"\u003chtml xmlns:o=\"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office\"\r\nxmlns:w=\"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word\"\r\nxmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40\"\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003chead\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta http-equiv=Content-Type content=\"text/html; charset=windows-1252\"\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta name=ProgId content=Word.Document\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta name=Generator content=\"Microsoft Word 9\"\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta name=Originator content=\"Microsoft Word 9\"\u003e\r\n\u003clink rel=File-List href=\"./2000J9_files/filelist.xml\"\u003e\r\n\u003ctitle\u003eMENTAL ABNORMALITY\u003c/title\u003e\r\n\u003c!--[if gte mso 9]\u003e\u003cxml\u003e\r\n \u003co:DocumentProperties\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Author\u003ecosmos\u003c/o:Author\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Template\u003eNormal\u003c/o:Template\u003e\r\n  \u003co:LastAuthor\u003eSaif\u003c/o:LastAuthor\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Revision\u003e5\u003c/o:Revision\u003e\r\n  \u003co:TotalTime\u003e0\u003c/o:TotalTime\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Created\u003e2002-04-11T05:44:00Z\u003c/o:Created\u003e\r\n  \u003co:LastSaved\u003e2003-01-03T07:03:00Z\u003c/o:LastSaved\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Pages\u003e7\u003c/o:Pages\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Words\u003e3513\u003c/o:Words\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Characters\u003e20026\u003c/o:Characters\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Company\u003eoratier\u003c/o:Company\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Lines\u003e166\u003c/o:Lines\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Paragraphs\u003e40\u003c/o:Paragraphs\u003e\r\n  \u003co:CharactersWithSpaces\u003e24593\u003c/o:CharactersWithSpaces\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Version\u003e9.2720\u003c/o:Version\u003e\r\n \u003c/o:DocumentProperties\u003e\r\n\u003c/xml\u003e\u003c![endif]--\u003e\u003c!--[if gte mso 9]\u003e\u003cxml\u003e\r\n \u003cw:WordDocument\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:View\u003eNormal\u003c/w:View\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing\u003e2.85 pt\u003c/w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery\u003e2\u003c/w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery\u003e\r\n \u003c/w:WordDocument\u003e\r\n\u003c/xml\u003e\u003c![endif]--\u003e\r\n\u003cstyle\u003e\r\n\u003c!--\r\n /* Style Definitions */\r\np.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal\r\n\t{mso-style-parent:\"\";\r\n\tmargin:0in;\r\n\tmargin-bottom:.0001pt;\r\n\tmso-pagination:widow-orphan;\r\n\tfont-size:12.0pt;\r\n\tfont-family:\"Times New Roman\";\r\n\tmso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\";}\r\nh1\r\n\t{mso-style-next:Normal;\r\n\tmargin-top:0in;\r\n\tmargin-right:92.9pt;\r\n\tmargin-bottom:0in;\r\n\tmargin-left:0in;\r\n\tmargin-bottom:.0001pt;\r\n\ttext-align:justify;\r\n\tmso-pagination:widow-orphan;\r\n\tpage-break-after:avoid;\r\n\tmso-outline-level:1;\r\n\tfont-size:12.0pt;\r\n\tfont-family:\"Times New Roman\";\r\n\tmso-font-kerning:0pt;\r\n\ttext-decoration:underline;\r\n\ttext-underline:single;}\r\n@page Section1\r\n\t{size:6.35in 841.7pt;\r\n\tmargin:.75in 0in 2.9pt .35in;\r\n\tmso-header-margin:.5in;\r\n\tmso-footer-margin:.5in;\r\n\tmso-paper-source:0;}\r\ndiv.Section1\r\n\t{page:Section1;}\r\n--\u003e\r\n\u003c/style\u003e\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n\u003cbody lang=EN-US style=\u0027tab-interval:.5in\u0027\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=Section1\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.5in\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003eMENTAL ABNORMALITY\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan style=\"mso-spacerun:\r\nyes\"\u003e           \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"mso-spacerun:\r\nyes\"\u003e                                      \u003c/span\u003evis\u0026#8209;vis\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003eCRIMINAL\r\nLIABILITY OF AN ACCUSED\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:2.0in;text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\"mso-spacerun: yes\"\u003e    \u003c/span\u003eBY\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan style=\"mso-spacerun:\r\nyes\"\u003e \u003c/span\u003eMajor Hafiz Zafar Iqbal, Judge Advocate, Judge Advocate\u0026#8209;General\u0027s\r\nDepartment,\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e            \u003c/span\u003eGeneral Headquarters\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cu\u003e1. INTRODUCTION:\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eCriminal liability of an accused person\r\nmay be determined only if the act contemplated by him falls within the ambit of\r\na \u0027crime\u0027; and an act cannot be regarded as an offence or crime unless it meets\r\nthe following requirements, as propounded by the American Criminal Law Scholar\r\nJerome Hall:\u0026#8209;\u0026#8209;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(a) The accused must have done an\r\nact.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(b) The act must be a wrongful or\r\nan illegal one.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(c) The act must be harmful. \u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(d) The act must cause or produce\r\nthe desired results.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(e) The act was committed with a\r\nguilty intention.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(f) The criminal act must be\r\naccompanied by an equal criminal mind.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(g) The law has prescribed\r\npunishment for the act.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eIf any of the above requirements\r\nare not met\u0027 with, the act will remain short of a crime and no criminal\r\nliability can be attached to the accused person. The basic principle of\r\nCriminal law, however, is that no criminal liability is attached to a person\r\nunless he has done a wrongful act with criminal intent. Thus, the actus reus\r\nand mens rea will determine the criminal liability of an accused person. Failure\r\nto prove actus reus and mens rea would obliviates the criminal liability of the\r\naccused. Since mental abnormality, provided it be a total abnormality or\r\ncomplete unconsciousness, negatives mens rea, it .is considered and accepted as\r\nan important legal defence in criminal law. But mental abnormality which\r\nrenders the accused incapable of committing a crime and obliviates his criminal\r\nliability, is distinct from ordinary mental disorder or temporary obsession.\r\nMental abnormality today, in legal parlance, may be visualized in phrases like:\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(a) Insanity.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(b) Irresistible impulse.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(c) Diminished responsibility\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e2. \u003cu\u003eINSANITY:\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eInsanity has been recognized as\r\nan important defence in criminal law. The mad man is exempted from criminal liability\r\non the ground that his acts are unintentional and involuntary, he being\r\nunconscious of his conduct when doing the act. The insanity, which renders no\r\ncriminal liability to the accused, is such an insanity which affects not only\r\nthe cognitive faculties of the mind which guide our actions but also our\r\nemotions which promote our actions and the will by which our actions are\r\nperformed. It is only the total unsoundness of mind which materially impairs\r\nthe cognitive faculties of the mind that can form a group of exemption from\r\ncriminal responsibility, the nature and extent of the unsoundness of mind\r\nrequired being such as would make the offender incapable of knowing the nature\r\nof the act or that he is doing what is wrong or contrary to law. It is this rule\r\nwhich is the basis of section \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-family:\"Courier New\"\u0027\u003e84\r\nof the P.P.C., which reads:\u0026#8209;\u0026#8209;\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-family:\r\n\"Courier New\"\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-family:\r\n\"Courier New\"\u0027\u003e\u0026quot;Noting is an offence which is done by a person who, at the\r\ntime of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is doing which is either\r\nwrong or contrary to law. \u0026quot;\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-family:\r\n\"Courier New\"\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-family:\r\n\"Courier New\"\u0027\u003eThe section is based on the maxim \u0026quot;furisus furor solum\r\npunitar\u0026quot; \u003c/span\u003ei.e., a mad man is punished by his madness. Although the\r\ndefence of insanity has been recognised in all. societies since ages but in its\r\npresent form, the insanity defence was formulated by the British House of Lords,\r\nwhich is also England\u0027s highest Court, following the case of Danial M\u0027Naghton\r\n[1] who was obsessed by the idea that the British Prime Minister, Sir Robert\r\nPeel, wanted to destroy the liberties of English subjects. As the story goes,\r\nin \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-family:\"Courier New\"\u0027\u003e1829 when Sir Robert was\r\nHome Secretary, with responsibility for security and internal affairs, he\r\nestablished a police force, and during 1830s and 1840s, he used the police to\r\nsuppress public \u003c/span\u003edissent. M\u0027Naghten joined a campaign against Sir Robert.\r\nAs a consequence of these activities, he became convinced that Sir Robert was\r\nspying on and persecuting him. When M\u0027Naghten could no longer stand the\r\npressure of his obsession, he travelled to London and loitered around 10\r\nDowning Street, the British Prime Minister\u0027s Official residence. On Friday,\r\nJanuary \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-family:\"Courier New\"\u0027\u003e20, 1843 he shot into\r\nthe back of Edward Drummond, who was the Prime Minister\u0027s Private Secretary and\r\nwhom he thought was Sir Robert, Edward Drummond died of the gunshot wounds\r\nafter a few days but M\u0027Naghten was acquitted by reason of insanity. The House,\r\nof Lords, however, formulated the now famous M;Naghten rules, which may be,\r\nsummarised as under:\u0026#8209;\u0026#8209;\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-family:\r\n\"Courier New\"\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-family:\r\n\"Courier New\"\u0027\u003e(a) Every man is to be presumed to be sane, and to possess a\r\nsufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his acts, until the contrary\r\nis proved.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(b) To establish a defence of\r\ninsanity, the accused must prove that, at the time, of committing the act, he\r\nwas labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not\r\nto know the nature and quality of the act. he was doing, or if he did know it,\r\nthat he did not know he was doing what was wrong.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cu\u003eThe test of\r\ninsanity/essentials of the defence of insanity.\u003c/u\u003e\u0026#8209;\u0026#8209;In a case\r\nwhere, the accused claims that he committed the alleged offence while he was\r\nsuffering from mental abnormality, he must prove three things:\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(a) \u003cu\u003eDisease of the mind\u003c/u\u003e.\u0026#8209;\u0026#8209;The\r\naccused must prove that he was suffering from a disease of the mind when he did\r\nthe act complained of: The disuse must be of the mind., it need not be of the\r\nbrain. Transitory malfunctioning of mind due to some external . factor such as\r\nviolence, drugs including anaesthetics or alcohol cannot be said to be due to\r\ndisease and does not constitute a disease of mind. However, it is not always\r\neasy to draw a distinction between mental impairment due to disease or without\r\ndisease. In Burgess case wherein the accused contended. that he had been\r\nsleepwalking when he wounded the woman,, the Queen\u0027s Bench Court of appeal held\r\nthat on any view of medical evidence the accused had been suffering from disease\r\nof the mind at the material time and acquitted him.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(b) \u003cu\u003eDefect of reason\u003c/u\u003e.\u0026#8209;\u0026#8209;The\r\naccused must prove that he was suffering from a defect of reason due to disease\r\nof mind. A defect of reason is more than a memory confusion or\r\nabsentmindedness, a deprivation of reasoning power is required. In Clarke v. R,\r\nwherein the accused took the stance that she had no intention to steal but had\r\nacted in a moment of absentmindedness caused by a diabetic depression due to\r\nsugar deficiency, the Court of Appeal while accepting her appeal held that her\r\ndefence was simply one of lack of mens rea and not a defence of insanity, since\r\ntemporary absentmindedness due to disease was not a defect \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-bidi-font-family:\"Courier New\"\u0027\u003eof reason because of the disease.\r\nThe defect of reason meant the deprivation of reasoning power and it did not\r\ncover people who retain their reasoning power but in moments of confusion or\r\nabsent\u0026#8209;mindedness fail to use it fully.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-family:\r\n\"Courier New\"\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-family:\r\n\"Courier New\"\u0027\u003e(c)\u003cu\u003e Ignorance of the nature and quality of act.\u003c/u\u003e\u0026#8209;\u0026#8209;The\r\n\u003c/span\u003eaccused must prove that he did not know\u0026#8209; the nature and qualify of\r\nhis act or, if he did know this, he did not know that he was doing a wrongful\r\nor illegal act, or what was contrary to law. It was held in Sullivan v. R. that\r\nan insane person who was acting in the state of automatism (a kind of\r\nunconscious involuntary action, a situation where an, act is beyond the control\r\nof a person\u0027s mind) would have neither known the nature and quality of his act\r\nnor had control over his action. In the same way, if an insane person squeezes\r\nsomeone\u0027s throat, thinking that he is squeezing an orange, he does not know the\r\nnature and quality of his act, but if he kills a boy, mistakenly believing the\r\nvictim a girl, he knows the nature and quality of his act since his mistake is\r\nnot material.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e3.\u003cu\u003e IRRESISTIBLE IMPULSE:\u003c/u\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eThe test of insanity, based upon\r\nthe M\u0027Naghten rules, may in short, be reduced to the following formula:\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eAs a result of mental illness,\r\nthe accused either\u0026#8209;\u0026#8209;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(a) did not know the nature and\r\nquality of his act, or\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(b) did not know that the act was\r\nwrong.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eIn either case there can be no\r\ncrime. But there have been instances in which the accused contended that,\r\nalthough he knew perfectly well what he was doing and understood fully that\r\nwhat he was doing was wrong, somehow he lost control over his action, i.e. he\r\nlost the power to choose between right and wrong. Some process in his mind\r\ncompelled him to do what he did. Such loss of self\u0026#8209;control has been\r\ncalled an \u0027irresistible impulse. To deal with that kind of a situation some\r\nAmerican Courts in the second half of the 19th century added another component\r\nto the M \u0027Naghten rules: if as a result of mental illness, the accused was\r\nunable to control his action, he must be acquitted. But irresistible impulse\r\nwhich leads to acquittal is such an impulse which remained irresistible despite\r\nhaving been resisted, Thus if the impulse was irresistible the accused is\r\nentitled to acquittal if he resisted it because neither the act remained his\r\nown nor a voluntary one. Contrary to this if the impulse was resistible, the\r\nfact that it proceeded from a disease is no excuse at all. Likewise, if the\r\nimpulse was irresistible but the accused also did not resist it which if\r\nresisted might have been resisted, no exculpation may be granted to the\r\naccused. For example:\u0026#8209;\u0026#8209;If a man\u0027s nerves were so irritated by a\r\nbaby\u0027s crying that he immediately killed, his act would be murder. A similar\r\ndecision was also made by the Bombay High Court where the accused was suffering\r\nfrom high fever and, annoyed by their crying, killed his children. It would also\r\nbe not less than murder if the same irritation and the corresponding desire\r\nwere produced by some internal disease. The great object of criminal law is to\r\ninduce people to control their impulses and there is no reason why they should\r\nnot control insane as well as sane impulses, if they can do so.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cu\u003eThe test of the defence of\r\nirresistible impulse.\u003c/u\u003e\u0026#8209;\u0026#8209;The proof that an impulse was\r\nirresistible or not depends upon the circumstances of each particular case. The\r\nmost common cases are those of women who without motive or concealment kill\r\ntheir children after recovery from child\u0026#8209;bed. In this connection\r\nreference may be made to the case of Wazir v. R.[2], where the accused was\r\nshowing some abnormality of conduct ever since the shock of his wife\u0027s death as\r\na result of delivery of a child. He got up in the night and killed his two\r\nchildren which were no burden on him. Such conduct of the accused could only be\r\nexplained by the hypothesis that he had gone mad and was not conscious of his\r\ncrime of killing his children. In Hayes\u0027s case [3], the test for irresistible\r\nimpulse has been laid down by Bramwell, J., in his advice to the jury in the\r\nfollowing words:\u0026#8209;\u0026#8209;\u0026quot;It has been urged that you should acquit\r\nthe prisoner on the ground that, it being impossible to assign any reason for\r\nthe perpetration of the offence, he must have been acting under what is called\r\na powerful\u0027 and irresistible influence, or homicidal tendency, but the\r\ncircumstances of an act being apparently motiveless, is not a ground from which\r\nyou can safely infer the existence of such an influence. Motives exist unknown\r\nand innumerable, which might prompt the act. A morbid and restless, but\r\nresistible, thirst for blood would itself be a motive urging to such a deed for\r\nits own belief. But if an influence be so powerful as to be termed\r\nirresistible, so much the more reason is there why we should not withdraw any\r\nof the safeguards tending to counteract it. There are three powerful restraints\r\nexisting, all tending to the assistance of the person who is suffering under such\r\nan influence, the restraint of religion, the restraint of conscience and the\r\nrestraint of law. But if the influence itself be held a legal excuse, rendering\r\nthe crime dispunishable, you at once withdraw a most powerful restraint the\r\nforbidding and punishing its perpetration. We must return, therefore, to the\r\nsimple question you have to determine: \u003cu\u003edid the prisoner know the nature of\r\nthe act he was doing, and did he know that he was doing what was wrong\u0026quot;.\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eIt may also be mentioned that\r\nother forms of impulsive insanity like morbid mania, Kleptomania, and\r\nErotomania are only recognised by medico legal writers. The criminal laws of\r\nU.S.A., England and Pakistan also do not recognise any of these manias as a\r\nlegal defence. However, in State v. Arshad Javaid [4] where the accused was\r\nsentenced to death for an offence under section 295\u0026#8209;C of the P.P.C., Mr.\r\nJustice Tassaduq Hussain Jilani of the Lahore High Court recognised the mania\r\nand hypomania (a State where a person has feelings of elation, euphoria,\r\ngrandiosity relating himself to God, pressure of. speech, increased energy) as\r\na defence and acquitted the accused, as he did not know the nature and quality\r\nof his act and that he was doing a wrongful act. Other notable cases in the\r\nlegal history of Pakistan, wherein Courts at the apex recognised and laid down\r\ncertain criteria for the recognition of the defence of mental abnormality are:\u0026#8209;\u0026#8209;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003ctable border=1 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 style=\u0027border-collapse:collapse;\r\n border:none;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt\u0027\u003e\r\n \u003ctr\u003e\r\n  \u003ctd width=207 valign=top style=\u0027width:155.0pt;border:solid windowtext .5pt;\r\n  padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt\u0027\u003e\r\n  \u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(a) Lal Khan v. Crown\u003c/p\u003e\r\n  \u003c/td\u003e\r\n  \u003ctd width=192 valign=top style=\u0027width:2.0in;border:solid windowtext .5pt;\r\n  border-left:none;mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt\u0027\u003e\r\n  \u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003ePLD 1952 Lah. 502.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n  \u003c/td\u003e\r\n \u003c/tr\u003e\r\n \u003ctr\u003e\r\n  \u003ctd width=207 valign=top style=\u0027width:155.0pt;border:solid windowtext .5pt;\r\n  border-top:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt\u0027\u003e\r\n  \u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(b) Yousaf v. Crown\u003c/p\u003e\r\n  \u003c/td\u003e\r\n  \u003ctd width=192 valign=top style=\u0027width:2.0in;border-top:none;border-left:none;\r\n  border-bottom:solid windowtext .5pt;border-right:solid windowtext .5pt;\r\n  mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;\r\n  padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt\u0027\u003e\r\n  \u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003ePLD 1953 Lah. 213\u003c/p\u003e\r\n  \u003c/td\u003e\r\n \u003c/tr\u003e\r\n \u003ctr\u003e\r\n  \u003ctd width=207 valign=top style=\u0027width:155.0pt;border:solid windowtext .5pt;\r\n  border-top:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt\u0027\u003e\r\n  \u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(c) Muhammad Shafee v. State\u003c/p\u003e\r\n  \u003c/td\u003e\r\n  \u003ctd width=192 valign=top style=\u0027width:2.0in;border-top:none;border-left:none;\r\n  border-bottom:solid windowtext .5pt;border-right:solid windowtext .5pt;\r\n  mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;\r\n  padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt\u0027\u003e\r\n  \u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003ePLD 1962 SC 472\u003c/p\u003e\r\n  \u003c/td\u003e\r\n \u003c/tr\u003e\r\n\u003c/table\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eThe criminal laws of Pakistan and\r\nEngland even do not recognise irresistible impulse as a valid defence, as has\r\nbeen held in Bazlur Rehman v. Emperor[5], R v. Holt[6] and R v. Kopsch[7]. The Courts\r\nrejected the defence of uncontrollable or irresistible impulse, and refused to\r\nextend the test of insanity as laid down in M Naghten\u0027s case so as to include\r\nuncontrollable impulse, because of the difficulty in distinguishing between an\r\nimpulse which proves irresistible because of insanity and one which\u0026#8209; is\r\nirresistible because of motives of greed, jealousy or revenge. It is apparently\r\nimpossible to distinguish between an uncontrollable impulse and an uncontrolled\r\none.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e4. \u003cu\u003eDIMINISHED\r\nRESPONSIBILITY:\u003c/u\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eAlthough the English Law does not\r\nrecognise \u0027irresistible impulse\u0027 as a complete defence, and M\u0027Naghten Rules are\r\nstill unaltered, it has incorporated a partial defence of \u0027diminished\r\nresponsibility\u0027. The concept of diminished responsibility has been adopted from\r\nScots Law and introduced into English Law by section 2(l) of the Homicide Act,\r\n1957 which provides:\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u0026quot;Where a person kills or is\r\na party to the killing of another, he shall not be convicted of murder if he\r\nwas suffering from such abnormality of mind and substantially impaired his\r\nmental responsibility for his acts and omissions in\u0026#8209;doing or being a\r\nparty to the killing.\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eAccording to this section, the\r\naccused \u0027may rely on the defence although he knew that he was doing a wrongful\r\nact. The fact that the killing was pre\u0026#8209;meditated does not destroy a plea\r\nof diminished responsibility. Also it is the accused on whose shoulders the\r\nburden of proving the defence lies. However, there is one exception to this\r\nrule. Section 6 of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act, 1964, provides that\r\nwhere, at a murder trial, the accused contends that he was insane under\r\nM\u0027Naghten Rules, the prosecution may adduce or elicit evidence that the accused\r\nwas suffering from diminished responsibility.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cu\u003eProof of diminished\r\nresponsibility:\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eThere are three ingredients of\r\nthe defence of diminished responsibility, which ought to be proved, to claim\r\nthe defence:\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(a) The accused was suffering\r\nfrom \u0027abnormality of mind\u0027. In the famous English case, R v. Byrne[8.], Lord\r\nParker, C.J. said \u0026quot;Abnormality of mind\u0026quot; which has been contrasted\r\nwith the M\u0027 Naghten rule \u0026quot;Defect of reason\u0026quot;. means a state of mind so\r\ndifferent from that of ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would term\r\nit abnormal. It (abnormality of mind) appears to us to be wide enough to cover\r\nall aspects of mind\u0027s activities in all its aspects, not only the perception of\r\nphysical acts and matters and the ability to form a rational judgment whether\r\nan act is right or wrong, but also the ability to exercise will power to control\r\nphysical acts in accordance with that rational judgment\u0026quot;. In view of the\r\nabove definition of abnormality of mind, \u0027seriously impaired self\u0026#8209;control\u0027\r\nthough not relevant to the defence of insanity under M\u0027Naghten Rules, is highly\r\nrelevant to the question whether the accused was suffering from diminished\r\nresponsibility.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(b) The abnormality of mind must\r\nresult from one of the causes, like arrested or retarded development of mind or\r\nany inherent cause or induced by disease or injury. Abnormality of mind due to\r\nhate, jealously, greed, revenge or intoxication is outside the scope of this\r\ndefence.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(c) The abnormality of mind must\r\nhave substantially impaired the responsibility of the accused\u0027s mind for his\r\nacts and omission in doing or being a party to the killing.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eThe defence of diminished\r\nresponsibility, however, is distinguished from insanity defence. Insanity is a\r\ncomplete defence in most of the cases and may lead to acquittal; whereas,\r\ndiminished responsibility is a mitigating factor and that too in murder cases\r\nwhere the liability may be reduced from murder to manslaughter.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cu\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cu\u003e5. MENTAL ABNORMALITY VIS\u0026#8209;A\u0026#8209;VIS\r\nCRIMINAL LIABILITY OF AN ACCUSED.\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eIn view of .the above, we may\r\nappreciate well that insanity, irresistible impulse and diminished\r\nresponsibility may incur no criminal responsibility on an accused person. But\r\nthis is not true in all the societies and under all the circumstances. In\r\nPakistan, the accused is exempted from any criminal liability under section 84\r\nof the P.P.C. The accused is protected under the section ibid not only when,\r\non, account of insanity, he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act, but\r\nalso when he did not know either that the act was wrong or that it was contrary\r\nto law. However, the section limits non\u0026#8209;liability of the accused on the\r\nground of insanity only in those cases in which the insanity affects only the\r\ncognitive faculties. The cases in which insanity affects only emotions and the\r\nwill which subjects the offender to impulses (resistible or irresistible) while\r\nleaving the cognitive faculties unimpaired has been left outside its scope. The\r\nsection does not apply merely because the accused\u0027s mind is partially deranged\r\nor that he is not enjoying good health and being short tempered and emotional,\r\ngets upset over petty matters. The plea of diminished responsibility, as\r\nrecognised in England under the Homicide Act, 1957, is not available in\r\nPakistan. That is why Manzoor Hussain Sial, J., in Abdul Haque v. State [9] had\r\nheld that the concept of diminished liability in respect of offences relating\r\nto human body committed under grave and sudden provocation (a situation where a\r\nperson is likely to lose self\u0026#8209;control and becomes unaware of his acts in\r\ncertain cases) as such, in his view had not been recognized under section 300\r\nof the P.P.C. (as amended by Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1997), as it contained\r\nno exception. However, the majority held that the plea of grave and sudden\r\nprovocation on account of abusive language can be treated as mitigating \u0026#8209;factor\r\nin awarding sentence under Tazir even if this plea is not available (in the\r\namended law, as it now exists. Notwithstanding the omission to incorporate\r\nabove Exception I of the repealed section 300 in the amended section 300 of the\r\nP.P.C., grave and sudden provocation remains a relevant factor for deciding the\r\nquestion of sentence under clause (b) of section 302 of the P.P.C. but it has\r\nno relevance under clause (a) thereof. Similarly, in Federation of Pakistan v.\r\nGul Hasan[10], it was held that, in Qatl\u0026#8209;i\u0026#8209;Amd, Qisas will not be\r\nimposed in the cases when husband sees his wife in the act of Zina with another\r\nperson and kills him, Zina being an offence the punishment for.which even\r\notherwise under Islam is death by stoning.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eContrary to the law in Pakistan,\r\nthe laws in U.S.A. and England are more flexible. The laws of these countries\r\nthrough M Naghten Rules extend no criminal liability towards the accused\r\nprovided he pleads total insanity or complete mental abnormality. The law in\r\nU.S.A. also protects the accused if he takes the defence of irresistible\r\nimpulse. The Court, in Wazir v. R, accepted the defence of irresistible\r\nimpulse. The accused, in this case, was showing abnormality of conduct ever\r\nsince the death of his wife as a result of delivery of a child and murdered his\r\ntwo children. But the defence of \u0027irresistible impulse\u0027 was not accepted in\r\nBazlur Rehman v. Emperor [11] by the English Court. In England, however,\r\npartial defence of irresistible impulse in the form of diminished\r\nresponsibility is available to an accused, under section 2(1) of the Homicide\r\nAct, 1957. But non\u0026#8209;liability of the accused under the said Homicide Act\r\nonly extends to the cases of murder, and diminished responsibility is taken as\r\na mitigating factor only. The accused, thus, may be guilty of manslaughter\r\ninstead of murder.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eThe criminal law of Islam also\r\nattaches no criminal liability on an insane person since his act is not\r\nvoluntary. It is, however, left on the discretion of the Court to award Tazir\r\nif the circumstances so require or permit. The provisions of Islamic laws, as\r\napplicable to Pakistan, and Chapter. XVI (sections 299 to 338) of the P.P.C. as\r\namended vide Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1997 provide that no \u0027Hadd\u0027 or \u0027Qisas\u0027\r\nshall be enforced if the accused is an insane person. For example: section 306 of\r\nthe P.P.C provides that no Qatl\u0026#8209;i\u0026#8209;Amd shall be liable to Qisas if\r\nthe offender is insane. Section 337\u0026#8209;M reads, inter alia, that hurt shall\r\nnot be liable to Qisas if the offender is insane. Section 5 of Offence of Zina\r\nOrdinance, 1979 also lays down that Zina shall only be liable to Hadd if\r\ncommitted by person who, inter alia, is not insane. The provisions of the\r\nIslamic Laws, as applicable to Pakistan, though not specifically mentioned\r\ntherein, indicate that the defence of irresistible impulse or diminished\r\nresponsibility is acceptable as a mitigating factor. For example: under section\r\n10(g) of Offences Against Property Ordinance, 1979, \u0027Hadd\u0027 may not be imposed\r\nwhen the offender committed theft under \u0027Iztirar\u0027 i.e., a situation in which a\r\nperson is in apprehension of death due to extreme hunger or thirst; and has no\r\nchoice except to resort to theft. Again, according to section 5 of the Offence\r\nof Zina Ordinance, 1979 punishment for the Offence of Zina if committed by\r\n\u0027Muhsan\u0027 is stoning to death; whereas if the offence is committed by a person\r\nwho is \u0027not Muhsan\u0027, i.e., inter alia is not married, or is insane, is one\r\nhundred stripes. This mitigation in sentence for a person who is not Muhsan\r\nappears to be justified due to the fact that an unmarried (and even an insane)\r\nperson is less likely to resist the temptation of satisfying his or her sexual\r\nlust as compared to a married person who had all the facilities permissible\r\nunder the Islamic Law to satisfy his/her sexual urge with his/her spouse.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e6\u003cu\u003e. CONCLUSION\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eTo conclude with, mental\r\nabnormality affects criminal liability of an accused person with varying\r\ndegrees depending upon the nature and severity of mental abnormality. Total\r\nmental abnormality or insanity is no doubt recognised as a valid defence in\r\nalmost all the societies in their respective legal systems; but the defence of\r\nirresistible impulse or diminished responsibility, though recognised as a\r\npartial defence and a mitigating factor, is undergoing a transitional stage and\r\nreduces the culpability and criminal liability of an accused person to some\r\nextent. It is also an admitted fact that the defence of the three kinds of\r\nmental abnormality as discussed in preceding paragraphs is very rare but is\r\nbeing raised by the defence counsel and applied by the Courts.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.5in\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cu\u003eNOTES AND REFERENCES\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cu\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003ch1 style=\u0027margin-right:0in\u0027\u003eNOTES\u003c/h1\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e[1]\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:\r\n1\u0027\u003e        \u003c/span\u003eM\u0027Naghten\u0027s Case (1843) 8 ER 718\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e[2]\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:\r\n1\u0027\u003e        \u003c/span\u003eWazir v. R. (1948) 23 Lucknow 141\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e[3]\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:\r\n1\u0027\u003e        \u003c/span\u003eHayes\u0027s Case I. F. \u0026amp; F 666,\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e[4]\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:\r\n1\u0027\u003e        \u003c/span\u003eState v. Arshad Javaid 1995 MLD 667\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e[5]\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:\r\n1\u0027\u003e        \u003c/span\u003eBazlur\u0026#8209;Rehman v. Emperor AIR 1929 Cal. 1.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e[6]\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:\r\n1\u0027\u003e        \u003c/span\u003eR v. Bayme (1960) 3 All ERI.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e[7]\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:\r\n1\u0027\u003e        \u003c/span\u003eR v. Kopsch (1925) 19 Cr.APP. Rep. 50.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e[8]\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:\r\n1\u0027\u003e        \u003c/span\u003e6 ibid\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e[9]\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:\r\n1\u0027\u003e        \u003c/span\u003ePLD 1996 SC 1 (40).\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e[10]\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:\r\n1\u0027\u003e      \u003c/span\u003ePLD 1989 SC 633.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e[11]\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:\r\n1\u0027\u003e      \u003c/span\u003e5 ibid\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cu\u003eREFERENCES:\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(1)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:\r\n1\u0027\u003e        \u003c/span\u003eAhmad Siddqui, Criminology, 1983\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(2)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:\r\n1\u0027\u003e        \u003c/span\u003eFreda Adler, Criminology, 1995\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(3)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:\r\n1\u0027\u003e        \u003c/span\u003eH. Jenner Wily and KR.S. Tall Worthy, Mental Abnormality and\r\nthe Law, 1962\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(4)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:\r\n1\u0027\u003e        \u003c/span\u003eJoseph F.Sheley, Exploring Crime, 1984,\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(5)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:\r\n1\u0027\u003e        \u003c/span\u003eRatan Lal and Bhirajlal, The Law of Crimes, 1966.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(6)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:\r\n1\u0027\u003e        \u003c/span\u003eDr. S. Siddiq Husain: A Synopsis of Medical Jurisprudence,\r\n1967,\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(7)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:\r\n1\u0027\u003e        \u003c/span\u003eSue Titus Reid, Crime and Criminology, 1982\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(8)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:\r\n1\u0027\u003e        \u003c/span\u003eTaylor: Medical Jurisprudence\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.5in\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.5in\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.5in\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.5in\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.5in\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.5in\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.5in\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.5in\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.5in\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.5in\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.5in\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.5in\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.5in\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c/body\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c/html\u003e\r\n"