Kader, J.- This is an appeal filed by the State challenging an order of acquittal passed in a murder case by the Court of Session, Kozhikode Division. Sulekha, a young girl of 15, who has been described by the trial Court as “the soft skinned bewitching daughter of an ironmonger” was stabbed to death by Ravi alies Raveendran, aged 26, in broad day-light on 23rd April, 1976 at about 3-45 p.m. from the eastern side of a public road called Panniankara road in Calicut City. 2. At the trial Ravi, the accused who is the respondent herein, pleaded guilty to the charge framed against him under section 302, Indian Penal Code. But stating in paragraph 2 of the judgment that the accused pleaded guilty to a charge under section 302, Indian Penal Code, seemingly preferring a sentence to the contested agony of a criminal trial and in paragraph 15, that this plea was entered by him two months after the offence had been committed and during the entire period of two months, without any break, the accused was either in police custody or in the custody of the Court and that he seemed to be unconcerned with the punishment which may follow on conviction if his plea was accepted, the trial Court proceeded with the trial of the accused. 3. On the conclusion of the trial, the Court held that the accused had stabbed and killed Sulekha on the date, at the time and the place specified in the charge; but, finding that it was in a fit of impulsive insanity that he killed her and therefore he was entitled to the protection under section 35, Indian Penal Code, acquitted him. 4. It is the finding of the trial Court that the accused is entitled to the benefits of section 84, Indian Penal Code, that is challenged in this appeal. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor strongly assailed the finding of the trial Court in this regard and the consequent order of acquittal on various grounds. 4. It is the finding of the trial Court that the accused is entitled to the benefits of section 84, Indian Penal Code, that is challenged in this appeal. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor strongly assailed the finding of the trial Court in this regard and the consequent order of acquittal on various grounds. He submitted that the trial Court grievously erred in failing to take note of the distinction between medical insanity and legal insanity, that what is recognised under section 84, Indian Penal Code, is only legal insanity, that the trial judge has neither discussed nor properly considered the material evidence in the case, that his finding on insanity is not based on any legal and admissible evidence on record, that he had referred to and relied on extraneous matters, that a reading of the judgment will show that from the very inception the trial Judge has started with the assumption that the accused was insane and that the various passages extracted in the judgment from the text books of psychiatry and Medical jurisprudence have no application to the present case. It was also submitted that the evidence of D.W. 1 is highly interested, unsatisfactory and unreliable, that the accused was perfectly of sound mind at the time of the commission of the offence, that it is clear from the evidence that the attack was brutal and vindictive and that the remarks made against the Public Prosecutor and the police by the trial Court are quite unwarranted and not supported by any material. 6. Supporting the order of acquittal, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent contended that there is no evidence that the accused had a motive to commit this crime, that he was madly in love with Sulekha as disclosed from his letters written to Sulekha produced before the trial Court, that the murder was not committed in secrecy but in broad daylight, that he did not make any attempt to escape, but on the other hand, he lay on the dead body till the police came. that he was impulsive and sensitive by nature and also a person of irritable temperament and that these circumstances are sufficient to hold that the accused was insane at the time of the commission of the offence. 7. that he was impulsive and sensitive by nature and also a person of irritable temperament and that these circumstances are sufficient to hold that the accused was insane at the time of the commission of the offence. 7. It is necessary to state the material and relevant facts of the prosecution case in some detail as disclosed from the evidence, especially when the trial judge has not adverted to some of the material facts and discussed the cadence in detail. 8. Sulekha, a ninth standard student, was the daughter of Rukkiya (P.W. 7) and the sister of Basheer (P.W. 4). Her father is an ironmonger. They were residing together in a small house at Panniankara, a few yards to the west of the house of Ravi, a radio mechanic, who was residing there along with his parents and sister Santha (D.W. 1). A few months before the incident, the parents of Sulekha shifted their residence to Panniankara. Ravi has studied upto ninth standard. P.W. 4 and Ravi became friends and Ravi often used to visit the house of P.W. 4. Ravi fell in love with Sulekha which she readily responded and actively reciprocated. The frequent visits of Ravi even in the absence of P.W. 4 and his father were not welcome, as they suspected that Ravi was interested in Sulekha. Some time prior to the occurrence, P.W. 4 insisted and warned Ravi that he should not visit their house any more in their absence. Ever since, this, the relationship between P.W. 4 and Ravi became strained. Thereafter., although Ravi stopped his visits to the house, he and Sulekha exchanged love letters and there were a quite number of them. M.Os. 4, 7 and 9 to 11 are some of these letters written by Ravi to Sulekha and M.Os. 6 and 12 and Exhibit D-3, D-5 and D-6 are letters written by Sulekha to Ravi, produced in the case. On the day of Vishu on 14th April, 1976, Ravi sent “Vishu Kaineettam” (presents for the Vishu Day) to Sulekha. He wanted to marry Sulekha who, in her turn also gave him hope in this regard. Due to the unfavourable attitude taken by P.W. 4 and the parents of the girl, the hopes of Ravi were shattered which ultimately led to his taking a hostile attitude towards Sulekha. It was during the mid-summer holidays that this tragic incident took place. Sulekha. Due to the unfavourable attitude taken by P.W. 4 and the parents of the girl, the hopes of Ravi were shattered which ultimately led to his taking a hostile attitude towards Sulekha. It was during the mid-summer holidays that this tragic incident took place. Sulekha. was attending a stitching class in the neighbouring N.S.S. School. When he came to know that Sulekha and her sister, Rasheeda had received two rupees each as Vishu present from the respondent, P.W. 4 took a stern stand and beat Rasheeda and admonished Sulekha who then promised that she would not talk with Ravi in future. On 22nd April, 1976, the day previous to the incident, at about 4-30 p.m. a letter (marked in the case as M.O. 4) sent by Ravi to Sulekha, fell into the hands of P.W. 4. The letter M.O. 4 disclosed his despair and also his disappointed and excited state of mind. On the day previous to the occurrence, when Sulekha was going to the stitching class, Ravi who was standing near Kottaram-Panniankara road (hereinafter referred to as the Kottaram Junction) attempted to talk to Sulekha, but Sulekha went away avoiding him. On the date of occurrence after her noon meals at about 1-30 p.m., Sulekha along with Lakshmi (P.W. 2), another student in the stitching class, left her house to attend the stitching class. She was then having a small box (M.O. 1) containing the stitching needle and other sewing materials and also a small book (M.O. 2). After finishing the class, Sulekha in the company of P.W. 2 were returning home. When they were about to reach Kottaram Junction at about 3-30 p.m. Ravi obstructed Sulekha and asked P.W. 2 at first in a friendly way and thereafter in an angry manner to leave the place. Ravi then caught hold of the hand of Sulekha and pulled her. Sulekha wriggled out from his hold and throwing the book and box in her hand on the ground ran northwards. Ravi chased her, caught hold of her and stabbed her with a dagger (M.O. 3) in quick succession on her back. Even after she fell down, he stabbed her indiscriminately and thereafter lay down there clasping the body of Sulekha raising up the dagger in his hand. Sulekha died on the spot. 9. Ravi chased her, caught hold of her and stabbed her with a dagger (M.O. 3) in quick succession on her back. Even after she fell down, he stabbed her indiscriminately and thereafter lay down there clasping the body of Sulekha raising up the dagger in his hand. Sulekha died on the spot. 9. P.W. 1, one of the eye-witnesses, immediately went to the Panniankara Police Station, one kilometre away from the place of occurrence, and gave the first information statement, Exhibit P-1. at 4 p.m. before the Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W. 14) who recorded the same and registered a case on that basis. After making arrangements to send express reports, P.W. 14 with a posse of police constables reached the scene of offence at 4-45 p.m., wrested away the dagger (M.O. 3) from the right-hand of Ravi, the accused, and arrested him. On reaching the police station, the person of the accused was searched and the blood-stained clothes (M.Os. 13 to 15) worn by the accused were taken into custody under mahazar Exhibit P-4 attested by P.W. 9. A purse containing some changes and the letter (M.O. 11) written by the accused to Sulekha found in the pocket of the underwear worn by the accused were also taken into custody and the necessary entries were made in the prisoner’s search register. Sri Ramachandran (P.W. 15) Detective. Inspector, taking up investigation of the case, reached the place of occurrence at 5 p.m., held inquest over the dead body of Sulekha between 5 p.m. and 8-15 P.M., prepared inquest report (Exhibit P-5), questioned P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 and seized M.O. 4, letter produced by P.W. 4. He also seized the blood-stained sand, a bound-book (M.O. 2), a small box (M.O. 1) containing sewing materials and other things found at the place of occurrence. The next morning after questioning the accused and recording his statement, P.W. 15 searched the house of the accused at 10 a.m. in the presence of P.W. 11, the father of the accused and others and recovered M.O. 26, a file belonging to the accused from inside a box under a search list Exhibit P-6 attested by P.W. 11. There were 17 letters including M.Os. 5 to 10. M.O. 12 and Exhibit P-3 inside M.O. 26 file. There were 17 letters including M.Os. 5 to 10. M.O. 12 and Exhibit P-3 inside M.O. 26 file. On the same day the accused was produced before the local Judicial Magistrate or II Glass and was remanded to judicial custody. P.W.6, Professor in Forensic Medicine, Medical College, Calicut, held autopsy over the dead body of Sulekha and issued post martem certificate, Exhibit P-2. The Village Assistant of Panniankara Village (P.W. 13) prepared Exhibit P-10, a sketch of the place of occurrence. During investigation P.W. 15 questioned other witnesses, gave requisition to the Court to send certain material objects for chemical examination and on completion of the investigation, laid the charge-sheet against the accused on 28th May, 1976. 10. The accused when examined on the prosecution evidence admitted that he used to visit the house of Sulekha, that he had given “Vishu Kaineettam” (Vishu present) to Sulekha and her younger sister on the Vishu Day, that he showed M.O. 6 letter to P.W. 5, that M.O. 4 is a letter written by him, that M.O. 26 file belonged to him and that he was in intimacy with Sulekha. Regarding the incident and some other circumstances, the only answers given by him were that he did not remember and that he did not know. 11. One witness, sister of the accused, was examined as D.W. 1 in support of his contention. 12. It is not disputed that Sulekha died as a result of the injuries sustained by her on the date of occurrence and the same is also amply proved by the medical evidence. Autopsy held by P.W. 6 revealed that she had sustained as many as 31 ante-mortem injuries on different parts of her body which have been described in detail in Exhibit P-2 post-mortem certificate. According to the doctor, she died of bleeding and shock from multiple injuries sustained and the death would have been instantaneous. All the injuries could have been caused by a single edged weapon like M.O. 3. Injuries Nos. 1,2,3,5,8,11,12,18,22 to 28, 30 and 31 are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 13. The important and central point for decision in this appeal is whether it was the accused who was responsible for the killing of Sulekha and whether the acts committed by him are protected by section 84, Indian Penal Code. Injuries Nos. 1,2,3,5,8,11,12,18,22 to 28, 30 and 31 are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 13. The important and central point for decision in this appeal is whether it was the accused who was responsible for the killing of Sulekha and whether the acts committed by him are protected by section 84, Indian Penal Code. Although it was not disputed before the trial Court and also before this Court that it was the accused who inflicted all the injuries on Sulekha causing her death; in view of the burden of the prosecution to prove its case against the accused and the plea of the accused, it is necessary to reconsider the entire evidence in detail. 14. A Court of law is concerned only with the legal insanity and not with the medical insanity. There is a clear distinction between the two. An accused person may be suffering from some form of insanity in the sense in which the term is used by medical men, but may not be suffering from unsoundness of mind as contemplated under section 84, Indian Penal Code. There can be no legal insanity unless cognitive faculties of the mind or as a result of unsoundness of mind, so completely impaired as to render the offender incapable of knowing the nature of the Act or that what he is doing is wrong or contrary to law. According to medical science, insanity is another name or term for mental abnormality due to various causes and existing in various degrees, and even an uncontrollable impulse driving a man to kill or wound comes within its scope. It is not every form of insanity or madness that is recognised by law as a sufficient excuse, to earn exemption under section 84, Indian Penal Code. The authoritative pronouncement of the English Common Law of Insanity was made by the Privy Council in Daniel Mc Naughten’s case1, in the answers of the 15 Judges which subsequently came to be known as McNaughtens’ Rules. Section 84, Indian Penal Code in substance is the same as that laid down by the House of Lords in the Mc Naughten’s Case1. Section 84, Indian Penal Code in substance is the same as that laid down by the House of Lords in the Mc Naughten’s Case1. In Stale of Madhya Pradesh v. Ahmadulla2, it was held by the Supreme Court that the crucial point of time at which the unsoundness of mind, as defined in section 84,Indian Penal Code, has to be established, is when the act was committed and that the burden of proving this lay on the accused who claimed the benefit of the exemption. This is what section 105 of the Evidence Act, also lays down. The doctrine of burden of proof in the context of the plea of insanity has been stated m detail by the Supreme Court in Dahyabhai Chhajanbhai Thakker v. State of Gujarat3. This has been explained and affirmed in Bhikari v. Slate of Uttar Pradesh4, wherein the Supreme Court held: “There is no doubt that the, burden of proving an offence is always on the prosecution and that it never shifts. It would, therefore, be correct to say that intention, when it is an essential ingredient of an offence, has also to be established by the prosecution. But the state of mind of a person can ordinarily only be inferred from circumstances. Thus if a person deliberately strikes another with a deadly weapon, which according to the common experience of mankind is likely to cause an injury and sometimes even a fatal injury depending upon the quality of the weapon and the part of the body on which it is struck, 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 an essential ingredient of the offence, namely the intention of the accused, in inflicting a blow with a deadly weapon. Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, can no doubt 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. Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, can no doubt 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. Now it is not for the prosecution to establish that a person who strikes another with a deadly weapon 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. Similarly everyone is also presumed to know the law. These are not facts which the prosecution has to establish.” If upon a consideration of the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution and the defence, a reasonable doubt is created in the mind of the Court about the guilt of the accused, he would be entitled to be acquitted. 15. The condition of an accused person antecedent and subsequent to the commission of the offence is relevant only in so far as it might assist the Court in coming to a conclusion as to the mental capacity of the accused at the time when the accused committed the offence. The apparent purposelessness of the commission of the crime or its enormity by itself cannot be relied on to hold that the accused was of unsound mind. So also abnormal conduct due to intensity of anger or the fact that the accused worked himself into a great fury are not sufficient to establish insanity. It is the state of mind of the accused at the time of the ‘commission of the offence that matters and this can be inferred or established from the circumstances which preceded, attended and followed the commission of the crime In other words, it is his behaviour, antecedent, attendant and subsequent to the event which may be relevant is ascertaining the mental condition of the accused at the time of the commission of the offence, but not those remote in time. Similarly the fact that the prosecution evidence raised a mere vague suspicion that the accused might have been suffering from an insanity of a very minor type is also not by itself sufficient to discharge the onus of proof which lies on the party who pleads the exemption. Similarly the fact that the prosecution evidence raised a mere vague suspicion that the accused might have been suffering from an insanity of a very minor type is also not by itself sufficient to discharge the onus of proof which lies on the party who pleads the exemption. Mere presence of circumstances such as absence of motive, multiple murders, want of pre-arrangement and what of accomplices by themselves are not sufficient to satisfy the requirements under section 84, Indian Penal Code, or to support the inference that the person who committed the offence was of unsound mind. Strange behaviour and the fact that the crime was attended with uncommon ferocity also are not by themselves sufficient to attract section 84, Indian Penal Code. 16. In R. v. Holt1, the Court of Criminal Appeal declined to extend the tests laid down in Mc Naughten’s case2 so as to include "uncontrollable impulse". In that case, The Lord Chief Justice said: "It is not enough for a medical expert to come to the Court and to say generally that in his opinion the criminal is insane. There must be some evidence of insanity within the meaning of the rule in Me Naughten’s case2." In R. v. Kopsch3, the Court of Criminal Appeal laid down that the defence of uncontrollable impulse is unknown to English law and that "if the fantastic theory of uncontrollable impulse were to become part of our criminal law, it would be merely subversive" (See pages 845 and 846 of ‘Taylor’s Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence’, Vol. I, 8th Edn.). Although the rules formulated in the Mc Naughten’s case2 have been attacked by the medical profession and also by certain lawyers, most of the lawyers have taken the view that "the concept of irresistible or uncontrollable impulse is a dangerous one since it is not practicable to distinguish between those impulses which are the product of mental disease and those which are the product of ordinary passion or where mental disease exists, between impulses that may be genuinely irresistible and those which are merely not resisted.‘ (Dr. Kenni’s Outlines of Criminal Law-Gour’s Penal Law of India, 9th Edn. Vol. I, p. 625). Kenni’s Outlines of Criminal Law-Gour’s Penal Law of India, 9th Edn. Vol. I, p. 625). In Attorney General for South Australia v. Brown4, it was held by the Privy Council that the law will not recognise irresistible impulse, which per se affords no defence, as a symptom from which the jury may without evidence infer insanity with in the Mc Naughten Rules. Reversing the order of the High Court, the Privy Council held that in none of the leading cases of recent years where the defence of insanity was raised had there been any suggestion that although irresistible impulse afforded no defence per se the law would recognise it as a symptom from which the jury might without evidence infer insanity within the Mc Naughten Rules. 17. The doctrine of uncontrollable or irresistible impulse and impulsive insanity is not a valid defence coming within the purview of section 84, Indian Penal Code. Every crime is committed under an impulse and the great object of the criminal law is to compel or induce persons to control or resist these impulses. Impulsive insanity affects the will and emotions and not the cognitive faculties of a person. Under the Indian Law, an accused person is not entitled to exemption from criminal responsibility on the mere ground of loss of power of self-control at the time of the commission of the offence unless it was attributable to unsoundness of mind satisfying the requirements under section 84, Indian Penal Code. A Division Bench of this Court is Kannakunnummal v. State1 relying on the aforesaid decision of the Privy Council and also two decisions of the Supreme Court reported in Dahyabhai v. State of Gujarat2, and Bhikari v. Stale of U.P.3., held that: “Fear complex, excitement or irresistible impulse, with loss of self-control, even if such be taken as been proved in the case, affords no defence to a crime under the Indian law and is therefore irrelevant except for a mitigation of the offence from murder to culpable homicide in certain circumstances.” The following observation in Attorney-General for South Australia’s case4 makes it clear that there is no legal presumption that uncontrollable impulse is a symptom of insanity: “Their Lordships are not, of course, suggesting that legal insanity cannot be sufficiently proved without medical evidence. The previous and contemporaneous acts of the accused may often be preferred to medical theory. The previous and contemporaneous acts of the accused may often be preferred to medical theory. But where the whole case for the defence is based upon the accused having a particular form of mental disease such as schizophrenia, the nature and symptoms of which are known to psychiatrists but knowledge of which cannot be attributed to a jury, the law will not step in to instruct a jury in the absence of medical evidence as to the true operation of uncontrollable impulse as a possible symptom of insanity of a required kind and degree”. The mere fact that no motive has been proved for the commission of the murder or the fact that the accused made no attempt to run away would not indicate that he was insane or that he did not have the necessary mens rea. See S.W. Mohammed v. State of Maharashtra5. The fact that the accused behaved in a strange manner subsequent to the commission of the offence or that he did not try to escape or run away from the scene of offence is not indicative of insanity or incapability of knowing the nature of the act or what he was doing was wrong or contrary to law. See In re, Govindaswami6, and In re, Subramanian.7 A Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Madhavan8, held that it would be dangerous to hold that, because an atrocious murder was committed for no apparent reason and for no proved motive, the offender must have been insane at the time; and that without any proof whatsoever of prior insanity. It was also held that the presumption of sanity remained unweakened by any evidence of earlier insanity. In Brig Kishore Pandey v. State of U.P.9. a Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of three learned Judges speaking through the then learned Chief Justice observed: “Although under our present law the plea of irresistible impulse is not yet accepted as a defence to a charge of murder, it may be taken into account in assessing the true punishment to be given in a case.” 18. Bearing in mind the principles laid down by the Supreme Court governing appeals against acquittals, the principles referred to and discussed above, the plea raised on behalf of the accused, and the reasons given by the trial Court, let us now proceed to carefully scrutinise the evidence on record. 19. Bearing in mind the principles laid down by the Supreme Court governing appeals against acquittals, the principles referred to and discussed above, the plea raised on behalf of the accused, and the reasons given by the trial Court, let us now proceed to carefully scrutinise the evidence on record. 19. Aboobacker (P.W.1), Lakshmi (P.W. 2) and Sushanth (P.W.3) are the eyewitnesses to the occurrence. P.W. 2 who was attending stitching class along with Sulekha swears to the beginning of the incident and the circumstances under which the accused met Sulekha. While returning home, when they were about to reach the Kottaram Junction, which is about 75 metres to the south of the place of occurrence, P.W. 2 saw the accused standing on the eastern side of Panniankara road which runs north to south. The evidence of P.W. 2 shows that the accused obstructed Sulekha, that when P.W. 2 walked ahead and turned back the accused in a friendly and mild way told her that she could go and that when she remained there without leaving the place and called out to Sulekha, the accused caught hold of the hands of Sulekha and turning against the witness asked her in angry tone to leave the place. P.W. 2 then got frightened and ran away from the place. Sushanth (P.W. 3) is a student whose residence is close to the scene of offence. At about 3.30 p.m. while she was in the room on the varandah of her house, she heard the cry of a girl from the road in front of her house. Immediately she rushed to her gate and saw Sulekha lying fallen on the eastern side of the road and the accused inflicting stabs one after the other in quick succession on the abdomen and on the chest of Sulekha with a dagger. The accused thereafter lay on the injured holding up M.O.3 blood-stained’ dagger in his right hand. She has also deposed to the arrival of the Sub-Inspector,P.W. 14, and to the seizure of M.O. 3 from the hands of the accused and his arrest. Aboobacker, P.W. 1, the first informant, is a person residing in the same locality and was returning home after visiting a friend of him. While he reached Kottaram Junction he saw P.W. 2 coming running towards south along Panniankara road in a frightened manner. Aboobacker, P.W. 1, the first informant, is a person residing in the same locality and was returning home after visiting a friend of him. While he reached Kottaram Junction he saw P.W. 2 coming running towards south along Panniankara road in a frightened manner. Then he looked that side, he saw the accused pulling the hands of Sulekha and Sulekha extricating herself from the hold of accused and running northwards dropping down M.Os. 1 and 2 which she had in her hands. His evidence also shows that the accused chased her, stopped her by catching her tuft of hair and inflicted several stabs on her back with the dagger in his hand, that Sulekha crying aloud fell down on the road, that even after that the accused knelt down and again stabbed her several times and that thereafter he lay on her body raising up the dagger in his hand. The witness was stunned at this sight. All these witnesses have identified M.O. 3 as the dagger used by the accused for the commission of the offence. P.W. 1 has sworn to the incident in detail. Within half an hour Exhibit P-1, the first information statement, was laid before the police and it contains all the material facts of the case. The eye-witnesses and P.W. 4 were questioned at the inquest. The other material witnesses were also questioned on the same day. In the circumstances of the case, P.Ws. 1 to 3 are quite competent, natural and probable witnesses. Nothing has been brought out in their evidence during cross examination to discredit or suspect their evidence on the material points deposed to by them. Their evidence is consistent cogent and fully reliable. On all material particulars, these witnesses corroborate each other. The prosecution has succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt that it was the accused who caused the death of Sulekha in the manner and under the circumstances alleged by the prosecution. 20. What remains for consideration is whether the accused is entitled to the exemption from criminal responsibility provided under section 84, Indian Penal Code. The prosecution has succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt that it was the accused who caused the death of Sulekha in the manner and under the circumstances alleged by the prosecution. 20. What remains for consideration is whether the accused is entitled to the exemption from criminal responsibility provided under section 84, Indian Penal Code. It is clear from the evidence of the eye-witnesses and the other material witnesses discussed in the above paragraphs that the accused was of sound mind at the time when he stabbed Sulekha and that he was capable of knowing the nature of his act and that what he was doing was wrong and contrary to law. It was relying on M.Os. 9 and 10, letters written by the accused to Sulekha and M.Os. 6 and 12 and Exhibit D-3, D-5 and D-6,letters written by Sulekha to the accused and also some of the letters recovered by P.W. 15 from the file. M.O. 26 that the trial Court held that there was no motive for the accused to murder Sulekha as their relationship had not been ruptured and that the accused idealised his love as spiritual. The Counsel for the accused also placed reliance on these letters and sought to support the findings of the trial Court. It was picking out a few words and some stray sentences out of context from here and there from one or two letters that the trial Court found that the love of the accused towards Sulekha was sensual or spiritual and that there was no rupture in the relationship between the two. Following the warning given by P.W. 4, accused stopped visiting his house but he continued his contact with Sulekha by exchanging love letters. Some of the letters produced and marked in this case are those sent in March and April, 1976. There is nothing in any of these letters relied on by the trial Court to conclude or show that the love of the accused with Sulekha was only sensual or spiritual. On the other hand, they abundantly make it clear that the love was sexual and the accused wanted to marry Sulekha. M.O. 9 letter dated 18th April, 1976 states that for them to succeed before law Sulekha must pass the age of 15 and the accused asks Sulekha whether she would wait till then for him. On the other hand, they abundantly make it clear that the love was sexual and the accused wanted to marry Sulekha. M.O. 9 letter dated 18th April, 1976 states that for them to succeed before law Sulekha must pass the age of 15 and the accused asks Sulekha whether she would wait till then for him. In M.O. 9 letter, the accused states that it was because he believed that Sulekha was exclusively his, that he loved her and asks her whether she is prepared to make sacrifices and wait for him. The lovers belonged to two different communities. The parents and brother of Sulekha were against her intimacy with the accused. What is hinted in M.O. 9 letter is a marriage under the Special Marriage Act and for that Sulekha has to become a major. In M.O. 10 letter dated 19th April, 1976, the accused has stated that his goal in life was to secure her but it was only at the fag end of the journey that he realised that he could not reach his goal. In the letter dated 22nd March, 1976, Sulekha tells the accused that she is a spoilt (nasichcha) girl and asks him why he should desire for such a girl and whether he would not get a good girl of status. In another letter M.O.G. dated 23rd March, 1976, she informs the accused that even after two weeks, her bleeding has not stopped and that he should get her some pills for that. Still in another letter, she tells the accused that if he takes her with him he had to find put someone for cooking food, as she did not know any cooking and she knew only to eat, drink and enjoy. Letter dated 18th March, 1976 shows that she gave a bite to his lips in love making. It is clear from all these letters and other letters produced in the case and relied on by the trial Court and the defence that the accused was intensely in love with Sulekha and he wanted to marry her and that Sulekha responded to his love and gave him promise and hopes in the matter of marriage. There is the evidence of P.W. 4 and also of P.W. 7 that they noticed impropriety in the movement and conduct of the accused towards Sulekha and this aroused suspicion in their minds. There is the evidence of P.W. 4 and also of P.W. 7 that they noticed impropriety in the movement and conduct of the accused towards Sulekha and this aroused suspicion in their minds. About a month prior to the occurrence the accused was warned by P.W. 4 and also by his father, that he should not visit their house in their absence. The evidence also shows that thereafter the relationship between the accused and P.W. 4 became strained and the accused stopped visiting the house of Sulekha. It is significant to note that M.O. 9 letter dated 18th April, 1976, begins with the words ‘dear Sulekha and ends with your own Raviyettan’; while M.O. 10 of the next day begins without any such endearing terms and ends with ‘Raveendran’. It can be seen from the letters produced and marked in the case that the warmth of their love and affection was gradually disappearing and the relationship was becoming less cordial. The accused started feeling that Sulekha was gradually breaking away from him and that she was not reciprocating his love or reiterating her love towards him as before. He also started suspecting the sincerity and genuineness of her love towards him as revealed from the letters relied on in this case. In M.O. 12 dated 18th April, 1976, Sulekha states that the accused was referring to her in his letter as ‘old friend’ and that anyhow their period of waiting was nearing an end “Yenthayalum nammudae kathirip pindae kalavathi ka hiyarayallo” In M.O. 10 letter of 19th April, 1976, the accused says that his first failure in life was with Sulekha, that the mistake was his, that they can part for the time being “Iyeppol vidavangaam” and that nobody should be ruined on account of him. The accused also asks Sulekha in his letter why can’t she at least give a smile to him by which she does not lose anything and requests her to give him at least a smile when they happened to meet. This letter shows the grievance of the accused that Sulekha was not even smiling at him. When they met each other, Sulekha went away avoiding him. It is in this context that he said that he will pray to God that they should not meet each other. This letter shows the grievance of the accused that Sulekha was not even smiling at him. When they met each other, Sulekha went away avoiding him. It is in this context that he said that he will pray to God that they should not meet each other. Again in this letter, he says that there will be no more trouble to her on account of him and he may be pardoned for the mistakes committed by him. All those indicate the grievance of the accused against Sulekha and the strained feelings that existed between them. It was only two days prior to the occurrence that P.W. 4 came to know of the Vishu presents given by the accused to Sulekha and her younger sister. P.W. 4 has sworn that he beat the younger sister and warned Sulekha against her conduct when Sulekha started crying and promised that she would not talk with Ravi in future. At about 4.30 p.m. on the day previous to the incident Anish, aged 8, the younger sister of Asha, a girl residing in the neighbourhood, through whom the accused sent Vishu presents to Sulekha, came to the house of Sulekha with M.O. 4, a letter sent by the accused to be delivered to Sulekha. Anish handed over the letter to P.W. 4 as directed by P.W. 7. The statement of the accused in Court might be recalled now. It is admitted by the accused that he sent Vishu presents to Sulekha and M.O. 4 is a letter written by him. In M.O. 4 the accused wants Sulekha to inform him the reasons for having fallen out with him, and requests her not to forget the promises given by her. The letter continues as a sort of warning that if she disappointed him he could not suffer it and that they should never get separated. P.W. 4 questioned Sulekha about this letter and advised her that she should sever her connections with the accused. We find no reason to reject the evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 7 on these points. The letter continues as a sort of warning that if she disappointed him he could not suffer it and that they should never get separated. P.W. 4 questioned Sulekha about this letter and advised her that she should sever her connections with the accused. We find no reason to reject the evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 7 on these points. There is the evidence of P.W. 2 that on 22nd April, 1976 the day previous to the death of Sulekha, while they were returning from the stitching class they saw the accused standing on the road about 20 yards to the north of the Kottaram Junction and that when the accused tried to talk with Sulekha, Sulekha went away unmindful of him as if she had not seen him and that the witness then did not notice anything abnormal in him at that time. We have already referred to the evidence of this witness that the accused at first asked her in a polite and friendly way to go away and that without leaving the place when she called out to Sulekha whether she was not coming, the accused got angry and asked her to leave the place in a threatening manner. The conduct of the accused towards P.W. 2 shows that he was fully sane and normal and that he wanted P.W. 2, the only person present there at the time of occurrence, to leave the place before he could carry out his designs. He was taking care to see that nobody was present there to give assistance or help to the victim. It was while Sulekha was just leaving; the place, responding to the call of P.W.2, the accused caught hold of her hands. The accused chased Sulekha and stabbed her indiscriminately and continued his attack even after she fell down. These facts and circumstances are proved by the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3. The accused was armed with a big knife (M.O. 3), described as ‘dagger knife’ the blade of which measured 15 cms. This is a knife which can be folded. The accused has no case that he was a person who used to carry knife with him. The knife was kept concealed. The fact that the accused lay down on the body of Sulekha raising up M.O. 3 in his right hand only shows his vindictiveness. This is a knife which can be folded. The accused has no case that he was a person who used to carry knife with him. The knife was kept concealed. The fact that the accused lay down on the body of Sulekha raising up M.O. 3 in his right hand only shows his vindictiveness. He did not want anybody to come near him and that was why perhaps he was holding up M.O. 3 In his hand. Within a short time P.W. 14, the Sub-Inspector, reached the place, wrested away the knife and arrested him. His evidence shows that the accused as directed got into the police van and that he did not notice any abnormality in the accused. Exhibit P-3 and the evidence of P.W. 8 corroborate the evidence of P.W. 14 in this regard. On reaching the police station at about 5-45 p.m. on the same day, the person of the accused was searched and M.O. 11 letter and other articles were recovered. This is proved by P.W. 14 and his evidence is corroborated in this respect by the evidence of P.W. 9 and Exhibit P-4. The suggestion put during cross-examination to these witnesses was that the accused was lying unconscious on the dead body of Sulekha and he was bodily lifted and removed to the police van and that he regained consciousness only on the next day morning. All these witnesses have denied this suggestion. It was after questioning the accused that P.W. 15 conducted a search in the house of the accused and recovered from an iron box kept in the room of the accused M.O. 26 file containing 17 letters including M.Os. 5 to 10, 12 and Exhibit D-3. The search was conducted at 10 a.m. and the evidence of P.W. 15 on the point is corroborated by Exhibit P-6, search list and P.W. 11, the attestor to Exhibit P-6. It is seen from the search list that M.O. 26 and the letters contained therein were sent to the Court of the local Magistrate on the same day at about 10-30 p.m. and these records reached the Court on the same day. The accused was produced before the Magistrate at about 4-30 p.m. within 24 hours of his arrest and he had no complaint to make against the police, and he was remanded to judicial custody. The accused was produced before the Magistrate at about 4-30 p.m. within 24 hours of his arrest and he had no complaint to make against the police, and he was remanded to judicial custody. The evidence of P.W. 15 shows that the accused was perfectly normal and of sound mind and that he did not notice any sign of abnormality or indication of insanity in the accused. During cross-examination the witness stated that there was no material or circumstance to suspect that the accused was of unsound mind at the time of the commission of the offence and that there was therefore no necessity for him to send the accused for medical examination or to a psychiatrist. P.W. 5 is the cashier and manager of a business concern (Voice of Kerala) situated at Oyitty Road, Calicut. The accused who is a friend of P.W. 5 used to visit his shop often for purchasing spare parts of radios, etc. He also used to write: and give list of articles he wanted to purchase to P.W. 5. It is seen from his evidence that he is familiar with the handwriting of the accused, that the accused had on one occasion shown M.O. 5, the photo of Sulekha saying that it was the photo of a girl whom he loved and that subsequently on another occasion the accused showed him M.O. 6 letter written to him by Sulekha. His evidence also shows that on the day previous to the occurrence in the case, the accused had been to his shop, that he had then a look of disappointment and from his talk he understood that Sulekha had fallen out with him. The accused denied having shown M.O. 5 photo to P.W. 5 but he admitted having shown M.O. 6 letter to him. This clearly shows that P.W. 5 was a close friend of the accused in whom he had confidence. Otherwise he would not have shown M.O. 6 love letter of Sulekha to him. This witness has identified M.O. 3(a), 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and M.O. 4 as letters written by the accused. On a consideration of the evidence of this witness, especially in the light of the admission of the accused that M.O. 6 letter was shown to him, we find no proper reason to disbelieve the evidence given by him. This witness has identified M.O. 3(a), 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and M.O. 4 as letters written by the accused. On a consideration of the evidence of this witness, especially in the light of the admission of the accused that M.O. 6 letter was shown to him, we find no proper reason to disbelieve the evidence given by him. The trial Judge did not disbelieve the evidence of this witness but only stated that it is unlikely that this witness could have occasion to be familiar with the hand-writing of the accused to identify M.O. 8. One of the reasons given is that the witness had only occasion to read a love-letter written by Sulekha to the accused and not anyone written by the accused to Sulekha. The other reason given is that the list of articles presented by the accused for purchase at the shop are not forthcoming. Both the reasons given are not sound and insufficient to discredit the evidence of this witness. M.O. 8 was one of the letters found inside M.O. 26 file recovered by P.W. 15. As stated earlier, the accused admits that M.O. 26 file belongs to him. M.O. 5 photo of Sulekha with a letter written therein M.O. 5 (a) also was found inside this file. Some of the letters found inside this file were relied on and made use of by the counsel for the accused. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W. 15 that M.O. 8 was found inside M.O. 26 file and the evidence of P.W. 5 that M.O. 8 is in the handwriting of the accused. The writings and signature in M.O. 8 very favourably compare with the admitted handwriting and signature in M.O. 4 and some other letters of the accused produced in this case. M.O. 8 dated 23rd April, 1976, is not actually a letter but it is a sort of diary or memorandum where the accused has noted down the events that took place on that day. M.O. 8 states: “saw her in the morning. She did not talk. Saw her again in the afternoon. She avoided choosing a different route. My mind is shattered. I would have forgotten if she gave me a reply to my questions. I have lost my patience, and I have decided to avenge. M.O. 8 states: “saw her in the morning. She did not talk. Saw her again in the afternoon. She avoided choosing a different route. My mind is shattered. I would have forgotten if she gave me a reply to my questions. I have lost my patience, and I have decided to avenge. Lastly my farewell to all.” This clearly discloses the utter despair and despondency of the accused and his determination to carry out his designs. 21. The only evidence adduced on behalf of the accused in support of his contention is that of D.W. 1 who is none other than his own sister. Her evidence only relates to certain previous history of the accused. She states that while the accused was a child studying in the school, he had certain epileptic fits from the class room and he was treated for that by the priest of the local temple. According to her, the teachers in the school and the other neighbours are aware of this. But none of them was examined in this case. She had no case that thereafter the accused suffered from any fits of epilepsy or insanity. In her evidence she stated that on one occasion when the accused came to know that his mother refused to give a rose flower to a neighbouring girl, he destroyed the rose plants and buried them, that on another occasion when he noticed a stain on his cloth even after it had been washed, he tore it into pieces and set fire to the same and that on a third occasion, he threw out the rice from the cooking pot and poured water in the oven when D.W. 1 and her younger sister quarrelled about the delay in cooking the food. D.W. 1 does not state at least approximately when all these happened, whether they happened a few years or months prior to the occurrence. During cross-examination she stated that on none of these occasions the accused exhibited any abnormality, and he was quite normal on all these occasions. On the date of occurrence, she stated, the accused got up in the morning, came to the kitchen, then went to his room and got up only at about 8-30 a.m. or so and when asked he complained that he was having a head-ache. On the date of occurrence, she stated, the accused got up in the morning, came to the kitchen, then went to his room and got up only at about 8-30 a.m. or so and when asked he complained that he was having a head-ache. She also stated that for two or three days, the accused used to remain in his house without going outside and some years back following a quarrel with his brother, the accused jumped into a well. These circumstances are not sufficient to establish or show that the accused was suffering from any sort of insanity previously or that he was “an introvert” or “a schizoid” or that he must have been of unsound mind at the time of the commission of the offence. These circumstances only show that the accused was a person of easily irritable temperament. This apart, the evidence of D.W. 1 is highly interested and is not at all convincing and satisfactory. 22. It may also be noted, when the accused appeared before the trial Court and when the charge was read out and explained to him in Malayalam, he stated that he understood the charge and that he committed the offence. This is an indication that he was sane and not of unsound mind at the time of the commission of the offence and he knew the nature of his act and what he did was wrong and contrary to law. It was only long afterwards when the accused was defended by a lawyer that he came out with the statement that he did not remember anything when examined on the prosecution evidence relating to the incident. It would appear that the plea of insanity was an after-thought. The accused was in police custody only for less than 24 hours. The main reason given by the trial Court for not accepting the plea of the accused that he committed the offence was that this plea was entered two months after the commission of the offence and during this entire period of two months he was either in police custody or judicial custody. 23. The main reason given by the trial Court for not accepting the plea of the accused that he committed the offence was that this plea was entered two months after the commission of the offence and during this entire period of two months he was either in police custody or judicial custody. 23. The facts and circumstances proved in the case unerringly point to the conclusion that the accused was of sound mind at the time of the commission of the offence and he knew the nature of the act he did and that what he did was wrong and contrary to the law. On a careful and anxious consideration of the entire evidence in the case, we are satisfied that the accused is not entitled to the benefit of section 84, Indian Penal Code, and that the evidence on record does not even create a reasonable doubt that the accused might have been of unsound mind at the time when he committed the crime. 24. The nature and the number of injuries inflicted, the type of the weapon used and the persistent attack even after the victim fell down clearly establish that the accused intended to kill Sulekba and that the offence committed by him is nothing short of murder. 25. The reasons given by the trial Court for acquitting the accused are that he had no motive to commit murder, that he did not run away from the scene or conceal the weapon, that he was lying on the dead body as though in a stab or that he inflicted 31 stab wounds on the deceased with a dagger although one stable was enough to kill the victim, that there was abnormal behaviour of the accused some time before the occurrence, that, while P.W. 2 turned back to intrude the accused was not roused to fury and that the legal presumption of insanity is attracted to this case. Although in the operative portion of the judgment while dealing with the evidence of D.W. 1 and the other circumstances in the case, the trial Judge did not express any opinion about the evidence of D.W. 1, at the very beginning of the judgment in paragraph 2 even before considering the prosecution evidence, the trial Judge has stated that Santha, sister of the accused, who was summoned as a defence witness, recounted his past history which tended to show that he was “something like schizoid, possibly on the way to sohizphrenia”. Finally the trial Judge found that the accused killed Sulekha in a fit of impulsive insanity and the impulse was irresistible. 26. We have already referred to and discussed in detail the material evidence adduced on the prosecution side and the evidence of D.W. 1. None of the grounds given by the trial Judge is reasonable, sound and convincing. Many a crime has been committed without apparent motive by persons of sound mind. Motives, however, may exist without our being able to discover them. The non-discovery or the absence or insufficiency of a motive for a crime cannot by itself be taken as a proof of the existence of insanity or homicidal tendency. A trivial motive which may not be enough to impel a normal person to act in a particular way may be quite sufficient for an abnormal person. In this case there was a motive and there is evidence in support of it. Even persons of sound mind who take the lives of others on account of revenge or anger, very often perpetrate murder openly and do not attempt to deny or to conceal the crime. Many of them appear before the police and surrender. This may be for the simple reason that denial or attempted concealment would be hopeless: “Many sane men give more than the necessary stabs to their victims. The number of blows given might perhaps reflect his vengeful mood or his determination to see that the victim had no escape. One does not count his strokes when he commits murder”. (see Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker’s case1.) There is no evidence that the accused was in stupor while he was lying on the body of his victim. The number of blows given might perhaps reflect his vengeful mood or his determination to see that the victim had no escape. One does not count his strokes when he commits murder”. (see Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker’s case1.) There is no evidence that the accused was in stupor while he was lying on the body of his victim. The circumstances pointed out by the trial Judge are not sufficient to hold or even to indicate that the accused was not of sound mind at the time of the commission of the offence. It is clear from the evidence of P.W. 2 that when she remained there without going away the accused threatened her to leave the place. 27. The trial Judge also went wrong in thinking that it was following a period of sickness that Sulekha was not smiling as before. This is only an assumption and not supported by any material on record. On the other hand, what she has stated in the letter in which she refers to her illness was that it was because of her sickness that she did not send replies to two of his letters. There is no reliable evidence in this case regarding the abnormal behaviour of the accused some time before the occurrence, as stated by the trial Court. Even if it is assumed, without admitting, for the sake of argument, that there was abnormal behaviour some time before the occurrence, that is not a circumstance from which a conclusion can be drawn that the accused was of unsound mind at the time of the commission of the offence. It was on the basis of certain passages in Taylor’s Medical Jurisprudence that the absence of motive when there are indications of insanity raises a presumption in favour of insanity that the trial Court said that legal presumption of insanity is attracted to this case. Indian law does not recognises any such legal presumption. It is hazardous to conclude from the evidence of D.W. 1 that the accused was something like “a schizoid”. The trial Judge has profusely extracted passages from certain text books on psychiatry and Taylor’s Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence and applied the same to the case on hand without any basis on evidence and assumed that every symptom and sign referred to therein clearly applied to the accused without being supported by proved facts. The trial Judge has profusely extracted passages from certain text books on psychiatry and Taylor’s Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence and applied the same to the case on hand without any basis on evidence and assumed that every symptom and sign referred to therein clearly applied to the accused without being supported by proved facts. The conclusions arrived at by the trial Court on the material point in dispute in this case is unreasonable and palpably wrong. The order of acquittal is erroneous and clearly illegal. 28. The aspersions cast by the trial Court against the Public Prosecutor and the Investigating Agency are quite unnecessary, unwarranted and not supported by any reliable material on record. 29. In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of acquittal, convict the accused under section 302, Indian Penal Code, and taking into consideration the background of the case and all the facts and circumstances of this case, sentence him to imprisonment for life.