ISLAMABAD - The Islamabad High Court (IHC) Thursday turned down the appeal of a murderer who took the plea of unsoundness of mind while killing his wife.
A division bench of IHC comprising Chief Justice of IHC Justice Athar Minallah and Justice Babar Sattar conducted hearing of the appeal filed by a convicted person Sami Ullah against his conviction and sentence handed down by the Additional Sessions Judge-1, East-Islamabad for killing his wife Bushra in 2017.
Justice Athar who authored the judgment noted that the appellant (murderer) admitted killing of his wife but absolutely failed in discharging the burden of proving the plea of insanity and the prosecution has brought on record cogent and reliable evidence to corroborate the admission made by the appellant.
He stated, “What the latter did was evil and thus he does not deserve any leniency.” The IHC ruled, “For the above reasons, we have no hesitation in concluding that the prosecution had established its case beyond a reasonable doubt while the Appellant had absolutely failed in discharging the burden to prove the plea taken by him under section 84 of the PPC.”
He added that the appeals filed by the appellant therefore, do not succeed and are accordingly dismissed. “Consequently, we uphold the sentence handed down by the learned trial Court and answer the reference i.e. Murder Reference no. 03/2019, titled “The State v. Sami Ullah” in the ‘affirmative’,” maintained Justice Athar.
The IHC chief justice observed in the verdict that in the case in hand, the appellant had admitted the brutal killing of his wife and mother of his four minor children. However, during the trial he took the plea of unsoundness of mind and he feigned insanity though it did not appear so to the learned trial court.
He further said that nonetheless, the court ordered the examination of the accused by a medical board and the medical board was duly constituted and it consisted the relevant medical experts.
According to the court judgment, after examining the appellant, the medical board found him capable of standing the trial and the appellant had also been examined regularly by medical experts throughout his incarceration during the trial proceedings.
The judgment said, “It was never reported that the appellant had any signs of unsoundness of mind rendering him incapable of putting up his defence.” It added, “The appellant had been engaged in business and had been supporting his family.”
It continued that his brother had entered the witness box and his testimony shows that at the time of committing the act, the appellant was not unaware of what he was doing.
“Though he appeared in defence of the appellant but his version contradicted the plea taken by the Appellant while recording his statement under section 342 of Cr.P.C. The appellant had engaged a counsel and had not displayed any signs that may have appeared to the learned trial court that he was incapable of giving his defence,” mentioned the court verdict.
The IHC bench said that it is settled law that until the contrary is proved, a person is presumed to be sane and that the latter possessed sufficient degree of awareness to know the consequences of his or her actions. It added, “The appellant had taken the life of his wife as well as destroying a fully grown fetus in her womb in the most painful, gruesome and inhumane manner.” The bench said that the multiple stabbing of the deceased had taken place while four minor children were present at the crime scene and it was a cold blooded murder because it was deliberate, cruel and savage.