Depression can’t justify trial suspension: Supreme Court

The top court has ruled that depression is a natural result of crime and ‘depressive Illness’ is not an incapacity that may justify suspension of the trial of a person accused of murder.

“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,” noted a three-judge bench in a four-page verdict.

“[Depressive illness also] does [not] allow digging out of acclaimed ‘incapacity’ by a physician of the offender’s own choice, other than the designated medical officers,” the order added.

The bench, headed by Justice Mushir Alam, issued the order after hearing an appeal filed by an accused, undergoing psychiatric treatment.

Muhammad Uzair had allegedly gunned down his class fellow Gulalay, 27, inside her home in Nowshera on February 2, 2019 during a function organized to fix her marriage date in presence of witnesses. He was apprehended from the scene along with the murder weapon.

The incident was reported by Ashfaq Ahmed Khan who claimed that Uzair desired to marry Gulalay who was already betrothed and it was in this background that he murdered the young woman.

The petitioner was later sent to face trial before an additional sessions judge in Nowshera and on May 8, 2019, he moved an application purportedly under section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

The application stated that the accused was suffering from different mental ailments for the last many years. He had remained patient of various doctors and had also been admitted in hospitals.

The petitioner had claimed that he was neither cognizant of the consequences of his act nor he could properly defend himself during the trial on account of ongoing terminality of his mental disorder and therefore his trial might be suspended.

The session judge, however, rejected the request. The petitioner also approached the Peshawar High Court (PHC) against the order but the high court also upheld the decision. Uzair then moved the SC.

Upholding the lower courts’ order, the apex court in its verdict authored by Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed said it examined the entire record annexed with the petition to evaluate petitioner’s claimed mental incapacity.

According to the psychiatrist report, it noted, the petitioner after having been kept under observation from February 23, 2019 onward was diagnosed as a case of “depressive illness” and prescribed Prothadine 75mg tablet to be taken every night.

"Depression is a natural concomitance of 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 disequilibrium is not recognized by law to hold the process of justice in abeyance."

The court noted that an offender can claim immunity from prosecution if he had an unsound mind at the time of commission of the offense and if he by reason of this unsoundness was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or lacked knowledge that it was wrong or contrary to law.

“In so asserting he [accused] has to be clear and categorical in his claim.

“By raising such a plea, an offender takes upon himself the responsibility to discharge the onus and in the event of his failure, the court would draw a contra presumption.”

The court, however, noted that the accused did not take the plea of unsound mind and referred to some unspecified “different mental ailments” to claim 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”.

It said Part VIII Chapter XXXIV Special Proceedings recognizes only dangerous or incapacitating lunacy to suspend the trial. The apex court noted that the view that was taken by the trial judge and upheld by the high court was well within the remits of law and called for no interference.

The order said 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. However, the bench noted, it appeared that the accused’s act was premeditated.

“For the limited purpose of examination of his plea raised before us, available material irrefutably suggests the homicidal death of a young lady, 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, she being the sole target. [This] additionally indicates that the assassin had a preconceived/premeditated target and a purpose that he flawlessly achieved without any bullet left in the chamber,” it said.

The court noted that it would be rather naive to expect such a meticulous execution from a person with frail faculties or capacities. The accused did the crime without inflicting slightest harm to his own person or anyone else present at the venue and he appeared 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.”

The order said the petitioner was certainly entitled to his obsessions and ideals but he had no right to enforce his wish through a most violent method.

“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," the order noted.