1985 PLP 600 (MLD)

Muhammad Akbar is the recovery witness. He took Muhammad Sharif Chaukidar along and accompanied Boota to his house. The dead body of Allah Rakha was lying on a cot. Riaz Ahmad and others were present near the dead body. He accompanied Riaz Ahmad to the Police Post, Jia Bagga. From there, Riaz Ahmad went to Police Station, Kahna. The witness accompanied the Investigating Officer. In his presence, blood-stained earth was taken into possession and the accused led to the recovery of blood-stained Toka as well. Muhammad Siddiq deposed about the motive. He is also witness for the recovery of blood-stained cot from the spot. On 11-2-1979, at 1-00 p.m. Dr. Ijaz Ahmad Bhatti, Medical Officer, in the office of Police Surgeon, punjab, Lahore, conducted autopsy of the deceased and noticed ten incised wounds of different dimensions caused with sharp-edged weapon. In the opinion of the doctor, injury No.l individually was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature while injuries Nos. 3 to 7 also contributed towards the causation of death collectively.

7. Ghulam Mustafa was examined by the trial Court. He denied the allegations. He said that he did not know anything about the occurrence. He came to know of it when he was arrested. He further denied that he ever absconded, nor was aware that he was ever declared proclaimed offender. He denied the recovery of Toka. He said that it was planted by the police, and the same did not belong to him. He said that lie had been involved due to some misunderstanding. In defence he produced Dr. Ejaz Haider, Incharge Unit 'B', Mental Hospital, Lahore. The doctor did M.B,B.S. from the University of tire Punjab, M.R.C.P. and D.P.M. from London and P.H.D. from Eden. In the year 1971, he was working as a Specialist in the Mental Hospital. He knew the appellant. He was admitted in the hospital on 1d-4-1980. He was referred by the District Magistrate, Vehari. The appellant was discharged on 2-6-1980. The Doctor brought the history of the patient. While the appellant was in the hospital, he was under the treatment of the doctor. The doctor examined him on ten different occasions. His condition on admission was:- "He was aggressive, abusive, had pressure of talks. He talks too much and at times became irrelevant. His behaviour way disturbed and emotionally no control on himself. He was very demanding. He had sleep disturbances and addicted to Charas smoking." On 30-4-1980, the doctor made the following observations:- "He was aggressive and is now' calm down. His talk is relevant at times. It is reported that he shouts during night. He is an aggressive psychopath with history of Charas addiction." On 8-5-1980, the doctor again examined the appellant and reported: "His mood was fairly calm. His sleep was improving. Emotionally he was better. He was able to converse and, admitted to be a Charas addict for the last 4/6 years."

8. Learned counsel for the appellant in the first instance contended that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond doubt. The presence of the witnesses vas highly doubtful. So far as Boota was concerned, he did not sup sort the prosecution. No reliance could be placed on the testimony of Muhammad Salim because he did not give the details of the injuries. Riaz Ahmad, the first informant, was the real son of the deceased. His presence is also doubtful because according to Boota, he was not there. Last of all, learned counsel laid great stress on the testimony of doctor in order to bring his case within exception of section 84 of the Pakistan Penal Code. In other words, he took up the plea of insanity and submitted that the evidence of the doctor leave no room for doubt that the appellant was of unsound find. He was not a normal human being. He could not be held responsible for his acts. The essential ingredients i.e. mans rea and Actus reus were lacking in this case.

9. I would like to deal with the ocular version first. Riaz Ahmad though son of the deceased gave a sound explanation of his presence at the spot. Keeping in view the time and place, his presence cannot be doubted. He then gave a correct account and true picture how his father was done to death. The post-mortem report of A the deceased shows that the injuries suffered by him could be caused) by Toka. The dimensions and locations of the injuries show that those le could be caused by a weapon like Toka. Muhammad Salim also blamed the appellant for the attack. The mere fact that he did not give the details of the injuries does not mean that he was not present at the spot. Boota was never an eye-witness. He had gone out on the asking of the appellant. When he came he found Allah Rakha lying dead. So, even his testimony could be pressed into service as corroborative piece of evidence to this extent.

10. The evidence of Dr. Ejaz Haider shows that the appellant was a Charas addict. This was a bad habit. He is to blame none except himself. On this ground he cannot avail of plea of insanity. Even otherwise, this plea was not taken expressly at any stage. It was a mere afterthought.

11. The conduct of the appellant shows that he was of sound mind and acted cleverly by asking Boots, to go out and then drew the attention of Allah Rakha to the electric meter. These acts cannot be attributed to a man of unsound mind. In view of this I do not think the appellant has successfully established the plea of insanity.

12. For the foregoing reasons I am of the view that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond doubt. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. The amount of fine in full shall be paid as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased for which the Collector concerned is directed to take immediate steps for its realization and payment. M . H . Y . Appeal dismissed.