Defence of insanity

Plea on behalf of convict that at the time of issuance of his black warrants he was a patient of "Paranoid schizophrenia", therefore, before his execution, he needed medical treatment so that he may be able to make a will, which was permissible under the Prison Rules, 1978

Validity

Schizophrenia was not a permanent mental disorder, rather it was an imbalance, increasing or decreasing in nature, depending on the level of stress

In recent years, its prognosis had improved with drugs, by vigorous psychological and social management, and rehabilitation

Schizophrenia, therefore, was a recoverable disease, which, in all the cases, did not fall within the definition of "mental disorder" as defined in the Mental Health Ordinance, 2001

From the stage of trial, convict took plea of suffering from 'schizophrenia' in his defence, but all the courts up to the Supreme Court discarded such plea of mental illness, which could be made basis to term him as lunatic

Even the medical record produced before the court revealed that convict was all along considered as psychiatric patient suffering from "paranoid schizophrenia"

Supreme Court observed that rules relating to mental sickness could not be used to delay the execution of death sentence awarded to the convict, which had attained finality up to the level of the Supreme Court, and when mercy petition of convict had already been dismissed by the President

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Person who is suffering from a mental disorder cannot be said to have committed a crime as he does not know what he is doing

For committing a crime, the intention and act both are taken to be the constituents of the crime: actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea

Every normal and sane human being is expected to possess some degree of reason to be responsible for his/her conduct and acts unless contrary is proved but a person of unsound mind or a person suffering from mental disorder cannot be said to possess this basic norm of human behaviour.