JUDGMENT : G.K. Misra, J. - The Appellant Section 302, Indian Penal Code and for life. 2. The deceased was the wife of the accused. On 4-5-1966 p.w. 1, the brother of the accused went out for work during noon. By then be found that the accused and the deceased were in this house. The mother (p.w. 2) of the accused used to reside with the accused. She had gone out for work. When she came back in the evening, she found the house of the accused locked. She accordingly went to the house of her eldest son (p.w. 1) to take her meals. By then p.w. 1 and his wife had finished this meals and no food was available for p.w. 2. So both p.ws. 1 and 2 went to the house of the accused. P.w. 1 broke the look and opened the door. P.ws. 1 and 2 found the dead body of the deceased lying inside. P.w. 1 reported the matter to p.w. 4, the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti. They convened a panchayati next morning. The accused who was sleeping in a Choupadi, was sent for. He confessed his guilt before p.ws. 1, 3 and 4. The defence is one of denial. The accused also resorts to plea of insanity. The learned Session Judge held that the death was homicidal and that the accused killed the deceased. The plea of insanity was rejected. 3. That the death was homicidal can hardly be disputed. The Doctor (p.w. 9), who held the post mortem examination, found 3 incised injuries on the neck, mandible and deltoid region which is also adjacent to the neck. The injuries were ante mortem and, according to the Doctor, the death must have been instantaneous. The learned Judge reached the correct conclusion that the death was homicidal. 4. The next question for consideration is whether the accused killed the deceased. There are no eye witnesses. The conviction is based on the judicial confession (Ext. 12) made by the accused before the magistrate (p.w. 8) and also on the extra-judicial confession made before the mother (p.w. 2) during the night as also separately made before p.ws. 1, 3 and 4 next has been convicted under sentenced to imprisonment morning. The Appellant has retracted the confessions inasmuch as he takes the plea that he does not know anything. 1, 3 and 4 next has been convicted under sentenced to imprisonment morning. The Appellant has retracted the confessions inasmuch as he takes the plea that he does not know anything. In view of the retraction it is necessary to examine whether the confessions are voluntary and true. 5. The judicial confession was recorded by p.w. 8 sufficient time was given for claim and cool reflection. All the precautionary questions were put to disabuse the mind of the accused of any promise, pressure or threat. The learned Judge found that the confessional statement was voluntary. We are at one with him. 6. In order to see whether the confessional statement is true, it may be extracted: Last Wednesday I took little food during day time. My wife Sanai asked me to sleep in the house. I refused. She however persisted that I should sleep in the house. She asked me to sleep with her or to leave her in the jungle. As the mat was smelting foul, I took my wife to be a witch. So thinking I cut her neck with an axe. I gave 3 strokes. She died. I confessed my guilt before the villagers as also before the police. My wife was carrying 7 months. General corroboration of the retracted confession of an accused is sufficient in the eye of law unlike in the case of an accomplice where corroboration in material particulars is essential. In this case, however, corroboration in material particulars is available. It is well settled that corroboration of each and every statement in the confessional statement is not necessary as in such a case the conviction shall have to be based on independent evidence and not on the retracted confession. The first part of the confessional statement as to the talk that took place between the deceased and the accused cannot be corroborated, as nobody else was present then. The rest of the statement has been substantially corroborated inasmuch as there are three strokes on the neck or near about, as deposed to by the Doctor (p.w. 9), and they are an incised wounds which could be caused by the axe (M.O. II) belonging to the accused, as testified by his brother (p.w. 1). The accused's version in a confessional statement t hat he disclosed this fact to the villagers is corroborated by the evidence of p.ws. The accused's version in a confessional statement t hat he disclosed this fact to the villagers is corroborated by the evidence of p.ws. 1, 3 and 4 that an extra-judicial confession was made before them. In the confessional statement the accused says that his wife died. In fact the wife has been killed and she is dead. He further stated in the confessional statement that his wife was carrying 7 months. On medical examination, that was found to be so, and that is also the evidence of p.ws. 1 and 2. The extracted confession therefore stands corroborated in material particulars. The conviction can be sustained only on the basis of the retracted confession alone. 7. The same conclusion is arrived at on the basis of the extra-judicial Confession made separately before p.w. 2 and before p.ws. 1, 3 and 4. P.ws. 3 and 4 are co-villagers. P.w. 4 is the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti and is a respectable person. There is no reason why the mother, the brother and the co-villagers would implicate the Appellant in a gruesome murder of his own wife. The extra-judicial confessions have been retracted. For reasons already discussed, they stand corroborated in material particulars. 8. The next question for consideration is whether the Appellant's plea of insanity u/s 84, Indian Penal Code is sustainable. The section runs thus: 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. From the evidence of p.ws. 1, 2 and 4 it appears that for 15 days before the date of occurrence the accused was taking little food and most part of his food was given to other animals like dogs and cocks. He was also talking little and that very often incoherently. He was also to weep at times on seeing persons and was playing on Khanjani while going round the village. Of course the accused believed in the Mahima Dharma (Alekh cult). The question for consideration is whether on the aforesaid symptoms it can be said that he lost his cognitive faculties in a manner so as not to distinguish between the right and the wrong at the time he committed the murder. Of course the accused believed in the Mahima Dharma (Alekh cult). The question for consideration is whether on the aforesaid symptoms it can be said that he lost his cognitive faculties in a manner so as not to distinguish between the right and the wrong at the time he committed the murder. Though the previous and subsequent conduct of the Appellant might not be determinative in judging his mental thinking process at the time of the commission of the offence, they furnish reasonable clue to understand the mind, there being no other ostensible test available to judge the exact condition of his mind at the particular point of time. From the antecedent conduct it is not clear that he lost his cognitive faculties in any way. A distinction has always been emphasized between medical and legal insanity. Most of the Cases of medical insanities are not accepted as cases of legal insanities, for the simple reason that on a much less rigorous test there can be medical insanity requiring treatment of the mind and the body. Rut in case of legal insanity the Court must come to a definite conclusion that cognitive faculty of the mind was lost. Immediately after the murder the accused left the house, but during that very night he came back and confessed his guilt to the mother. It is therefore apparent that soon after, he was conscious that his action was not justified. This is not consistent with the lack of cognitive faculty. Early next morning he confessed his guilt before the villagers. If he was insane, his reaction would have been completely otherwise. When the I.O. (p.w. 7) came to the village be also talked with the accused and did not notice any symptom of insanity. The accused was put for observation under the Civil Surgeon (p.w. 5) for about a week. P.w. 5. says that he did not find any abnormality. The antecedent and subsequent conduct of the accused does not therefore establish that the accused was insane so as to be incapable of knowing the nature of his act. The learned Sessions Judge therefore reached the correct conclusion in observing that the evidence of some of the witnesses as to the unusual behaviour of the accused prior to the incident is only evidence of some queer conduct. We accordingly reject the plea of insanity. 9. There is no merit in this appeal. The learned Sessions Judge therefore reached the correct conclusion in observing that the evidence of some of the witnesses as to the unusual behaviour of the accused prior to the incident is only evidence of some queer conduct. We accordingly reject the plea of insanity. 9. There is no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. Acharya, J. 10. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed