ABDUL GHAFFAR vs The STATE
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his conviction for murder. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, Abdul Ghaffar, murdered Muhammad Abdullah, a Munshi at the Foodgrain Mandi, Okara, after the deceased refused to pay a demanded 'Jagga tax'. The petitioner was the sole accused in the case. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner's counsel raised the sole contention of insanity as a defense. The core legal question before the Court was whether the plea of insanity, having been adjudicated upon by the lower courts, could be re-examined at the stage of a petition for leave to appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the plea of insanity constitutes a question of fact. Consequently, the Court affirmed that it would not reconsider findings of fact determined by the lower courts at the leave to appeal stage. The petition was dismissed as being devoid of merit.
- Can the Supreme Court reconsider a plea of insanity during a petition for leave to appeal when it involves a question of fact?
- Is the plea of insanity considered a question of fact in criminal proceedings?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--Abdul Ghaffar petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 22-4-1985, dismissing his appeal in a case under section 302, P.P.C.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner demanded Jagga tax from Muhammad Abdullah (deceased), who was a Munshi in the Foodgrain Mandi, Okara. The deceased refused to pay. The accused-petitioner stabbed the deceased twice and killed him. It may be stated that he is the solitary accused in the case.
3. The only plea pressed by the petitioner's counsel before us is that of insanity. That is a question of fact and cannot be reconsidered by this Court at this stage. The petition is, therefore, dismissed as having no merits.