whether in such circumstances it was incumbent upon the Courts to have sent the accused for medical examination on the point whether he is insane or not or the Courts could decide this question on the basis of other attending circumstances of the case. 2. Leave is granted to consider the above contention. Proceedings in the trial Court are stayed until further orders." It was held that:"5. In context of insanity, the state of mind of an accused person, firstly, at the time of occurrence and, secondly, at the time of inquiry or trial is a question of fact. When a Court is confronted with the question during an inquiry or trial, whether or not an accused is of unsound mind and incapable of understanding the proceedings against him, it has to take action under sections 464 and 465, Cr.P. C. according as one or other is attracted to the case..." While placing reliance upon the case of Ata Muhammad supra the Court concluded that: "5.... Nonetheless, we are in no doubt that where it does not appear to the Court at all from its own observations or any other factor that the accused is because of unsoundness of mind incapable to make his defence, it is under no obligation to investigate the fact of unsoundness of mind." Next case in line is that of Sirajuddin v. Afzal Khan and another13. In this case, the provision of section 465, Cr.P.C. was once again interpreted by this Court. While declining to grant leave to appeal against the judgment passed by the learned Peshawar High Court, whereby conviction and sentence of the accused under section 302, P.P.C. was set aside and the trial was held to be vitiated due to noncompliance with the procedure laid down under section 465, Cr.P.C., the Court made the following observations:"7. From perusal of the above it is clear that whenever question of insanity is brought to the notice of the Court the Court shall satisfy itself in the manner provided under the law; whether the person is capable of understanding the trial and defending himself. For such satisfaction medical evidence is of utmost importance. 8. In the instant case, therefore, it is to be seen; whether, the fact of insanity of the accused/respondent was ever brought to the notice of the Court at the