Case Details

Citation(s)
2011 SLG 6535 2011 SLD 6535 2011 PCRLJ 925
Peshawar High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 77 and Criminal Revision No. 29 of 2007, decided on 9th February, 2011.Date of hearing: 9th February, 2011.
Before Miftah-ud-Din Khan and Mian Fasih-ul-Mulk, JJ
Fazal-e-Haq Abbasi for Appellant. M.A. Tahirkheli for the Complainant. Miss Mehrin Nasar for the State.

MUHAMMAD IDREES---Appellant

VS

THE STATE and 2 others---Respondents

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302(b),84

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 84---Qatl-e-amd and act of a person of unsound mind---Appreciation of evidence---Accused was proved to be a known patient of "schizophrenia"; he remained violent, aggressive and disturbed in behaviour; and the Jail authorities were constantly advised by various Psychiatrists to keep him alone in the ward and due to serious medical ailment and unsoundness of his mind, trial proceedings remained suspended for sufficient long time---Accused, in view of such precarious condition could hardly know the nature of alleged act---No evidence was available on record to show that at the time of occurrence, accused was able to understand and distinguish between right and wrong---Accused, in circumstances, was entitled to the concession of S.84, P.P.C.---Incident was a case of sudden occurrence---Lodger of F.I.R. was not the eye-witness-F.I.R. did not mention the name of any witness---Possibility could not be ruled out that in order to save the skin of Jail Staff, it was an afterthought to make an eye-witness---Medical evidence did not corroborate the statement of prosecution witness who was warden of jail---Pieces of Pitcher with which accused allegedly killed the deceased, though allegedly recovered, but not sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination and expert opinion---Accused at the time of occurrence being suffering from serious Psychiatric illness, was declared unpredictable and dangerous by the Standing Medical Boards constituted from time to time---Accused due to such precarious condition was incapable of knowing the nature of the act; or that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law---Such particular degree of insanity, brought the case within exception---Even on merits, no tangible or confidence inspiring evidence leading to the guilt and conviction of accused, was produced by the prosecution---Prosecution having not been able -to prove its case against accused, accused deserved acquittal by extending him benefit of doubt---Impugned conviction and sentence of accused was set aside and he was set free, in circumstances. State v. Balahari Das PLD 1962 Dacca 467 ref. (b) Penal Code (XLV of…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492