| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 4025 = 2026 SLD 4025 = 2026 PLD 204 |
Islamabad High Court
Criminal Appeal No.264 of 2025
Presented By: (INAAM AMEEN MINHAS) JUDGE
Appellant by: M/s Zubair Shah and Haroon Inayat, Advocates.
Respondents/State by: Ms. Asma, SPP along with Ghous, S.I. Date of Hearing: 05.03.2026.
Criminal Appeal No.264 of 2025
Presented By: (INAAM AMEEN MINHAS) JUDGE
Appellant by: M/s Zubair Shah and Haroon Inayat, Advocates.
Respondents/State by: Ms. Asma, SPP along with Ghous, S.I. Date of Hearing: 05.03.2026.
Ali Khan
VS
. The State and others
Law: Pakistan Penal Code (PPC),1860
Section: 302(b)
Law: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
Section: 342, 340(2), 544-A, 464–468
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 10-A
Case Summary Tagline Where an accused raises a plea of unsoundness of mind, the Trial Court is under a mandatory duty to conduct an inquiry under Sections 464–465 Cr.P.C. before proceeding with the trial; failure to do so vitiates the conviction. Brief Facts The appellant was convicted under Section 302(b) PPC and sentenced to life imprisonment for murdering Ibrahim Khan by firing two shots. According to the prosecution, the incident occurred after the deceased confronted the appellant for assaulting his wife, Saba Gul. During trial, the appellant denied the allegations. In defence, he produced medical records (2006–2018) showing treatment for mental illness and examined his brother, who testified that the appellant had been suffering from unsoundness of mind for many years. Issues Whether the Trial Court was required to hold an inquiry regarding the appellant's mental condition after the plea of unsoundness of mind was raised. Whether the Trial Court could rely upon the plea of mental illness only for reducing the sentence without determining the appellant's competency to stand trial. Held The High Court held that once a plea of lunacy/unsoundness of mind is brought before the Court, Sections 464 and 465 Cr.P.C. make it mandatory for the Trial Court to inquire into the accused's mental capacity to stand trial. The Trial Court committed a serious legal error by: proceeding with the trial without conducting the statutory inquiry; failing to obtain proper medical evidence regarding the appellant's mental condition; and treating the plea merely as a mitigating circumstance while awarding sentence. Competency to stand trial and criminal responsibility are two separate legal questions. The Trial Court's approach violated the appellant's right to a fair trial. ORDER; INAAM AMEEN MINHAS, J.- This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29.05.2025 ("Impugned Judgment"), passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV (East), Islamabad ("Trial Court"), whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced u/s 302(b) PPC to life imprisonment (R.I) in case FIR No.46/24, dated 20.02.2024, registered u/s 302 PPC,…
Login required to view the attachment.