& 2(q)---Balochistan Mental Health Act (IX of 2019), Ss. 2(n) & 2(o)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 84---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 464 & 465--Prisons Rules, 1978, Chap. 18---International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) [maintained by the Word Health Organization]---Mental illness/ disorder---Scope--Terms 'unsound mind', 'unsoundness of mind', 'lunatic' and 'insane' used in the Penal Code, 1860, the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 and the Prisons Rules, 1978--Propriety---Terms "mental illness" or "mental disorder" were both used to refer to mental ailments and were defined by medical science---With the developing nature of medical science the scope of said terms may also evolve---Supreme Court observed that a limited definition of the terms "mental disorder" or "mental illness" should be avoided, and the Provincial Legislatures may, in order to better appreciate the evolving nature of medical science, consider to appropriately amend the relevant provisions of mental health laws to cater for medically recognized mental and behavioural disorders as notified by World Health Organization (WHO) through its latest edition of 'International Classification of Diseases' (ICD); that the evolution of medical science and human rights had sensitized the society to stigmatic labels such as "unsound mind", "lunatic" and "insane", therefore, latest legislations all over the world did not use such terms---Supreme Court directed that the terms "unsoundness of mind" and "unsound mind" occurring in P.P.C., Cr.P.C. and the Prisons Rules, 1978 should be substituted with term "mental disorder" or "mental illness", and the term "lunatic", wherever it occurred, shall also be substituted appropriately. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)------S. 84---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 121---Act of a person suffering mental illness/disorder---Mental condition of accused at the time of commission of offence---Scope and burden of proof---Within the contemplation of S.84, P.P.C., whenever the plea was raised regarding the state of mind of accused at the time of commission of offence, the onus would be on the defence (accused) to prove such a plea as contemplated in Art. 121 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 (QSO)---Onus was on the accused to prove that when the alleged act was committed, he/she was suffering from a mental illness which made him/her incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that what he/she was doing was either wrong or contrary to law--Principles. In the case of a special plea under section 84, P.P.C., the Courts should keep the following principles in view:(i) It was the basic duty of the prosecution to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the prosecution would not be absolved of this duty if the accused was unsuccessful in proving a plea raised on his/her behalf; (ii) Where the accused raised any specific plea, permissible under the law, including a plea under section 84, P.P.C., the onus to prove such plea was on the accused. However, while proving such plea, the accused may get benefit from any material, oral or documentary, produced/relied upon by the prosecution. Khizar Hayat v. The State 2006 SCMR 1755; The State v. Balahari Das Sutradhar PLD 1962 Dacca 467; Lal Khan v. The Crown PLD 1952 Lah. 502 and