JUDGMENT 1. - Appellant Bajranglal has filed this appeal against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Churu, dated 12th July, 1975, by which, he was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC for the murder of his father. 2. The case of the prosecution is that appellant Bajranglal is the son of deceased Ramchander. The relations between the father and the son were strained over some dispute relating to land. On 18th July, 1974 at about 8 or 8.30 P.M. the appellant cut his father into pieces with an axe and a Gandasi. Poonam Chand who used to live near the house of Ramchander and Bhanwarlal, who had come to the letter's call in a tractor, heard the cries of Ramchander's daughter Achuki such as "don't kill, don't kill." On hearing the cries, both of them went to the house of Ramchander and saw in the light of torch, which they had with them, that the appellant was striking blows on the dead body of his father with a sharp edged weapon. These two persons tried to intervene but they were threatened by the appellant with dire consequences so they came back from the house of Ramchander and then Poonamchand informed Jhabarmal Sarpanch about the occurrence. Jhabarmal went to the police station, Sujangarh and reached there at about 1.30 P.M. on the next day and made a verbal report of the incident to the police. The report was reduced to writing by the police and a criminal case under Section 302 IPC was registered on its basis. The S. H. O. rushed to the place of occurrence and saw some pieces of the dead body of Ramchander deceased lying in the court yard of his house. He prepared Kurd Surat Hal Lash Ex. P. 4 and also the inquest memo Ex. P. 5. He then saw the site and prepared the site plan Ex. P. 3 and site inspection memo Ex. P. 34. The blood stained Dhoti, Baniyan and bush-shirt of the deceased were seized and sealed vide Ex. P. 6. He also recovered and sealed a piece of cloth lying under the head of the dead body vide Ex.P. 7. At that time the appellant was sitting outside his house. He was arrested by the S. H. O. vide Ex. P. 12. The blood stained Dhoti, Baniyan and bush-shirt of the deceased were seized and sealed vide Ex. P. 6. He also recovered and sealed a piece of cloth lying under the head of the dead body vide Ex.P. 7. At that time the appellant was sitting outside his house. He was arrested by the S. H. O. vide Ex. P. 12. His dhoti and bush-shirt were stained with blood and, therefore, were taken into possession and sealed by the S. H. O. The seizure memo is Ex. P. 12. Thereafter, the appellant gave an information about a Gandasi and an axe that he had placed them under a cot which was lying in the varandah of the house. In pursuance of this information and at the instance of the appellant, the aforesaid two weapons were recovered and sealed in the presence of Motbirs Jhabarmal and Bagharam. The appellant further gave an information that he had buried the thorax parts of the body in the Bakhal outside the house near the southern wall and the two things near the eastern wall. The thorax and the two thighs of the dead body of Ramchander were recovered, in pursuance of this information, at the instance of the appellant. The post mortem examination of the dead body was conducted at the spot by Dr. M. M. Bhojak and he found the ' following antemortem injuries : (a) Head including lower jaw face and vertebrae upto third cervical vertebrae. An incised wound 10 Cms. x 3 Cms scalp deep on right parietal frontal region was present. (b) Right lower limb cut across completely a little above right knee comprising right knee, right leg and foot. (c) Left lower limb cut-across completely a little above left knee comprising left knee, left leg, and foot. (d) Right hand and distal fourth of right forearm. (e) Left hand and distal fourth of left forearm. (f) Right forearm upper 3/4 and distal half of right arm. (g) Right shoulder along with part of scapula, shoulder joint, and upper half of right arm. (h) Lower third of abdomen proximal 3/4 of thighs. The upper two third . abdomen and thorax was missing. Abdominal viscreas badly torned and partly missing. 3. He also found that the thorax part and the two thighs of the body were missing. In his opinion, the cause of death was the aforesaid multiple injuries. (h) Lower third of abdomen proximal 3/4 of thighs. The upper two third . abdomen and thorax was missing. Abdominal viscreas badly torned and partly missing. 3. He also found that the thorax part and the two thighs of the body were missing. In his opinion, the cause of death was the aforesaid multiple injuries. He also opined that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death. After completing the investigation, a challan was filed against the appellant in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu, who upon finding a primafacie case exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, committed the accused to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Churu for trial under Section 302 IPC, The appellant simply denied having committed the offence and pleaded not guilty to the charge. 4. Before commencing the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge sent the appellant for medical examination. Dr. S. Kr. Gupta admitted the appellant in the Hospital and kept him under observation from 28-8-74 to 1974 and opined that the appellant was not mentally abnormal. The appellant was further kept under observation with Dr. K. G. Thanvi. He also was of the opinion that the appellant was not of unsound mind. 5. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the offence and claimed a trial. During the trial, the eye witnesses namely Poonamchand (PW1), Bhanwarlal (PW2), Mst Achuki (PW8) and Mst. Chanda (PW9), the sister and mother of the appellant, did not support the prosecution case. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the following circumstances established against the appellant and convicted him on that basis : (1) Motive that the relations between the appellant and his father were strained over some dispute regarding agricultural land. (2) That on the fateful day at about 8 or 8.30 P.M, Poonamchand (PW 1) and Bhanwarlal (PW 2) saw the appellant standing near the dead body of Ramchander which was lying in a pool of blood. (3) The recovery of the clothes from the body of the appellant at the time of his arrest, which were stained with human blood. (4) The recovery of the missing parts of the dead body of Ramchander i. e. two thighs and thorax portion, in pursuance of the information given by the appellant and at his instance. (3) The recovery of the clothes from the body of the appellant at the time of his arrest, which were stained with human blood. (4) The recovery of the missing parts of the dead body of Ramchander i. e. two thighs and thorax portion, in pursuance of the information given by the appellant and at his instance. (5) The recovery of blood stained Gandasi and a Kulhari in pursuance of the information given by the appellant and at his instance. 6. As the appellant filed this appeal from Jail and he was not represented by any counsel, Shri B. Advani, Advocate was appointed as amicus curiae to represent the appellant. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record of the case very carefully. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the motive for the offence was cot proved by good evidence and the statement of PW 10 Harji could not establish any motive on the part of the appellant to murder his father. The axe and Gandasi were not found stained with human blood and, therefore, this recovery was not an incriminating circumstance against the appellant. With regard to the remaining three circumstances, it is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that these were not established by convincing and cogent evidence. In any case, the remaining three circumstances could not lead to the only inference that it was the appellant who murdered his father. In the alternative, it is submitted that the appellant at the time of committing to murder by reason of unsoundness of mind was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or was not aware that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law. On the other hand it is contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that the prosecution has been successful in establishing a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any respond be ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the appellant. It was further urged that there is not an iota of evidence to prove that the appellant was insane at the time of committing the crime. It was further urged that there is not an iota of evidence to prove that the appellant was insane at the time of committing the crime. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival contentions In our opinion, the three circumstances relied upon by the prosecution have been fully established and the chain of evidence is so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the appellant. 8. At the outset, it may be stated that it was not disputed before us that Ram-jander met homicidal and which is proved by the testimony of Dr. M. M. Bhojak (PW7). The prosecution has examined Harji (PW 10) to prove motive on the part of the appellant to commit the crime of murder. The evidence of Harji (PW 10) is that a day prior to the occurrence, he went to the house of Ramchander at 6 or 6.30 PM for asking the latter to give him some land for cultivation. At that time, the appellant was asking his father Ramchander to give him the land in which green vegetables were cultivated. Ramchander refused to give him that land. He was saying that the appellant should take agricultural land. Having seen the verbal quarrel ensuing between the father and the son, this witness came back to his house and did not ask Ramchander to give him some land for cultivation. In his cross-examination Harji admitted that the talks were going peaceably between Ramchander and the appellant. From the evidence of Harji, this much is established that the appellant wanted to take Bari land from his father but the latter was not prepared to hand over the possession of that land to the former. This may not be any adequate or strong motive for committing the murder but certainly the appellant was annoyed with his father on this score. Apart from this, absence of strong and adequate motive is not fatal to the prosecution case where there is clear and unimpeachable evidence to prove the connection of accused with the crime because sometimes motive is locked in the heart of the doer of the crime. 9. The prosecution has led further evidence of Bhanwarlal and Poonamchand to prove the guilt of the appellant. 9. The prosecution has led further evidence of Bhanwarlal and Poonamchand to prove the guilt of the appellant. Poonamchand stated in his deposition that he along with Bhanwarlal went to the house of Ramchander upon hearing the cries of Ram-chander's daughter Achuki. Bhanwarlal had a torch with him. At that time, in the light of torch, they saw that the dead body of Ramchander was lying in the court yard of the house and Bhanwarlal appellant was standing near it. He also claimed to have seen a Gandasi lying in the court yard. The dead body was cut into pieces. The appellant told Poonamchand and Bhanwarlal not to come nearer. Out of fear, they came back from there. Similar is the evidence of Bhanwarlal (PW2). He also claimed to have seen, in the light of the torch that Ramchander was lying in a pool of blood in the court yard of his house and the appellant was standing near it having a Gandasi in his hand. The appellant than told this witness Bhanwarlal, not to come nearer and so he along with Poonamchand returned from there. These two witnesses were declared hostile at the trial by the prosecution because they did not say that they had seen the appellant striking blows on the dead body of his father with a Gandasi, although they mentioned this fact in their previous depositions before the police. The mere fact that these witnesses have turned hostile to the prosecution and did not say that they had seen the appellant committing the crime is not sufficient to discard their entire evidence. This much is proved from their evidence that on hearing the cries of the appellant's sister Achuki, they went to the house of the deceased and saw in the light of the torch that Ramchander deceased was lying in a pool of blood and the appellant was standing by the side of the dead body. It is further proved from their evidence that the appellant asked them not to come nearer to the scene of occurrence. There is no legal impediment in believing this part of their story, specially when it is corroborated by other circumstantial evidence. It is further proved from their evidence that the appellant asked them not to come nearer to the scene of occurrence. There is no legal impediment in believing this part of their story, specially when it is corroborated by other circumstantial evidence. Bhanwarlal (PW 2) clearly stated in his deposition that he heard the cries of a girl coming from the house of the deceased such as "Brother don't kill, Brother don't kill ( Hkk;k ekj er js] Hkk;k ekj er js ) Poonamchand also stated in his deposition that he heard the cries of weeping of Ramchander's daughter Achuki. When he was confronted with portion A to B of his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C,he admitted that he had stated before the Magistrate, in his above statement that Achuki was crying Brother don't kill ( Hkk;k ekj er js ). The appellant could not afford any reasonsble explanation why his sister Achuki was raising a hue and cry and why he had asked these two witnesses namely Poonamchand and Bhanwarlal not to come nearer to the dead body of his father Ramchander, which was lying out into pieces in a pool of blood. 10. The prosecution has led further evidence to prove that the clothes which the appellant was wearing at the time of his arrest were found stained with human blood. Bhanwarlal, S. H. O. (PWI 1) stated in his deposition at the trial that when be arrested the appellant, the latter was wearing a Dhoti and Bushshirt on his body, which was suspected to have been stained with human blood and the clothes were take from the body of the appellant and seized and sealed properly. These clothes were later on sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis. The Chemical Examiner found them stained with human blood. The appellant could not afford any explanation for presence of human blood on his clothes, which he was wearing at the time of his arrest. 11. Another incriminating piece of evidence against the appellant is that some parts of the dead body of Ramchander were recovered by the S. H. O. at the instance of the appellant and in pursuance of his information recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 11. Another incriminating piece of evidence against the appellant is that some parts of the dead body of Ramchander were recovered by the S. H. O. at the instance of the appellant and in pursuance of his information recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Bhanwarlal (PW 11) deposed that after the arrest, the appellant gave him an information that he had buried two thighs near the eastern wall of Bakhal and thorax parts of the body near southern wall of the Bakhal. He reduced the information given by the appellant in writing. In pursuance of this information, and at the instance of the appellant, two thighs and thorax part of the dead body of deceased Ramchander were recovered. Jhabarmal (PW 4) also deposed that two thighs and the thorax part of the dead body of Ramchander were recovered at the instance of the appellant. We have no reason to disbelieve the statements of these witnesses. Their credit is not shaken in the cross-examination. Thus it is established beyond doubt that two thighs and the thorax part of the dead body of Ramchander were recovered at the instance of the appellant and in pursuance of the information given by him, while he was in police custody. 12. It may be recalled that dead body of Ramchander cut into pieces, and lying in a pool of blood was recovered from the house of deceased Ramchander in which the appellant also resided. Even Mst. Achuki (PW8) and Mst. Chanda (PW9). the sister and mother of the appellant, who turned hostile during the trial to save the appellant, admitted the presence of the appellant in the house on the fateful night. 13. Thus on a careful review of the evidence, we are convinced that the prosecution has proved the aforesaid circumstances by cogent and reliable evidence. The question arises whether the aforesaid facts proved by good evidence lead to the only one inference of guilt of the appellant or not. In our opinion, the aforesaid circumstances are fully established and are of a conclusive nature and tendency to lead to the only conclusion that it was the appellant who committed the murder of his father and the circumstances exclude every other hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the appellant. 14. In our opinion, the aforesaid circumstances are fully established and are of a conclusive nature and tendency to lead to the only conclusion that it was the appellant who committed the murder of his father and the circumstances exclude every other hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the appellant. 14. It was sought to be argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that at the time of the commission of the offence, the appellant was insane. However, there is no evidence on record to arrive at this finding. Poonamchand (PWI) stated that when they saw the appellant standing near the dead body of Ramchander, he was not insane. Jhabarmal (PW4) stated that he could not say whether at the time of the incident, the appellant was insane or not. Malaram (PW5) of course stated that he saw Bajranglal two days before the incident and he was like an insane. The evidence by itself is not sufficient to prove insanity as envisaged under Section 84 of the I. P. C. Curiously enough Mst. Achuki (PW8) and Mst. Chanda (PW9) who were the most likely witnesses regarding the insanity of the appellant, failed to depose that the appellant was insane at the time of the incident Harji (PW10) has stated that the mind of Bajranglal was sound. He occasionally used to beg wheat flour This witness is not corroborated by any other evidence and does not carry conviction. The conduct of the accused in giving information leading to the recovery of some pieces of the dead body of Ramchander indicates that at the time of the commission of the offence, the appellant was not insane. There is well established distinction between the medical insanity and the legal insanity, and to satisfy the requirements of Section 84 IPC, it must be proved that at the time of committing the act, the accused person by reason of unsoundness of mind was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that what he was doing was wrong or contrary to law. The appellant was examined soon after the murder by the two doctors and in their opinion, he was not found to be insane. 15. No other point was pressed or argued before us. 16. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly held the appellant guilty of the offence of murder of his father. The appellant was examined soon after the murder by the two doctors and in their opinion, he was not found to be insane. 15. No other point was pressed or argued before us. 16. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly held the appellant guilty of the offence of murder of his father. The appellant was awarded a lesser penalty for the offence. 17. In the result, we find no force in this Jail appeal filed by the appellant and dismiss the same.Appeal dismissed. *******