if the issue of a convict’s soundness of mind and incapacity arises before the high court at the appeal stage, since there is no specific provision dealing with that situation, it may determine the fact of unsoundness and incapacity following the procedure specified in Section 465 or form a medical board and seek a report from it.

To decide whether the appellant is fit when his appeal is fixed for hearing, the LHC bench said, the report from the medical board of the PIMH suffices and there is no need for an inquiry of the sort described in Section 465.

The bench referred to a judgement of the Indian Supreme Court that a convict may be prejudiced if an appellate court rules on his appeal while he is of unsound mind because doing so denies him the right to hearing.

Therefore, the bench ruled, the high court/appellate court should postpone hearing of the appeal, or a reference under Section 374 of CrPC when the convict is mentally incapacitated.

The bench adjourned Mr Ansari’s appeal until he recovers and can present his case.

It said the superintendent of Central Jail, Lahore, shall take the appellant to the PIMH every two months, which will submit its report to the court.

Iqbal Ansari was serving in Wapda as an assistant director when he shot dead director Abdul Jalil and wounded another director, Abdul Rehman. The appellant claimed to have been victimised by the directors and attacked them for transferring him.

Published in Dawn, August 15th, 2023