posed to the accused. The Court is required to objectively consider all the material available before it, including the material placed/relied upon by the prosecution. 54. Once the Court has formed a prima facie tentative opinion that the accused may be incapable of understanding the proceedings of trial or make his/her defence, it becomes obligatory upon the Court to embark upon conducting an inquiry to decide the issue of incapacity of the accused to face trial due to mental illness. Medical opinion is sine qua non in such an inquiry. For this purpose, the Court must get the accused examined by a Medical Board, to be notified by the Provincial Government, consisting of qualified medical experts in the field of mental health, to examine the accused person and opine whether accused is capable or otherwise to understand the proceedings of trial and make his/her defence. The report/opinion of the Medical Board must not be a mere diagnosis of a mental illness or absence thereof. It must be a detailed and structured report with specific reference to psychopathology (if any) in the mental functions of consciousness, intellect, thinking, mood, emotions, perceptions, cognition, judgment and insight. The head of the Medical Board shall then be examined as Court witness and such examination shall be reduced in writing. Both the prosecution and defence should be given an opportunity to cross-examine him in support of their respective stance. Thereafter, if the accused wishes to adduce any evidence in support of his/her claim, then he/she should be allowed to produce such evidence, including expert opinion with the prosecution given an opportunity to cross-examine. Similarly, the prosecution may also be allowed to produce evidence which it deems relevant to this preliminary issue with opportunity given to the defence to cross-examine. It is upon the consideration of this evidence procured and adduced before the Court that a finding on this question of fact i.e. the capability of the accused to face trial within the contemplation of sections 464 and 465 Cr.P.C. shall be recorded by the Court. 55. Therefore, in view of the foregoing, the question "How should the trial Court deal with the claim that due to mental illness, an accused is incapable of making his/her defence?" and the supplementary question "Whether the trial Court can form a prima facie subjective view regarding the incapability of the accused to make his/her defence without seeking the opinion of the medical expert?" are both answered in the above said terms. 56. We hold that words "Civil Surgeon" and "medical officer" used in Chapter XXXIV, Cr.P.C. and Prison Rules be substituted by the relevant Legislature with "Medical Board". The Medical Board shall comprise of qualified and experienced Psychologists and Psychiatrists. The concerned governments are directed to take immediate steps to do the needful. 57. Now we address the important legal question: "Whether a mentally ill condemned prisoner should be executed?" 58. Our attention has been drawn to the fact that in Pakistan there is no express provision in any Statute or Rules, which places express restriction on the execution of a convict who is on death row and suffering from mental illness. However, reference has been made to certain provisions in the Prison Rules, which may be termed as implied safeguards against execution of mentally ill condemned