' MUHAMMAD TARIQ ABBAsI, J.--.-This revision petition is directed against the order dated 26-10- 2013 passed by the leafned sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, whereby an application, moved by the petitioner for constitution of a medical board, to determine his physical/mental condition and summoning of the record relating to him, from Punjab Institute of Mental Health, Lahore, has been dismissed.
2. The facts are that the petitioner is facing trial in a case F.I.R. No.66 dated 2-3-2013 registered under section 302 of P.P.C. At Police station, Kallar syedan, District Rawalpindi. He moved the above mentioned application, with the contention that prior to occurrence, he remained admitted in Pakistan Institute of Mental Health, Lahore from 23-1-2012 to 5-4-2012 for rehabilitation and treatment; that he is suffering from serious mental illness, hence to determine his mental health, medical board may be constituted. The learned trial Court has dismissed the said application moved by the petitioner. Hence the instant revision petition.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. It has been observed that the learned trial Court, to know the mental health of the petitioner, directed the superintendent of Central Jail, Rawalpindi to obtain report of the Psychiatrists, about mental condition of the accused/petitioner, on his visit to Central Jail, Rawalpindi. Consequently the due proceedings were carried on, during which, MRI and EEG of brain of the petitioner/accused were conducted, but found to be normal.
5. The plea agitated by the petitioner/accused has to be seen in the light of provisions applicable to such situation i.e. Sections 464, 465 and 466 of Cr.P.C. Section 465 of Cr.P.C. Deals with a situation, when a person facing the trial before the Court of session or High Court is found to be a lunatic. The said provision reads as under:-- "465. Procedure in case of person [sent for trial] before Court of session or High Court being lunatic.---(1) If any person before a Court of session or a High Court appears to the Court at his trial to be of unsound mind and consequently incapable of making his defence, the Court shall;. In the first instance, try the fact of such unsoundness and incapacity, and if the Court is satisfied of the fact, it shall record a finding to that effect and shall postpone further proceedings in the case."
6. The plain reading of the above mentioned provision shows that the trial Court, firstly has to determine if an accused is of unsound mind and consequently incapable of making his defence and if the court is satisfied of the fact, it shall make a finding to the said effect and postpone further proceedings in the case.
7. In the case of Atta Muhammad v. The state PLD 1960 (West Pakistan) Lahore 111, it was held, after drawing a fine comparison in sections 464 and 465, Cr.P.C. As under:-- "The legal position which emerges from the two sections is that under section 464 of Cr. P. C. The Magistrate must have reason to believe that the accused person before him is of unsound mind and incapable of understanding the proceedings, and under section 465 it should appear to the Court at the trial that the accused person suffers from unsoundness of mind and thus, is incapable of making his defence. In either case the action is to follow the subjective reaction of the Magistrate or the Court to the situation that arises before him. If, during the inquiry, nothing comes to the notice of a Magistrate to induce a belief in him that an accused person is of unsound mind and if at the trial before the sessions Court it does not appear to the latter that the accused is of unsound mind and consequently incapable of making his defence, there is nothing for them to do except to proceed with the inquiry or the trial in the normal manner. The words 'appear to the Court' are used in section 465 while the words 'has reason to believe' are used in section 464, but it is clear that in practical effect they mean almost the same thing."
8. A keen and careful reading of the above quoted paragraph would indicate that it is the court which firstly has to know about mental condition of an accused, facing trial before it.
9. In the matter in hand, the plea of the petitioner/accused is that he remained admitted in a hospital for rehabilitation and treatment, hence record from the said hospital may be summoned and medical board for determination of his mental health may be constituted.
10. The learned trial Court has already carried on the preliminary inquiry, towards the mental status of the petitioner/accused, during which directed opinion of Psychiatrists, for which MRI and EEG of brain of the petitioner/accused were carried on and when everything was found to be healthy, while dismissing the application of the petitioner, deemed it proper to proceed further and held the petitioner/accused to be fit to face the trial.
11. A report of Pakistan Institute of Medical sciences, attached with the report of superintendent Central Jail, Rawalpindi is also available in this file, which indicates that the result of MRI of the petitioner/accused is normal.
12. At present, the case of the petitioner/accused is not at all that at the time of commission of the alleged occurrence, he was suffering from any mental disease, hence entitled for any special concession. The only stance of the petitioner/accused is that to know his mental condition, his medical check-up may be got conducted. The said check-up has accordingly been carried on and no defect in present 'mental status of the petitioner/accused has been found, hence the learned trial Court has rightly proceeded for subsequent proceedings in the trial.
13. The Hon'ble supreme Court of Pakistan in the judgment reported as 1968 PCr.LJ (sC) 187 titled Jalal Din v. The state has held that burden of proof of insanity, lies on the accused. It was further held in the judgment (supra) that under section 84 of P.P.C., the crucial point of time at which unsoundness of mind should be established, is the time when the act constituting the offence is committed.
14. The learned trial Court has discussed in the impugned order, each and every aspect of the case and when found the petitioner to be fit to face the trial, accordingly dismissed the application.
15. Due to all the above mentioned, the instant Criminal Revision, being devoid of any force and merit is dismissed.