December, 2020, 4th 5th, 6th and 7th January, 2021. JUDGMENT MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, J.---The mental health of a person is as important and significant as his physical health. Unfortunately, it is often not given the importance and seriousness it deserves. Because of certain misconceptions, the implications of mental illness are overlooked and the vulnerability or disability that it causes is not given due attention. 2. The apex Court of the country has been called upon, through this Larger Bench, to determine questions relating to culpability, competence to face trial, and execution of sentence in case of those accused persons and convicts who are suffering from mental illness. These determinations need to be made while considering the latest jurisprudential, legislative and medical developments on this subject. 3. The facts relevant to the adjudication of the petitions relating to the case of each condemned prisoner i.e. Imdad Ali, Mst. Kaneezan Bibi and Ghulam Abbas are briefly discussed herein below:IMDAD ALI'S CASE (Civil Review Petition (C.R.P.) No. 420 of 2016 and C.R.P. No. 424 of 2016 in Civil Petition No. 2990 of 2016 AND Crl. Review Petition (Crl.R.P.) No. 170 of 2016 in Crl. Appeal No. 619 of 2009) 4. Imdad Ali (aged about 42 years at the time of commission of offence) was indicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Burewala on 09.01.2002 for committing the murder of Hafiz Muhammad Abdullah on 21.01.2001 by firing shots with a rifle 222 bore, in the area of Police Station (P.S.) City Burewala, District Vehari. Upon framing of charge, Imdad Ali pleaded not guilty. The record shows that no Advocate was appointed by him or his family to represent him before the trial Court rather an Advocate at State expense was appointed by the trial Court vide its order dated 29.01.2002 to conduct his case. The order of said date further reflects that earlier an Advocate was appointed by Court at State expense to represent Imdad Ali who later showed his unwillingness to represent the accused and in his stead another Advocate was appointed at State expense to represent him. It is manifest from the interim order of trial Court dated 09.02.2002 that learned defence counsel submitted an application under section 465 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Cr.P.C.) for holding an inquiry to determine the competence of Imdad Ali to face trial. On the said application, arguments were heard and vide order dated 12.03.2002, the learned trial Court disposed of the said application by observing that there is no reason to believe that Imdad Ali is of unsound mind, as referred to in section 465, Cr.P.C. 5. This order was challenged before the learned Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan on behalf of Imdad Ali through Crl. Revision No. 91 of 2002 which was dismissed as not pressed upon the contention of his counsel that he intends to