JALAL DIN vs The STATE
This petition arises from the conviction of the petitioner Jalal Din under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of one Yusuf, alongside convictions under sections 307, 326, and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns whether the lower courts were justified in rejecting the accused's plea of insanity based on his medical history as a chronic patient of schizophrenia. The Supreme Court held that under section 84 of the Pakistan Penal Code, the crucial point of time for establishing unsoundness of mind is when the offence is committed, and the burden of proof rests on the accused, which the petitioner failed to discharge. The Court reasoned that the petitioner targeted specific individuals he considered enemies, indicating premeditation rather than a crime committed during a sudden fit of insanity. The petition was accordingly dismissed, with an observation that the State should provide medical treatment for schizophrenia during imprisonment.
- At what point in time must unsoundness of mind be established under section 84 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Upon whom lies the burden of proving that an accused is entitled to the exemption of insanity?
- Does targeting specific perceived enemies during an attack negate a plea of insanity based on schizophrenia?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 326, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 84, Pakistan Penal Code
1. FAZLE-AKBAR, J.-The petitioner Jalal Din stands convicted under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to transportation for life for the murder of one Yusuf. He has also been convicted under sections 307, 326 and 324, P. P. C. And sentenced to various terms of rigorous imprisonment.
2. The fact that he committed the murder and also injured various persons has not been challenged before us.
3. The learned counsel has, however, contended that the Courts below were not justified in rejecting the plea of insanity of the accused. No doubt, the evidence of the Doctor shows that the accused was a chronic patient of schizophrenia and that he was subject to occasional fits of insanity. Under section 84, P. P. C. The crucial point of time at which unsoundness of mind should be established is the time when the ac constituting the offence is committed and the burden of proving that the accused is entitled to the benefit of this exemption is upon him.
4. The accused has, however, failed to prove that at the time when he committed the offence he was incapable of knowing that what he was Join e was either wrong or contrary to law. On the other hand from the facts, evidence and circumstances of the case it appears that the attack was directed against those who were considered as his enemies. The fact that he selected his victim from those against whom he bore ill-will establishes that it was a crime not committed in a sudden fit of insanity but one that exhibited pre-meditation. The Courts below have therefore, rightly rejected the plea of self-defence.
5. It is proper to add that the State will take steps to have the accused treated in a Mental Hospital if and when he gets attack of schizophrenia, during his imprisonment.
6. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
Cited by 3 cases
- Syed ZIAUL HASAN alias THAH PEER vs THE STATE 1998 SCMR 1582
- ABDUS SHAKOOR vs THE STATE- 1987 P Cr. L J 785
- DAD vs The STATE 1982 PLD Karachi 360