| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2017 SLG 493 2017 SLD 493 2017 PCRLJ 255 |
Supreme Court (AJ&K)
Criminal Appeals Nos. 8 and 12 of 2011, decided on 6thApril, 2015. Date of hearing: 18th March, 2015.
CH. MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM ZIA, JUSTICE
Raja Niaz Ahmed Khan, Advocate for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2011).Mehmood Hussain Chaudhary, Additional Advocate-General for the State (in Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2011).Khalid Rasheed Chaudhary, Advocate for Appellants (in Criminal Appe
Criminal Appeals Nos. 8 and 12 of 2011, decided on 6thApril, 2015. Date of hearing: 18th March, 2015.
CH. MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM ZIA, JUSTICE
Raja Niaz Ahmed Khan, Advocate for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2011).Mehmood Hussain Chaudhary, Additional Advocate-General for the State (in Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2011).Khalid Rasheed Chaudhary, Advocate for Appellants (in Criminal Appe
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 8 OF 2011NASIR MEHMOOD --AppellantVSTHE STATE--RespondentCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 12 OF 2011MOHAMMAD ZAHIR KHAN AND 2 OTHERS --AppellantSVSNASIR MAHMOOD KHAN AND ANOTHER --RespondentS
Law:
Section:
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 465---Unsoundness of mind and incapability of accused to defend his case---Determination---Court of Session and the High Court were vested with power to determine the fact of unsoundness of mind and incapability of accused to defend his case---If from record or attending circumstances, it would appear to the court that accused, who was brought before the court was of unsound mind and incapable of making his defence; then it was incumbent upon the court to adopt the procedure laid down in law and conduct an enquiry into the unsoundness of mind of accused---Provisions of S.465, Cr.P.C., were mandatory in nature; omission to observe the provisions thereof, would vitiate the conclusion and the result reached thereon---Possibility could not be ruled out where accused could feign to be insane---Section 465, Cr.P.C., conferred the power upon the court for determining the fact that accused was of unsound mind---Question of unsoundness of mind of accused, was to be decided by the court from the attending circumstances, attitude, behaviour of accused, on the medical record, if any; if from the attending circumstances accused appeared to the court to be of unsound mind and consequently incapable of making his defence, the court in the first instance, would try such fact of unsoundness of mind and incapability to defend the case and after determination of such fact would proceed in the matter. Jawad Ayub's case 2011 SCR 263; Shakeel-ur-Rehman v. the State PLD 1982 Sh.C. (AJ&K) 104; Said Rasool v. Muhammad Fazil and another 1990 PCr.LJ 210; Sirajuddin v. Afzal Khan and another PLD 1997 SC 847 and Shivaswamy v. The State of Mysore AIR 1971 SC 1638 ref. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 465---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 337-F(ii)---Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S. 13---Azad Jammu and Kashmir Islamic Penal Laws (Enforcement) Act (IX of 1974), Ss.25 & 30---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, causing badiah, possessing unlicensed arms---Appreciation of evidence---Unsoundness of accused, determination of---Father of accused filed application that his son/accused being unsound mind,…