JUDGMENT P. Govinda Menon, J. 1. Appellant Gopalan Nambiar has been convicted by the Sessions Judge of Tellicherry for the murder of his wife Lakshmikutty Amma and he has been awarded the lesser sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. The accused with his wife and children were living in Chithramadathil House in Kolayad village. A few months before the occurrence the relationship between the father of the accused had left some properties and a sister of the accused had filed a suit for partition in the Sub Court, Tellicherry. The accused was the chief contesting defendant and had filed his written statement but due to his indifference the suit happened to be decreed ex parte. His deceased wife used to find fault with the accused for not conducting the case properly. He was persuaded to file a petition to have the ex parte decree set aside and the deceased was spending money for the conduct of the case. For expenses in connection with that matter she had borrowed Rs. 10 from P.W. 6 a teacher who was taking his food from their house. The accused questioned her about the propriety of borrowing money from him and scolded her and even attempted to assault her. P.W.1 her son was staying with his grandmother for his studies and used to come for week ends. The day previous to the occurrence when the boy was in the house the deceased complained to him about the conduct of the father, how she was being harassed and she told him that if the father continues to be so cruel to her she would have to leave the house. That night after food P.W. 1 went upstairs to sleep. P.W. 3 the servant was also sleeping upstairs. The accused was sleeping in a side room. The deceased had not taken food that night as a protest against the conduct of her husband. She was sleeping in the corridor with her youngest child aged about 21/2 years by her side. Two of her small children were also sleeping in the same corridor. P.W. 2 her daughter was sleeping in the northern room with a kerosene lamp burning dimly in her room. Some time in the night she felt that the child was being placed by her side by the father. The child started crying and she woke up and took back the child to mother. P.W. 2 her daughter was sleeping in the northern room with a kerosene lamp burning dimly in her room. Some time in the night she felt that the child was being placed by her side by the father. The child started crying and she woke up and took back the child to mother. When she went there she saw the mother lying in a pool of blood and accused standing there wearing a thorthu and a chopper in his hand. She cried out. Hearing the cry P.Ws. 1 and 3 woke up, brightened the lamp that was burning in the room and came down. He saw the accused standing by the side of his mother with a chopper in his hand. On seeing P.W. 1 the accused asked him ' how will you now make over the properties in the name of your mother! P.W. 1 got frightened, did not say anything and ran up to the neighbour Sankaran Nambiar's house. Along with him they went to one Narayanan Nambiars shop and they all came over to the house. In the meanwhile the accused changed his clothes and attempted to go away but P.W. 3 made him remain there. P.W. 1 then went to the village officer and made a complaint Ex. P-1. On receipt of the yadast a case was registered. Information was sent to the Sub-Inspector who came over to the house and held the inquest. The next day the Circle Inspector came and after completing the investigation laid the charge sheet against the accused. It is seen from the court records that at the request of the police the accused was sent for observation to the Civil Surgeon attached to the Central Jail Hospital. On his report the accused was sent to the Mental Hospital, Kozhikode, where he was under treatment till 6th April 1965. Then the doctor certified that he was fit to stand his trial. The doctor was examined as a court witness, and the, criminal proceedings were started. No witnesses were examined and the accused was, in fact, not questioned. When questioned in the Sessions Court the accused only stated that he did not know anything. 3. The fact that Lakshmikutty Amma died of the serious injury on her neck has been well established and is not in fact disputed. The neck was practically cut into two and death was instantaneous. When questioned in the Sessions Court the accused only stated that he did not know anything. 3. The fact that Lakshmikutty Amma died of the serious injury on her neck has been well established and is not in fact disputed. The neck was practically cut into two and death was instantaneous. Though there are no eye-witnesses on the circumstantial evidence there can be no doubt that it was the accused who had inflicted the injuries. P.Ws. 1 to 3 saw the accused standing by the side of the deceased with the blood stained weapon. Learned counsel rightly did not attempt to question the credibility of the witnesses or the fact that it was the accused who caused the death. The only point argued by the learned counsel was that the appellant was a person of unsound mind, that he was not in a position to know or realise the acts which he was committing, that mensrea being an essential ingredient of the offence charged, he cannot be convicted of the offence of murder as no intention to cause death or to cause any injury whether resulting in death or not could possibly be attributed to him, because when he committed the act he was insane. Section 84 of the Penal Code lays down that: "Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law". 4. Learned counsel relying on the decision in D. C Thakkar v. State of Gujarat A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1563, contended that it is for the prosecution to establish the necessary mens rea of the accused and even though the accused may not have taken the plea of insanity or led any evidence to show that he was insane when he committed an offence, the prosecution must satisfy the court that the accused had the requisite intention. There can be no doubt that the burden of proving an offence is always on the prosecution and that it never shifts. But the state of mind of a person can ordinarily only be inferred from circumstances. There can be no doubt that the burden of proving an offence is always on the prosecution and that it never shifts. But the state of mind of a person can ordinarily only be inferred from circumstances. If a person deliberately cuts another with a deadly weapon like a chopper on the neck which according to our common experience is likely to cause a fatal injury, it would be reasonable to infer that what the accused did was accompanied by the intention to cause a kind of injury which in fact resulted from the act. In such a case the prosecution must be deemed to have discharged the burden which rested upon it to establish the required mens rea. Section 84, I.P.C., can be invoked by a person for nullifying the evidence adduced by the prosecution by establishing that he was at the relevant time incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law, but it is not for the prosecution to establish that a person who cuts with a chopper was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or of knowing that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law. Everyone is presumed to know the natural consequences of his act. Under section 105 of the Evidence Act the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any one of the exceptions specified in the Penal Code lies upon the accused person. It further provides that in such a case the court shall presume the absence of such circumstances. So when once the prosecution proves that the accused cut the deceased with the chopper practically severing the neck into two the duty cast on the prosecution is discharged and the presumption is that the accused was sane when he committed the act. He can rebut it either by leading evidence or by relying upon the prosecution evidence which would show that he was not sane. There is, however, no duty cast on the prosecution to establish the sanity of the accused at the time of the commission of the offence. Reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme court in Bhikari v. The State of U. P. A.I.R.1966 S.C.1. 5. There is, however, no duty cast on the prosecution to establish the sanity of the accused at the time of the commission of the offence. Reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme court in Bhikari v. The State of U. P. A.I.R.1966 S.C.1. 5. On the evidence of the prosecution it cannot be inferred that the appellant was of unsound mind at the time he committed the offence. It was argued that no man in his senses would have mercilessly attacked his wife without any satisfactory motive for the same. Motive being a mental attitude, sometimes secretly nourished, its causes especially as between spouses, not always known to the outside world, is often difficult of proof. People do often commit grave crimes from the most inadequate of motives. What one man might ignore or suffer might impel another to murder. The absence of proof of adequate motive is, therefore, not fatal to the prosecution, and it cannot be said that purely because there is no understandable motive the accused must have been insane. 6. Some of these witnesses have tried to help the accused by saying that there was something wrong with the accused. P.W. 1 the son has stated that the accused had son malayalam or bloodlessness as the judge puts it. The boy has stated that the father had giddiness and forgetfulness. PW. 2 the daughter stated that the father was not behaving like a reasonable man. P.W. 3 the servant went a step further and stated he was not mentally alright for some months prior to the occurrence. He was behaving like a mad man end talking incoherently. P.W. 4, Sankaran Nambiar stated that the accused was feeling insecure mentally. He was under treatment for insanity. He was giving incoherent answers. P.W. 6 the school master also has stated that he used to talk irrationally and was being treated. It is also seen that he was under treatment in the mental hospital after the occurrence. But these are not sufficient to make out a case of legal insanity sufficient for the court to infer that he would not have known that what he was doing was wrong and contrary to law. Let us look at the circumstances which according to the learned judge negative the theory of insanity. But these are not sufficient to make out a case of legal insanity sufficient for the court to infer that he would not have known that what he was doing was wrong and contrary to law. Let us look at the circumstances which according to the learned judge negative the theory of insanity. It is seen from the evidence of P.W. 2 the daughter that the accused had a torch light with him at the time when he committed the offence. The child was sleeping near the mother and the accused must have taken the light only for the purpose of seeing that the cut did not fall on the little child and to see that he cuts the deceased on the neck itself. After the woman is cut the child is taken and removed to the place where P.W. 2 is sleeping. That must have been only because blood was gushing out from the throat of the deceased. When P.W. 1 came up the accused said ' Now let me see how you will make over the property to your mother'. That shows that the accused knew that he had killed her. He was wearing only a thorthu mundu at the time of the murder and immediately after that occurrence the accused changed his clothes knowing that the thorthu must have got bloodstained and he wanted to escape from the place. After changing the clothes he tells his daughter P.W. 2 to look after the children well indicating that he has known that he had killed the mother and then attempted to leave the house. It was then that P.W. 3 stopped him from going and made him sit on the bench and sat near him, thus effectively preventing him from escaping from the place. In short there are no indications from his conduct either before or after, which in any way would show that he would not have known the nature of the act which he had done. The law recognises nothing but incapacity to realise the nature of the act and presumes that where a man's mindor his faculties of ratiocination are sufficiently clear to apprehend what he is doing he must always be presumed to intend the consequences of his act. The law recognises nothing but incapacity to realise the nature of the act and presumes that where a man's mindor his faculties of ratiocination are sufficiently clear to apprehend what he is doing he must always be presumed to intend the consequences of his act. It may be because of this occurrence he turned crazy and became a lunatic, but that would not help in deciding his condition at the time the act was committed. The evidence of D.W.1 does not help the accused. He is an Ayurvedic Physician, who on his own admission had not so far treated any mental cases. His certificate Ex. D-1 does not in any way refer to any mental affliction. Ex. D-1 was issued for the purpose of a civil suit as an explanation for his non-appearance on the date of hearing. When asked whether he had noted any symptoms of insanity in the accused he only stated that the accused when questioned would not give straight answers, but he has categorically stated that he never used abusive language or showed any violence. He pretended that he was keeping a register of his patients and the accused's name would find a place in the register. He was asked to produce the register and when a peon of the court was deputed to go with the witness he came out with the story that he had made a mistake and that he was not maintaining any register. The evidence of such a man is worthless and has only to be discarded. 7. Thus on a careful consideration of the evidence, we are unable to hold that the accused has succeeded in bringing his case within section 84 I.P.C. The convocation and sentence are, therefore, proper and are confirmed. The appeal is dismissed.