Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 567 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case NIAZ KHAN vs State Ss

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 567 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case NIAZ KHAN VS State Ss. 302(b) & 311---Qatl-i-amd, tazir after waiver or compounding of right of qisas in qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Abnormality of the accused---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife---Record divulged that accused was produced before the Trial Court in custody---Trial Court observed that the accused appeared to be abnormal---Record further divulged that at the time of final arguments, the mental illness was pleaded by the defencebut the impugned judgment was totally silent about that aspect of the case---Hospital was directed to medically examine the mental health condition of accused through Medical Board and submit his report---Report of Medical Board was submitted along with the report of psychiatrist suggesting behavioural disorder/Schizophrenia but the Trial Court concluded that the accused was fit to stand trial and on his request, Counsel was appointed as defence counsel at State expense---Record further divulged that at the time of final arguments, the mental illness was pleaded by the defence but the impugned judgment was totally silent about that aspect of the case---Accused was husband of the deceased, who sustained 15 'Churri' blows at his hand as suggested by the evidence available on record---Despite the fact that the Trial Court itself referred the accused for evaluation of his capability to stand trial but concluded that the accused was able to defend himself---No question, whatsoever, was put by the Trial Court for its satisfaction---Within the contemplation of S. 84, P.P.C., whenever the plea was raised regarding the state of mind of accused at the time of commission of offence, the onus would be on the defence to prove such a plea as contemplated in Art. 121 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Trial Court failed to determine the question regarding capability of the accused to face trial---Record revealed that an application was also filed by the defence for summoning Medical Officer as Court Witness, which was turned down by the Trial Court with the observation that Medical Officer was neither the prosecution witness nor acquainted with the material facts in issue and thus concluded that the evidence of said witness was not essential---Reports of Psychiatrist and Medical Board were available on record---Accused was diagnosed as patient of behavioural disorder and Schizophrenia---Reports were neither detailed nor comprehensive---Application moved by the accused was turned down by the Trial Court and, thus, head of the Medical Board could not enter the witness dock---Trial Court had dealt with the case contrary to law---However, it was inalienable right of every citizen to be treated in accordance with law as envisaged by Art. 4 of the Constitution and it was the duty and obligation of the public functionaries to act in accordance with law---Right to fair trial was also guaranteed under Art. 10-A of the Constitution---Formalities/ requirement of the law, in particular, in the present case, were the reports of psychiatrist as well as the said medical Board constituted for that purpose, had established that the accused was suffering from behavioural disorder and schizophrenia---Record revealed that abnormality of accused was observed by the Court itself and at some stage, an application was moved by the defence for summoning Medical Officer Head of the Special Medical Board as a witness, who opined that the accused was suffering from schizophrenia---However, said application was rejected by the Trial Court without application of mind---What was the haste on the part of the Trial Court to deal with that aspect of the case was not understandable in such a summary and slipshod manner notwithstanding the fact that that was a mandate of the statute itself---Trial Court did not realize altogether that if such plea or enquiry envisaged by the above mentioned provision was found false, it at its worst, would prolong trial for a month or so but if found true, it at its best, would save a person from verdict of guilt---When stake in the latter case as compared to the former were far greater and far more damaging such enquiry should not be dispensed with so casually---Trial Court failed to determine the issue of mental illness and proceeded with undue haste and decided the case contrary to the law---Appeal was allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment and remanded the case to the Trial Court with the direction to obtain fresh, complete/comprehensive reports and then to determine the capability of the accused to face trial.

Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 567 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case NIAZ KHAN vs State Ss — 2023 PCrLJ 567 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PCRLJ