Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section:

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----   -----S. 465-Trial of lunatic-- Procedure-Provisions mandatory-Omission to decide preliminary issue vitiates whole trial-Medical Officer examined as witness by CourtCross-examination to be allowed - Sessions Judge failing to record finding on question of unsoundness of mind and incapacity to make defence-Re-trial ordered.    ORDER   F. H. SHAH, C. J.-Abdur Rehman was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Mirpur of an offence under section 302, A. P. C. by his order dated 1-9-62 and sentenced to life imprisonment. He has appealed against his conviction and sentence.   The learned counsel for the appellant has argued the appeal on merits and we have also heard the learned Government Advocate in reply. One of the grounds taken up by the learned counsel for the appellant has been agitating our mind throughout and we feel that it is necessary to decide this point first before we revert to the evidence and decide the question of the guilt o; otherwise of the appellant.   The learned counsel for the appellant put in an application before the learned. Sessions Judge on 13-6-62, alleging that the accused was of unsound mind and incapable of understanding the nature of the accusation against him and making his defence.   It was prayed in the application that he should be got medically examined before commencing with the trial.   The learned Sessions Judge passed an order on this appli cation directing the District Medical Officer Mirpur to keep the accused under observation for some days and to report back whether he was of unsound mind or not. In the meanwhile, the trial was adjourned to 18-6-1962 for the report of the D. M. O. and for recording his evidence. The order dated 18-6-62 records that the D. M. O. had asked for more time for the observation of the accused. The D. M. O. was given one more week for observation and report and the Doctor was directed to appear in the Court on 26-6-62 for recording of his statement. The prosecution witnesses were present and they were directed appear on the adjourned date. The order of the Court dated 26-6-62 records that the D. M. O. had showed his…