trial stage and as to whether the trial Court complied with the above provision of law, before entering into the trial......" 50. The term "reason to believe" came under discussion in the case of Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain v. The State14 where while referring to the interpretation of the term in the case of Moulvi Fazlul Qader Choudhury v. Crown15 this Court held:"...The term "reason to believe" can be classified at a higher pedestal than mere suspicion and allegation but not equivalent to proved evidence. Even the strongest suspicion cannot transform in "reason to believe...." 51. After a careful examination of the case law discussed above, we hold that the terms "reason to believe" and "appears to the Court" used in sections 464 and 465, Cr.P.C are synonymous and refer to a tentative opinion which has to be formed for the purpose of deciding whether or not to enquire into the issue of capability of the accused to face trial as a question of fact. 52. We further hold that whenever the trial Court is put to notice, either by express claim made on behalf of the accused or through Court's own observations, regarding the issue of incapability of accused to understand the proceedings of trial and to make his/her defence, the same shall be taken seriously while keeping in mind the importance of procedural fairness and due process guaranteed under the Constitution and the law. 53. The terms "reason to believe" and "appears to the Court" in the context of sections 464 and 465, Cr.P.C are to be interpreted as a prima facie tentative opinion of the Court, which is not a subjective view based on impressions but one which is based on an objective assessment of the material and information placed before the Court or already available on record in the police file and case file. While forming a prima facie tentative opinion, the Court may give due consideration to its own observations in relation to the conduct and demeanor of an accused person. Failure of the parties to raise such a claim, during trial, does not debar the Court from forming an opinion on its own regarding the capability of an accused person to face the proceedings of trial. In such a situation, the Court may rely on its own observations regarding the demeanor and conduct of the accused either before or at the time of taking a plea against the charge or at any later stage. The Court may take note whether he/she is being represented by Counsel or not and consider the material (if any) available on record which may persuade it to enquire into the capability of the accused to face trial. The Court may assess the mental health condition of an accused by asking him/her questions such as why he/she is attending the Court; whether he/she is able to understand the proceedings which are being conducted (trial); whether he/she is able to understand the role of people who are a part of the trial; the basic procedure may be explained to him/her to assess whether he/she is able to understand such procedure and whether he/she is able to retain information imparted to him/her; whether the accused is able to understand the act committed by him/her and what the witnesses are deposing about his/her act; and whether he/she is able to understand the evidence being produced by the prosecution against him/her. However, we would like to clarify that a prima facie tentative opinion cannot be formed by the Court only on the basis of such questions