JUDGMENT : P.K. Mohanti, J. - This is a prisoner's appeal presented through the Superintendent of Jail against his conviction u/s 302, Indian Penal Code and the sentence of imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case was that on 7th March. 1976 morning the accused left the house and proceeded towards village Mauli Jodi with the Dekchis (M.Os. I and II) and one crow-bar (M.O. III). Before proceeding he called his wife Tade Santani who, in her turn, called P.W. 1 Muni Golari to give her company. Near Mauli Jodi the accused threw away M.Os. I to III and when his wife wanted to pick them up, he pulled her wearing cloth as a result of which she fell down. Then the accused sat on her chest and twisted the neck thereby causing her instantaneous death. 3. F.I.R. was lodged by P.W. 2 Gore Santa, the father of the accused on the same day at about 8 p.m. and investigation was taken up. After usual investigation the accused was charge-sheeted u/s 302, Indian Penal Code. 4. The accused denied the charge and contended that due to insanity he could not know what he did. 5. That the death of the deceased was homicidal is clearly established by the direct evidence of P.W. 1 and the corroborative evidence of the doctor P.W. 5. P.W. 1 fully supported the prosecution case as narrated above. She stated that when the deceased wanted to pick up M.Os. I to III thrown away by the accused near Mauli Jodi, the latter pulled her wearing cloth as a result of which she fell down. Then the accused sat on the chest of the deceased and twisted her neck. She also stated that when she intervened, the accused ran towards her with his mouth open and hands raised. So, out of fear she left the place and reported the matter to the mother and brother of the accused. Her evidence about the occurrence remained unshaken by cross-examination. There is absolutely no material on the record to show that she had any axe to grind against the accused. We see no reason to disbelieve her evidence. 6. So, out of fear she left the place and reported the matter to the mother and brother of the accused. Her evidence about the occurrence remained unshaken by cross-examination. There is absolutely no material on the record to show that she had any axe to grind against the accused. We see no reason to disbelieve her evidence. 6. The doctor (P.W. 5) performed post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased on 8.3.1976 at 4.30 p.m. and found one bruise with ill-defined swelling besides some abrasions and bruises on the knee joint, elbow joint, scapula and hack of the neck. Internal examination revealed contusion of muscles and subcutaneous tissue in front of the neck. In the doctor's opinion, death was due to asphyxia caused by throttling. 7. In view of the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 5 we have no doubt left in our minds that the death of the deceased was homicidal and that the accused was responsible for the same. 8. The crucial question for consideration is whether the accused is entitled to the exemption from criminal liability provided u/s 84, Indian Penal Code. 9. The burden of proving the plea of insanity lie on the accused. The standard of proof required from the accused is that there should be preponderance of probability showing that at the time of commission of the offence the accused by reason of unsoundness of mind was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he was doing what is either wrong or right. 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 from the Circumstances which preceded, attended and followed the commission of the crime. In other words, it is behaviour, antecedent, attendant and subsequent to the event which may be relevant in ascertaining the mental condition of the accused at the time of commission of offence, but not those remote in time. 10. There are materials available from the evidence led by the prosecution that the accused committed the murder of his wife due to unsoundness of mind. P.W. 3 Dombu Santa gave evidence that the accused behaved like a mad man for two days preceding the occurrence. The evidence of P.W. 6 was also to the same effect. 10. There are materials available from the evidence led by the prosecution that the accused committed the murder of his wife due to unsoundness of mind. P.W. 3 Dombu Santa gave evidence that the accused behaved like a mad man for two days preceding the occurrence. The evidence of P.W. 6 was also to the same effect. P.W. 2, the father of the accused, testified that on the day proceeding the occurrence the accused behaved abnormally and froth came out of his mouth. Due to his abnormal behaviour, the accused was tied to a cot. In the morning of the date of occurrence while he was absent from home, the deceased untied the hands of the accused. The evidence of P.W. 1 shows that the accused behaved in a strange manner on the date of occurrence. She stated that after the accused was untied, he started running towards Mauli Jodi carrying two Dekchis (M.Os. I and II) and a crow-bar (M.O. III). Near Mauli Jodi he threw away M.Os. I to III and when the deceased wanted to pick them up, he caused her death in the manner as narrated above. Her evidence also shows that when she tried to intervene the accused ran towards her with his mouth open and hands raised. The evidence of P.W. 4 shows that after the occurrence, when the accused was asked as to why he killed his wife, he simply nodded his head and did not say anything. Froth was coming out of his mouth at that time. The abnormal behaviour of the accused at the time of occurrence and absence of any motive for the murder coupled with the fact that for two days proceedings the occurrence he exhibited abnormality are sufficient to show that he was of unsound mind at the time of commission of the crime and not capable of knowing the nature of the act or that he was doing what was wrong or contrary to law. 11. In the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the conviction and the sentence and acquit the Appellant of the charge u/s 302, Indian Penal Code. We direct his release forthwith. 12. Before concluding this judgment, we are constrained to observe that though P.W. 8, the A.S.I. of Police, took up investigation of the case on 7-3-1976 he did not arrest the accused. We direct his release forthwith. 12. Before concluding this judgment, we are constrained to observe that though P.W. 8, the A.S.I. of Police, took up investigation of the case on 7-3-1976 he did not arrest the accused. The evidence of P.W. 9, the Sub-Inspector of Police, shows that the accused was in his village from 7th to 10th March, 1976. Thereafter he was taken to the Police Station and was kept under observation till 12-3-1976 when he was arrested. He also stated that a doctor examined the accused, but did not give any report. Psychological-psychiatrical examinations are very valuable and essential for enabling the Court to come to proper determination of the mental condition of the accused whose crime shows symptoms of insanity. Under the law, where the accused takes the plea of insanity, it is for him to prove that fact. But a poor prisoner might find it difficult to have proper legal assistance. In all such Cases the prosecuting agency must do all that can be done for having the accused examined medically. Had the medical opinion been obtained in this case it could help the Court very much in determining the mental condition of the accused. R.N. Misra, J. 13. I agree. Final Result : Allowed