JUDGMENT D.N. Roy, J. - This is an appeal by Naubat who has been convicted u/s 302, I.P.C. and has been sentenced to transportation for life. The occurrence in respect of which he had been made to stand his trial and was committed to the Court of Sessions took place on the 29th October, 1944. But since Naubat had been found to be of unsound mind, he was sent by the Sessions Judge to the mental hospital where he remained till about 22nd August, 1951. He was then certified to be fit to stand his trial and was produced in the Court of Sessions, and then the trial began. 2. Shortly stated the case for the prosecution was as follows. The Appellant and Dalpat, deceased were related to each other. About a month before the 29th October, 1944 Smt. Premwati; the daughter of the deceased Dalpat, was scraping grass in the jungle at noon. She was all alone then. The Appellant came from behind and caught her. Smt. Premwati rebuked him and raised an alarm and told him that she will disclose his behaviour to people in the village. The Appellant then left her and went away. Smt. Premwati on returning home informed her mother of what had happened who in her turn informed Dalpat deceased about it. Dalpat scolded the Appellant for his misbehaviour with his daughter. The Appellant then threatened that on a suitable occasion he will take his revenge. It was alleged that on the 29th October 1944 early in the morning the Appellant attacked Dalpat with a lathi while he was in the jungle and put him to death. Hari Ram, who was in a hut nearby heard the cries of the deceased and came out. He saw the Appellant dealing lathi blows to the deceased. He raised an alarm on which Chukkhan and others came to the spot. Chukkhan also saw the occurrence. When the Appellant wanted to run away, Hari Ram raised an alarm and made him sit there. Hari Ram went to the house of Dalpat and informed the members of his family. Badal Chaukidar on hearing of the occurrence went to the spot and found Dalpat lying dead. The Chaukidar went to the police outpost and lodged a report. The matter was then taken up by the police for investigation and ultimately the Appellant was challenged. 3. Hari Ram went to the house of Dalpat and informed the members of his family. Badal Chaukidar on hearing of the occurrence went to the spot and found Dalpat lying dead. The Chaukidar went to the police outpost and lodged a report. The matter was then taken up by the police for investigation and ultimately the Appellant was challenged. 3. The defence of the Appellant was that he was of unsound mind at the time when he committed this offence and he did not understand the nature of his act. He had admitted that the lathi, Exh. 1, the coat, Exh. 2 and the dhoti, Exh. 3, were blood stained and were recovered from his possession just after the occurrence and were his. 4. Various witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. But the principal witnesses were Hari Ram, Chukhan, Smt. Premwati, Badal, Smt. Rama the mother of Smt. Premwati and Dalchand. The medical evidence proved beyond any shadow of doubt that the deceased met with his death on account of the lathi injuries that he had received. In support of the contention that the Appellant was of unsound mind at the time of the commission of the offence only one witness was examined. But his evidence was not accepted by the learned Sessions Judge who held that since he was not of the family of the Appellant he could not possibly be believed, and (sic)emore, that the nature of the insanity alleged by him was not sufficient to enable the Appellant to attract the operation of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. We have examined that evidence and we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Sessions Judge was correct. Where a plea of insanity is set up the burden of proof lies on the defence to show that the accused at the time of committing the offence was, by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law. Nothing short of this particular degree of insanity would bring the case within the exception. All other forms of insanity and all other minor aberrations of mind, which are recognised by the medical science as amounting to madness are excluded in the eyes of the law. Nothing short of this particular degree of insanity would bring the case within the exception. All other forms of insanity and all other minor aberrations of mind, which are recognised by the medical science as amounting to madness are excluded in the eyes of the law. The legal conception of insanity of course differs considerably from the medical conception and it is not every form of insanity of madness that is recognised by law as a sufficient excuse. In the present case although the fact that the Appellant after he was committed to the Court of Sessions, was found to be of unsound mind and had been in the mental hospital for nearly seven years, it does not necessarily indicate that he was of unsound mind on the date when he committed the offence. His subsequent unsoundness of mind may raise some suspicion that it was probable that the Appellant might have been of unsound mind, but suspicion will not fill the role of proof. The onus of proof was on the Appellants, and mere possibilities cannot be sufficient to discharge that onus. In all the circumstances of the case, we think that the learned Sessions Judge was right in holding that the Appellant was not entitled to the benefit of Section 84 of the indian Penal Code. The prosecution evidence was clear, cogent and consistent to fasten a charge u/s 302 I.P.C., and in this view of the matter. We hold that the Appellant was rightly convicted. 5. There is no force in this appeal, and it is, accordingly, dismissed.