JUDGMENT Asthana, J. - This is an appeal from jail by one Godhan who has been convicted u/s 302, IPC for committing the murder of his wife Smt. Jagrani on the night between the 31st May and 1-6-1953 inside his house in village Chakwa Buzurg, PS Kotwali, Etawah, and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case is that on the night of the occurrence the accused asked the deceased for water but she did not give it to him, that he then asked her to give him the key of the box so that he could take out the matchbox from it, that she did not get up and covered her face, that he then picked up the upper slab of the grind stone which was lying there and struck her with it on the head and caused her death, that thereafter he ran out of the house and concealed himself in the marha. The report of the occurrence was made by Chhota chowkidar the next morning on 1-6-1953 at 6 AM at the Police Station Kotwali which is at a distance of 8 miles from Chakwa Buzurg. After the report Sri Sukhbir Singh, Station officer, Kotwali Etawah, reached the scene of occurrence. He found the dead body of Smt. Jagrani inside the house. He prepared the inquest report, took the slab of grind-stone in his possession, recovered a key from the neck of the deceased which was hanging by a string and took some other articles also in his possession. He sent the dead body to the Civil Surgeon, Etawah for post mortem examination The post mortem examination was performed by Dr. A. H. Khan, Civil Surgeon, on 2-6-1953 at 6-15 O'clock in the morning. He found that the deceased was about 16 or 17 years old and her death had taken place about 30 hours before the post mortem examination. He found a contused wound on the right side above and behind the right ear It was slightly curved in shape with no tapering. He also found an abraded contusion on the right external ear. The internal examination revealed extensive fracture of the bones of the skull as mentioned in the post mortem report. Death was due to coma following compression of the brain due to fracture of skull bones. 3. He also found an abraded contusion on the right external ear. The internal examination revealed extensive fracture of the bones of the skull as mentioned in the post mortem report. Death was due to coma following compression of the brain due to fracture of skull bones. 3. The accused was caught by his relations who reached the scene of occurrence on hearing a thumping sound. It is said that he confessed before them having committed the murder of his wife and the reason given by him for it was that she had refused to comply with his orders for supplying a glass of water and handing over the key of the box containing the matches. The accused after his admission in the jail pretended to be mad. He was therefore kept under observation by the Civil Surgeon. The Civil Surgeon was of the opinion that the accused was not of unsound mind. After this report the accused was put up on trial before Sri Kunj Behari Lal Srivastava. He examined the accused. He did not agree with the report of the Civil Surgeon and he was of the opinion that the accused was of unsound mind and was incapable of undertaking his defence. He, therefore, ordered on 1-5-1954 that the accused should be detained in the District jail, Etawah, till arrangements for his admission in the Mental Hospital, Banaras, were made. He was subsequently sent to the Mental Hospital, Banaras and he was kept there under observation for some time. On 4-6-1955 information was received from the Superintendent, Mental Hospital, Banaras, by the Superintendent, District jail, Etawah, that the accused was in a fit state of mind to stand his trial. Information of it was sent to the Session Judge on 16-6-1955 and thereafter the trial of this case started. The accused admitted that Smt. Jagrani was his wife. He stated that he was mad and remained so for five or six years and therefore he could not say what he did during that period, that he recovered his senses only seven or eight months before when he was in the lunatic asylum. He denied that he was feigning madness after the occurrence. 4. The evidence for the prosecution consists of the statements of PW 5 Smt. Ram Devi, PW 6 Kali Charan, PW 7 Prabhu Dayal and PW 8 Ambika Prasad. He denied that he was feigning madness after the occurrence. 4. The evidence for the prosecution consists of the statements of PW 5 Smt. Ram Devi, PW 6 Kali Charan, PW 7 Prabhu Dayal and PW 8 Ambika Prasad. They deposed about the extra-judicial confession said to have been made by the accused when he was caught inside the marha after the occurrence. Smt. Ram Devi is the mother of the accused and Kali Charan is his father. Pradhu Dayal PW 7 is a neighbour, his house being at a distance of about 20 or 25 steps from that of Godhan. Ambika Prasad PW 8 is also a neighbour, his house being at a distance of about 30 or 40 steps from that of Godhan. Their evidence is that after the murder Godhan was searched for and he was found sitting near the barosi near the door of the eastern marha, that he was asked what he had done and he then replied that he had asked for water and key from his wife Smt. Jagrani but she did not give them, that he asked for water as he wanted to drink it and the key to open the box to take out bin and matchbox, that Smt. Jagrani did not give him the articles and covered her face with the dhoti upon which he struck her with the upper slab of the grinding-stone. They also stated in their evidence that Godhan had been of unsound mind for five or six days before the incident, that for this reason he had been kept locked in a room and was released from there only that night at the request of the deceased and then he committed her murder. None of the prosecution witnesses named above saw the accused committing the murder and for that reason there is no direct evidence of murder in this case. PW 4 Chhota is the chowkidar who went to the police station to make the report. He stated that on hearing the alarm of Kali Charan and his wife he went to their house and there fouad Smt. Jagrani lying dead and bleeding from her mouth and nose, that he inquired about her murder from those people and thereafter went to the police station and lodged the report. The other prosecution witnesses are of a formal nature. 5. The other prosecution witnesses are of a formal nature. 5. The accused examined one witness in his defence, namely, Suraj Prasad. He deposed that the accused Godhan became mad five or six years ago and was mad up to the date of the murder and that he committed the murder while insane, not knowing what he was doing and not knowing what would be the effect of his action. He further stated that the condition of the accused was bad for five or six days prior to the incident of murder. 6. The learned Sessions Judge on a consideration of the entire evidence was not satisfied that the accused was of unsound mind at the time of the commission of the murder and for that reason was incapable of knowing the nature of his act or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law. He, therefore, found that the accused was not entitled to the benefit of S. 84 of the IPC. In the circumstances he convicted him u/s 302, IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. 7. We have gone through the entire evidence on the record and we are of opinion that the conclusions arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge on that evidence is correct. There can be no doubt that the Appellant could get the benefit of S. 84, IPC only if there was satisfactory evidence on the record in proof of the fact that he was of unsound mind at the time of the commission of the murder and was therefore incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he was doing wrong or contrary to law. As we have already said above, there is no direct evidence that the murder was committed by the accused and his conviction rests solely on the extrajudicial confession made by him to his close relations and some neighbours. There is no satisfactory reason to disbelieve the evidence of Smt. Ram Devi, Kali Charan, Prabhu Dayal and Ambika Prasad that the accused after his arrest admitted that he had committed the murder of his wife because she refused to give him water for drinking and also the key of the box in order to enable him to take out the biris and matches from it. 8. 8. The only question, therefore which arises for consideration is whether at the time of the commission of the murder the accused was really of unsound mind and did not know what he was doing. On a perusal of the extra judicial confession itself we are of the opinion that the accused was fully conscious of what he was doing. He himself gave the reason why he committed the murder of his wife. It also appears from his conduct after the murder that he knew that he committed wrong and for that reason he ran away from the scene of the murder and concealed himself in the marha behind the barosi. If he was not aware that he had committed something wrong then there does not appear any reason why he should have run away from the scene of (he occurrence and taken shelter inside the marha. There is no doubt that there is evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the accused in the past had acted in such a manner which indicated that he was not behaving like a sane man, but we do not think that that fact by itself will be of any help to the Appellant in availing himself of the benefit of S. 84. As we have already said above, he could get the benefit of this section only if there was evidence on the record that at the time of the murder he was of unsound mind and was therefore incapable of knowing the nature of his act. We do not think that the evidence on the record warrants this conclusion. Shortly after the murder the accused was kept under observation in the District Jail, Etawah, and the Civil Surgeon as a result of the observation was not satisfied that he was really of unsound mind. He was further of opinion that he was pretending to be mad. The evidence of Smt. Ram Devi, Kali Charan, Prabhu Dayal and Ambika Prasad with regard to the insanity of the accused at the time of the commission of the murder has to be considered with caution considering the fact that Smt. Ram Devi is his own mother and Kali Charan is his father and the other two are his close neighbours. They would naturally try to make statements which would help the accused. They would naturally try to make statements which would help the accused. Smt. Ram Devi in her cross-examination said that she did not state before the committing magistrate that Godhan was mad at the time of the incident and prior to it. The explanation which was given by her for not making this statement was that she was not questioned about it. PW 6 Kali Charan in his statement before the committing magistrate (Ex. P-10) said that Godhan was quite well five or six days prior to the incident and that he was not mad. This statement of his is inconsistent with the statement which he made before the learned Sessions Judge and when he was confrontec with it he denied having made it. PW 7 Prabhu Dayal denied that he stated before the committing magistrate that Godhan told him that she was struck with the slab of the chakki to punish her and that she was not dead but was lying pretending to be dead PW 8 Ambika Prasad stated in his cross-examination that the accused was not of unsound mind always, that he used to suffer from occasional attacks of lunacy which remained for a few days at a time and after that he used to move like a sane man. He further stated that he did not know why the accused was allowed to sleep with his wife when he was not in good state of mind on the night of the occurrence. He further admitted that the accused did not beat anyone nor abused anyone, nor he was violent. 9. After a consideration of the entire evidence we are not satisfied that at the time of the commission of the murder the accused was insane or of unsound mind and as a result of it was not aware of what he was doing. It is possible that he was not a normal man. It may be that he was also somewhat mentally deficient. But that, in our opinion, would not attract the provisions of S. 84, IPC. We are of opinion that he has been rightly convicted u/s 302, IPC. 10. This appeal is therefore dismissed and the conviction of the Appellant u/s 302, IPC and the sentence of imprisonment for life are maintained.