IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Mushir Alam 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
Mr. Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan 
 
 
 
Criminal Petition No.290 of 2020  
(Against the judgment dated 28.2.2020 of the 
Peshawar High Court, Peshawar passed in Cr. 
Revision No.200-P of 2019) 
 
 
Muhammad Uzair Jamal 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
The State and another 
Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Syed Asghar Hussain Shah Sabzwari 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Mehmood A. Sheikh, AOR   
 
 
 
For the State: 
Mr. Arshad Hussain Yousafzai, ASC 
 
Date of hearing: 
22.07.2020. 
 
 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
 
       Qai Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Ms. Gulalay, 27/28, a 
student of M.Phil, was shot dead inside the safety of her home located 
within the precincts of Police Station Cantt. Nowshera at 3:45 p.m. on 
2.2.2019 in a family function, scheduled to fix her marriage date; incident 
was reported by Ashfaq Ahmed Khan who accused the petitioner for the 
crime. According to the complainant, the petitioner aspired to marry the 
deceased, already betrothed and it was in this background that he on the 
fateful day murdered the young lady within the view of the witnesses; he 
was subdued by the attendants and produced before the police along with 
the weapon of offence. Autopsy was conducted same day at 4:40 p.m. and 
the Medical Officer observed no less than seven entry wounds on different 
parts of the body. The petitioner was sent to face trial before an Additional 
Sessions Judge at Nowshera; he moved an application on 8.5.2019, 
purportedly under section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 
wherein he took the following grounds: 
 
2. “That, the accused/petitioner is suffering 
from different mental ailments from the last 
so many years.  
Criminal Petition No.290 of 2020 
  
 
2
 
3. That the accused/petitioner has remained 
patient of various doctors and in this connect, 
also remained admitted in hospitals. 
 
4. That, the accused/petitioner after remanding 
to the judicial lock up is lodged in the mental 
hospital 
at 
Peshawar 
Prison, 
being 
dangerous for the life of others and is still 
there. (Copy of doctor prescription and 
certificate attached. 
 
5. That 
the 
accused/petitioner 
in 
such 
circumstances is unable to defend himself 
within the parameter of the law during the 
course of trial.” 
 
 
Pursuant to the above pleas, opinion from the Jail Doctor was solicited 
vide order dated 27.5.2019 whereupon Senior Medical Officer, Central 
Prisons Peshawar, furnished the opinion dated 11.06.2019, reproduced 
below: 
“It is submitted that the above named 
accused was shifted from Judicial Lockup 
Nowshera 
on 
23.2.2019 
for 
Psychiatry 
treatment. He was admitted in Detain 
Unit/Psychiatry Wards for observation of 
Psychiatrist on the same day. 
 
He 
was 
under 
the 
observation 
of 
Psychiatrist Dr. Muslim District Specialist 
Psychiatrist 
w.e.f. 
23.2.2019. 
He 
was 
diagnosed as a case of Depressive illness 
and advised Tab Prothadine 75 mg one at 
nigh daily. He was examined by concerned 
Psychiatrist 
Dr. 
Muhammad 
Tariq 
on 
30.5.2019 with the remarks that the accused 
may please be shifted back to Nowshera Jail 
as there is no Court Letter regarding his 
treatment/Standing Medical Board Report.”  
 
The learned Additional Sessions Judge declined the motion vide order 
dated 6.9.2019, impugned before the Peshawar High Court through a 
revision petition with no better outcome on 28.2.2020, vires whereof, are 
being assailed primarily on the ground that the petitioner, undergoing 
psychiatric trauma, was neither cognizant of the consequences of his act 
nor he can properly defend himself during the trial on account of ongoing 
terminality of his mental disorder. It was further prayed that in view of 
inconclusive nature of earlier report, dismissal of petitioner’s plea is likely 
to result into miscarriage of justice, warranting interference by this Court. 
The learned Law Officer faithfully defended the impugned judgment.  
2. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
3. 
 
Certainly it is for the trial Court to settle the question of 
petitioner’s innocence or guilt on the strength of evidence with all available 
procedural safeguards, nonetheless, for the limited purpose of examination 
Criminal Petition No.290 of 2020 
  
 
3
of his plea raised before us, available material irrefutably suggests 
homicidal death of a young lady in her prime youth, assassinated inside 
her parental dwelling with repeated fire shots, seven in number,  with an 
offensive/lethal weapon, on an occasion, most important in her life; this 
unmistakably evinces a design to eliminate her with no chance of survival; 
given the occasion/gathering, she being the sole target to the exclusion of 
others, additionally indicates that the assassin had a preconceived/ 
premeditated target and a purpose that he flawlessly achieved in a short 
span of time without any bullet left in the chamber. It would be rather 
naive to expect such a meticulous execution from a person with frail 
faculties or capacities without inflicting slightest harm to his own person 
or anyone else present at the venue; he appears to have done it most 
craftily. It is also a common ground that the petitioner and the deceased 
studied together in the same university and, thus, former’s inclination for 
a bond, a suggested motive for the crime, is a possibility that cannot be 
viewed 
as 
being 
unrealistic; 
deceased’s 
engagement 
standing 
in 
impediment thereto. While the petitioner was certainly entitled to his 
obsessions and ideals; he had no right to enforce his wish through a 
method, most violent; he fully well knew that he couldn’t tie knot with a 
corpse and the sole purpose of the deadly assault appears to be 
chauvinistically motivated to deny the deceased a life of her own choice, a 
trend unfortunately not uncommon in our society.  
5. 
 
In the above backdrop, we have examined entire record 
annexed with the present petition to evaluate petitioner’s acclaimed mental 
incapacity. According to Psychiatrist report, the petitioner after having 
been kept under observation from 23.2.2019 onward, was diagnosed as a 
case of “Depressive Illness” and prescribed “Tab. Prothadine 75 mg” one at 
night. Depression is a natural concomitance of the crime and one may 
hardly find a prisoner facing corporal consequences, possibly the gallows 
to stay unperturbed; it is a state of mind primarily governed by a variety of 
factors including fear, regret or remorse; such inevitable disequilibriums 
are not recognized by law to hold the process of justice in abeyance. An 
offender can claim immunity from prosecution on the basis of unsound 
mind if at the time of commission thereof, he by reason of unsoundness of 
mind, was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or lacked knowledge 
on account thereof about its being wrong or contrary to law (See section 84 
of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860) and in so asserting he has to be clear 
and categorical in his claim. By raising such a plea, an offender takes 
Criminal Petition No.290 of 2020 
  
 
4
upon himself the responsibility to discharge the onus and in the event of 
his failure, the Court would draw a contra presumption. It has not been 
petitioner’s plea in his application dated 8.5.2019 before the learned trial 
Court. Without taking plea of unsound mind and by referring to some 
unspecified “different mental ailments” asserted that he was unable to 
defend himself. For determination of such a claim, an accused may be 
examined “by the Civil Surgeon of the District or such other medical officer 
as the Provincial Government directs…..”. Part VIII Chapter XXXIV Special 
Proceedings recognizes only dangerous or incapacitating lunacy to 
suspend the trial and take measures provided thereunder. “Depressive 
Illness” is not a disease or incapacity recognized by law as a justification to 
deny justice to the victims of crimes or their families nor does it allow 
digging out of acclaimed incapacity by a Physician of offender’s own choice, 
other than the designated medical officers. View taken by the learned trial 
Judge, upheld by the learned High Court, being well within the remit of 
law, calls for no interference. The above observations, being issue specific, 
shall not cast their shadow upon the outcome of the trial, to be essentially 
settled under Due Process of Law on the strength of evidence alone. 
Petition fails. Leave declined.  
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
22nd July, 2020 
Not approved for reporting 
Azmat/-