Short Note : 1. The material facts in short are, that the behaviour of the appellant for about three days before the incident in question had become strange and in that regard his uncle Jagannath (P.W.3) had lodged a report Ex. P-2 earlier that day at Korba police Station. The appellant also had lodged a report Ex. P-22 earlier than the report by Jagannath (P.W.3) that this Jagannath was attempting to take unlawful possession of his land. 2. At about 2 p.m. the appellant came to his house and demanded food from his wife Hardihin (since dead). His mother was nearby. Hardihin (since dead) served him food, But the appellant without partaking any of it suddenly in a fit of anger dealt a number of blows on his wife with his spear and leaving her injured ran away. Hardihin struggled to rest against the wall of her house, but soon lay dead. Held : The defence of the accused, however, is that he had been insane for some days. It is no doubt true that there was a report by Jagannath (P.W.3) the same day earlier about the appellant having become mad for the past three days. He (Jagannath) however is not an expert. The burden of proving unsoundness of mind that by reason of it the appellant was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that if he knew the nature of the act he did not know that it was wrong or contrary to law, lay on the appellant, though no doubt such a burden is capable of being discharged only on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. The requirement of proof is not as strict as to require proof beyond reasonable doubt. 3. Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code has for its basis the rule laid down by the House of Lords in Mc Naughten's case (1843) 8 ER 718. The relevant questions arising are as follows :- (1) Did the accused know the nature and quality of his act? If not, insanity is a defence. (2) If the accused did know the nature and quality of his act did he know that it was wrong? (moral or legal). If not, insanity is a defence (3) If he knew the nature and quality of his act and knew that it was wrong was he under a delusion in some other respect? (2) If the accused did know the nature and quality of his act did he know that it was wrong? (moral or legal). If not, insanity is a defence (3) If he knew the nature and quality of his act and knew that it was wrong was he under a delusion in some other respect? If so he is in the same situation as to the responsibility as if the facts had been as he imagined. 4. In this case, there is no medical evidence at all about the three questions cited above. There is no history of the appellant being either insane or suffering from even a partial delusion before the commission of the offence in question except the witnesses Rajmatbai (PW1) and Jagannath (PW3) noticing some strangeness of behaviour in the appellant. There is no evidence 3bout his insanity or partial delusion except the abruptness of the appellant using his spear brutally with fatal effect upon his wife with whom his relations earlier were cordial. There is again no evidence that at any time after the incident in question he was found to be insane or suffering under some partial delusion. In the circumstances, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that there is neither any evidence about the appellant not knowing the nature and quality of his act nor that if he knew the nature and quality of the act he did not know that what he was doing was morally or legally wrong or that he was suffering under a delusion in some other respect. On the other hand, we are convinced that he had while being duly armed with his spear gone to his house and there intentionally and brutally assaulted his wife with the intention of killing her, that thereafter he ran away with his spear till he was apprehended with that weapon at Korba by Police Constable Jagat Deo (PW14) in the presence of Krishnaji (PW 8). Appeal dismissed.