JUDGMENT P.T. Raman Nayar, J. 1. The accused in S. C. 68 of 1956 on the file of the Sessions Judge, South Malabar, appeals against his conviction for murder and his sentence of imprisonment for life. 2. We might state at the very outset that the accused has throughout admitted the truth of the prosecution case. Even in his memorandum of appeal all that he states is that he was a victim to some sort of hallucination and had no criminal intention; and all that he prays for is that he might be let off with a lesser punishment. 3. The accused, the deceased, and PW 1 were among the numerous mendicants, or devotees as they call themselves, always to be found in and about the Guruvayur temple. They used to sleep by night in the verandah of a shop in the Kizhakkey Nada, PW 1 at one end, the deceased at the other, and the accused in the middle. The evidence of PW 1 shows that the accused was very much attached to a temple elephant named Radha. This elephant fell ill about a fort-night before the occurrence. The accused took this very much to heart and he used to weep and sometimes even refuse food out of sorrow. 4. The occurrence took place on the night of the 29th September 1956. That night PW 1 and the deceased were sleeping in their usual place, while, at about mid-night, when PWs 2 and 5 went to sleep, the accused was with them at the place where the sick elephant was tethered. Some time after mid-night PW 1 woke up to find the accused cutting the deceased on the neck with a chopper. After five or six cuts, the deceased died, and the accused wrapped the body in a mat and carried it away. PW 1 lay silent paralysed with fear. A little later the accused returned and wiped the blood on the floor with a cloth. Then he went away, taking the cloth with him, after pledging PW 1 to secrecy. 5. When P.W. 8, the occupier of the building went there at about noon next day, he noticed blood marks on the verandh and he reported the matter to the Sub-Inspector of Police, PW 10 who after making an entry in his general diary, proceeded to the spot, questioned PW 1 and recorded from him the statement, Ext. 5. When P.W. 8, the occupier of the building went there at about noon next day, he noticed blood marks on the verandh and he reported the matter to the Sub-Inspector of Police, PW 10 who after making an entry in his general diary, proceeded to the spot, questioned PW 1 and recorded from him the statement, Ext. P1, on which he registered a case of murder and commenced investigation. He arrested the accused at about 9 P. M., and, on being questioned, the accused made a statement, the admissible portion of which is Ext. P8. In pursuance of this statement, the accused took PW 10, with whom was the village headman, PW 7, to the compound in which the sick elephant was tethered and pointed out a rolled up mat kept on a heap of bricks on the verandh of a house in the compound. PW 10 took the mat, and, on unrolling it, found the head of the deceased in it. The accused next led PWs 7 and 10 to a paramba not far away and pointed out a place where the earth was loose over an area of about 4 feet square. On 1-10-1956 in the presence of the magistrate, PW 3, and the doctor, PW 4, this spot was dug up and the headless body of the deceased was found buried there. PW 4's evidence shows that the head found earlier was of this body and that it fitted exactly with the trunk. Apart from other incised wounds on the head and neck, there was a decapitating injury at the level of the fifth cervical vertebra half of which was found in the head and the other half in the trunk. 6. As we have already observed the accused admitted all these facts both at the preliminary enquiry and at the trial, and the reason he gave for having acted thus was that he wanted the elephant to recover. He thought that the life of the elephant which was a big animal was more precious than the life of a mere human being, and he had done the act for the sake of the elephant belonging to the Guruvayur God. 7. He thought that the life of the elephant which was a big animal was more precious than the life of a mere human being, and he had done the act for the sake of the elephant belonging to the Guruvayur God. 7. There can be no doubt that it was the accused that cut and killed the deceased, and it would also appear that he acted under the obsession that a human sacrifice would save the life of the elephant. 8. Learned counsel for the accused has argued that his case falls within S.84 of the Indian Penal Code and that, in any event, the learned Sessions Judge should have proceeded under S.465, Crl. P.C., and found the accused to be of sound mind before he tried him for murder. We are unable to agree. There is no evidence whatsoever of any mental disorder either before or after the commission of the act. All that we know is that the accused appears to have acted under a belief, and was impelled by a motive, which a normal reasonable human being would not ordinarily entertain or act under. But it is not every abnormality of mind or reason that will bring a case within the exception in S.84 of the Indian Penal Code; and, in this particular case we are satisfied that whatever be the obsession or hallucination under which the accused laboured, it certainly did not so deprive of his reason as to make him incapable of knowing the nature of his act or that he was doing what was wrong or contrary to law. His every conduct in seeking a convenient opportunity at dead of night when the deceased was asleep for killing him, then secreting the body while preserving the head (presumably for some sacrificial ceremony), next removing the bloodstanes on the verandah and pledging PW 1 to secrecy, and then, as the evidence in the case shows, washing his clothes and the chopper used by him before putting it in its usual place, proclaims that he knew very well what he was about and that what he was doing was wrong and contrary to law. Even his own statement, that he killed the deceased in order to save the life of the elephant, shows that he knew very well the nature of his act. 9. Two decisions have been cited on behalf of the accused. Even his own statement, that he killed the deceased in order to save the life of the elephant, shows that he knew very well the nature of his act. 9. Two decisions have been cited on behalf of the accused. Neither helps him. In the first, Geron Ali v. Emperor, AIR 1941 Cal. 129, there was evidence of conduct, both prior and subsequent to the act, showing that the accused's mind was disordered; and there was also evidence that, far from knowing that what he was doing was wrong or contrary to law, the accused believed that by making the human sacrifice he was doing a meritorious act which qualified him for heaven. This evidence led to the finding that, although the accused knew the nature of his act, he did not know that what he was doing was wrong or contrary to law, and that he was therefore entitled to the protection of S.84 I. P. C. In the present case there is no evidence of any conduct speaking to mental disorder; and mental disorder is not to be inferred from the mere fact that a person has committed an abnormal crime or has acted from a motive which has not basis in reason or fact. Nor is the circumstance that the accused was greatly attached to the elephant and used to weep over its illness a sign of insanity. Perfectly sane and sober people often indulge in such conduct when their pet animals fall ill; and, as we have already seen, the accused in this case knew perfectly well that what he was doing was wrong and had therefore to be concealed. 10. In the second case namely, State v. Chellayyan, ILR 1953 TC 1062, it did appear to the court at the trial that the accused was of unsound mind. But, nevertheless, the Judge proceeded to try the accused for murder without holding a preliminary trial on the question of accused's mental capacity to make his defence as required by S.465, Crl. P. C. In the instant case it does not appear that there was any reason whatsoever to doubt the accused's sanity at the time of his trial, and had there been the least reason we have no doubt but that the learned Sessions Judge, and the learned Magistrate before him, would have acted under S.465 and 464 of the Criminal Procedure Code. We cannot accept the argument that because the accused committed what most people would regard as a senseless act it must be presumed that he has all along been insane. 11. The accused has been rightly convicted of murder, and he has been awarded the lesser of the two sentences provided by the law. 12. We confirm the conviction and sentence recorded against the accused and dismiss his appeal.