_akhbar.jpg)
The Sindh High Court (SHC) has dismissed the appeal of a man against his conviction in a murder case but modified his death sentence into life imprisonment.
Taj Mohammad was sentenced to death by the trial court for murdering Mohammad Anwar due to agriculture dispute on October 20, 2011.
According to the prosecution, the appellant along with co-accused shot Anwar with his gun and fled the scene.
A counsel for the appellant said his client had been falsely implicated due to previous enmity over agricultural land and the prosecution failed to prove the charge against him beyond reasonable doubt.
He argued that the alleged recovery of crime weapon and FSL report were merely corroborative in nature and could not independently establish the appellant’s participation in the commission of offence. He said that even if the conviction was maintained, the appellant’s chronic psychosis and other mitigating circumstances warranted conversion of his death sentence into imprisonment for life.
An additional prosecutor general and the complainant’s counsel supported the impugned judgment contending that the ocular account had been duly corroborated by medical and forensic evidence. They said that the delay in lodging the FIR stood satisfactorily explained and the recovery of crime weapon coupled with the FSL report further connected the appellant with the offence.
A division bench of the SHC comprising Justice Omar Sial and Justice Shamsuddin Abbasi after hearing the arguments of the counsel and perusal of the evidence observed that the prosecution had established that it was the appellant who fired the fatal shot at Anwar through reliable ocular testimony duly corroborated by medical and forensic evidence.
The high court observed that the evidence was sufficient to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the trial court correctly appreciated the evidence and committed no illegality or material irregularity in recording the appellant’s conviction under the Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code.
The bench observed that in the present case, the appellant’s chronic psychosis and prolonged psychiatric illness constituted a significant mitigating circumstance that could not be overlooked.
The high court observed that the record demonstrated that during the pendency of the trial, the appellant’s mental condition deteriorated to such an extent that he remained hospitalised in a psychiatric institution for about nine years and pursuant to the directions of the trial court, a medical board examined him and found him suffering from chronic psychosis and incapable of understanding the proceedings at the relevant time.
The SHC observed that the proceedings against him remained in abeyance for a considerable period and were resumed only after he was shifted from the psychiatric hospital back to prison.
The high court also observed that this prolonged and medically documented history could not by any stretch be treated as a subsequent or self-serving plea raised merely to evade the consequences of conviction.
It observed that the record did not establish that at the time of the commission of the offence, the appellant was suffering from such mental disorder as would attract the legal defence of insanity. The high court observed that that appellant’s subsequently established chronic psychosis, however, remained a highly relevant and substantial mitigating circumstance for the purpose of determining the appropriate sentence.
The SHC observed that after examination of the appellant’s medically established mental illness, prolonged hospitalization, his inability at one stage to comprehend the proceedings and the considerable period during which the trial remained in abeyance on account of that, the extreme penalty of death was not warranted.
The bench maintained the conviction but converted the death sentence awarded to the appellant into imprisonment for life.
The bench observed that during his incarceration, the appellant shall be provided regular psychiatric assessment, appropriate treatment and all necessary medical care by the competent prison and health authorities and upon completion of his lawful sentence, he shall be referred to Sir C.J. Institute of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Hyderabad, or any other appropriate government psychiatric institution for comprehensive psychiatric evaluation and necessary treatment in accordance with the law.
The SHC directed that upon the appellant having served his sentence in accordance with the law, including remission lawfully available to him, his mental condition shall be assessed by the director/medical superintendent, Sir C.J. Institute of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Hyderabad, or any other appropriate government psychiatric institution.
The bench observed that if upon such assessment, he was found to require continued psychiatric treatment or hospitalisation, the competent authority shall take appropriate steps in accordance with the law for his admission to a suitable government psychiatric facility and continuation of necessary treatment until such time as his condition permitted his discharge subject to the applicable law and medical advice.
