How will Zahir Jaffer’s madness plea play out in courtroom?

Lawyers will depend on Jaffer’s current conduct to steer the courtroom to get his psychological soundness evaluated by specialists

In a predictable flip of occasions, amidst dramatic shows of contempt by the accused, Zahir Jaffer, in the course of the trial proceedings of Noor Mukadam’s homicide case, the defence staff representing Jaffer moved an software earlier than the courtroom, underneath Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) 1898 ­ learn with different enabling provisions of the regulation to be able to decide the “lunacy/unsoundmindness of the accused”. This maybe was the one authorized possibility accessible to the defence legal professionals, which can probably allow them to argue that he suffers from a psychological sickness and was incapable of realizing the character of his acts on the time he was committing them, i.e. the ‘defence of insanity’.

The origins of the madness defence may be traced backed to Roman jurisprudence; nevertheless, this defence was formally conceived by the House of Lords in M’Naghten’s case in 1843. The House of Lords set out sure rules, which needed to be glad earlier than an accused could possibly be allowed to profit from the reduction that adopted, stating:

“That every man is to be presumed to be sane, and to establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that at the time of committing the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, he did not know that what he was doing was wrong.”

The defence of madness can be accessible in Section 84 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) 1860, which categorically and unequivocally states:

“Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.”

It is to be famous that the contents of Section 84 are carefully replicating the rules laid down by the House of Lords within the M’Naghten case.

A naked evaluate of the aforementioned part could give an impression that by elevating this defence, Jaffer’s authorized staff might be able to persuade the courtroom that the actions of their consumer fall inside the purview of Section 84. The defence legal professionals would closely depend on the current conduct of the accused in an try to ascertain or persuade the courtroom that there exists the necessity to get Jaffer’s psychological soundness evaluated by a panel of specialists.

However, it’s crucial to notice that the Honourable Courts of Pakistan have held that:

“…not every person who is mentally disturbed or is suffering from some mental illness(es) is, ipso facto, exempted from criminal liability. Any person who seeks to benefit of Section 84 of PPC must prove that at the time of committing the act, he was labouring under such defect of reason as not to know the nature and consequences of the act he was doing.”

Moreover, the apex courts of Pakistan have endorsed the precept that the one who has dedicated an act shall be presumed to have dedicated the identical whereas possessing ample diploma of cause, except and till the opposite is proved (PLD 1962 Dacca 467).

Furthermore, it has been held by the Lahore High Court in a number of circumstances that the onus to show the correctness of a plea underneath Section 84 shall at all times stay on the accused, in any other case the identical shall be determined by inspecting the fabric and proof accessible on the file (PLD 1952 Lahore 502, PLD 1953 Lahore 213). Since paragraph 9 of the appliance moved by Jaffer states that he was a “chronic patient of mental disorder/schizo-affective disorder due to drug psychosis and the same was the position at the time of his arrest on July 7, 2021”, the burden of proof lies on him to ascertain this assertion past cheap doubt, to be able to avail the reduction supplied in Section 84, although not explicitly claimed.

The aforementioned software has been filed underneath Section 465. Hence, a deeper appreciation of Section 465 of the CrPC i­s warranted to be able to confirm the attainable consequence(s) of the appliance. A naked perusal of the mentioned part denotes that the courtroom has to,

“…if it has reasons to believe that the accused in the case is of unsound mind and in consequence is incapable of making his defence, to first hold an inquiry into the facts of such unsoundness of mind of the accused and for that purpose to get the accused examined by the civil surgeon of the district or by such other medical officer as the provincial government may direct and then record the result of such examination in writing. Pending inquiry into the unsoundness of mind of the accused the trail before the court is to remain suspended.” (1994 SCMR 1517)

In different phrases, the courtroom first must be satisfied that Jaffer is definitely of unsound thoughts and suffers from a psychological sickness. If it doesn’t seem to the courtroom, from its personal remark or from inspecting different materials on file, that Jaffer is incapable of constructing his defence, then the duty of referring his case to a medical board doesn’t come up.

The Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, by means of a resent landmark judgement cited as PLD 2021 SC 488, has directed the decrease courts to position nice significance on the difficulty of the psychological well being of an accused whereas conducting judicial proceedings. In the mentioned case, the courtroom appointed Brigadier (Retd) Professor Dr Mowadat Hussain Rana as amici curiae (neutral adviser to the courtroom). Dr Rana adequately addressed varied misconceptions pertaining to steel well being and defined intimately the varied particular evaluation strategies, diagnostic laboratories, radiological exams, and scans of features of the mind, amongst different scientific strategies, which may be utilised to adequately decide or diagnose psychological diseases. The courtroom, based mostly on the suggestions of Dr Rana, directed the federal authorities and all provincial governments to:

“immediately constitute and notify a medical board consisting of two qualified and experienced psychiatrists and one psychologist from public sector hospitals in Islamabad… and at each divisional headquarter of the provinces for examination, assessment and rehabilitation of the prisoners i.e. under-trial and convicts, if referred by the jail authorities. The said medical board shall also be authorised to examine those accused persons who are referred by the trail court(s) for examination under the provisions of section 464 and 465 CrPC.”

One can hope that if the federal government, performing on the instructions of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, constitutes a medical board, as supplied inside the aforementioned judgement, comprising of pros – with the expertise, crucial skillset, integrity and character – then the potential abuse of part 465 CrPC could possibly be averted. More particularly, even when the courtroom is of the tentative opinion, based mostly on the conduct and manner of Jaffer, that he’s of unsound thoughts and suffers from a psychological sickness, the newly constituted medical board of specialists could very effectively be capable of decide the true state of his psychological well being on the time of committing the alleged offence, alongside along with his present psychological standing.

Back to top button

Adblocker detected! Please consider reading this notice.

We've detected that you are using AdBlock Plus or some other adblocking software which is preventing the page from fully loading. We don't have any banner, Flash, animation, obnoxious sound, or popup ad. We do not implement these annoying types of ads! We need money to operate the site, and almost all of it comes from our online advertising. Please add to your ad blocking whitelist or disable your adblocking software.