JAMSHAID BEG Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL

ORDER

1. JAVID IQBAL, J. ‑‑This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by Jamshaid Beg petitioner‑complainant in the following circumstances:

2. Muhammad Iqbal respondent was tried for offences under section 302/307, P.P.C. for the murder of his wife Mst.Kaneez Fatima and murderous assault on his father‑in‑law Safdar Ali P.W.10, and vide judgment dated 18th April, 1982 of the trial Court he was convicted under section 302, P.P.C. and sentenced to death. He was also convicted under section 307, P.P.C. and sentenced to ten years R.I. plus fine. On appeal the Lahore High Court, Lahore set aside his convictions and sentences on the ground of insanity and directed that the respondent be detained in mental hospital under section 471 Cr.P.C.

3. The occurrence took place at 12‑30 noon on 26th June, 1977 in village Verina District Gujrat. The present petitioner who is uncle of the deceased lodged F . I . R. on the same day after a few hours. The respondent was also arrested on the very same day. The eye witnesses are the present petitioner, Mst.Rashida Bibi P.W.7 mother of the deceased and Safdar Ali injured P.W.10 father of the deceased. Safdar Ali P.W. had 12 injuries on his person out of which four were grievous caused with firearm. From the spot Danda and crime empty were recovered and a .12 bore gun belonging to the respondent alongwith five live cartridges were also taken into possession. According to the prosecution the motive was that the respondent suspected the deceased and her father for having cast some charms (Toona Ta'aveez) and that he was under the influence of the same. For that reason he murdered his wife and caused injuries to his father‑in‑law. The prosecution case is that he had been married to the deceased for the past 8/9 years and always used to beat her. On the day of occurrence he again was beating the deceased in the room after having closed the door from inside although the windows were open. The eye‑witnesses were in the courtyard. They saw the respondent giving Danda blows to the deceased on different parts of her body. On their raising alarm the respondent took out his .12 bore gun and fired a shot at Safdar Ali PW hitting him at his hands and face as he was calling for his daughter in order to rescue her. The deceased died on the spot. The witnesses bolted the door from outside and the matter was reported to the police. According to the medical evidence the deceased had injuries caused with blunt weapon on her head, face, neck and chest. The head injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Safdar Ali P.W. had fire‑arm injuries, 12 in number of his person. The evidence on the record revealed that the respondent was employed in the army but was discharged on account of insanity. He was also subsequently discharged from private employment because of the same reason. He had remained under treatment for insanity in the hospital even before, during the days of occurrence and also after the occurrence. Two defence witnesses appeared in support of the mental ailment of the respondent namely Lt.‑Col. Muhammad Younis Khan, Associate Professor in CM.H and graded as Specialist Psyshiartist in 1976. He had examined the respondent on 25th March, 1976 and had found him suffering from Schizophrenia. He was under his treatment till 12th June, 1976. He deposed that there was improvement but thereafter there was a relapse recorded by him on 12th June, 1976. Then Major Syed Qamar Shah Specialist Phychiartist was also produced. The respondent was under his treatment during the days of the occurrence and had been asked to receive electric conversive treatment therapy on alternate days. He was given this treatment on 25th June, 1977 i.e. a day before the occurrence. Relying on the testimony of the experts the appellate Court basing its decision on the principle laid down in Abdullah v. State 1972 P Cr. L J 1041 arrived at the conclusion that there was a preponderance of probabilities that at J the time of occurrence the respondent had acted under a fit of insanity and he was not in full control of his senses. Learned counsel attempted to argue before us that the appellate Court had not considered as to whether the respondent had really been successful in discharging the onus on him of insanity as contemplated by section 84, P.P.C. We have carefully considered the arguments of the learned counsel and perused the record in the light of the same. In our considered view the appellate Court had correctly applied the principle laid down in Abdullah v. State. In that view of the matter it is not a fit case for interference. The result is that this petition is dismissed.

4. M.I./J‑21/S Petition dismissed.