PATIL, J. ( 1 ) IN this appeal the accused has sought to challenge the it aijjty and correctness of the judgment and order dt 4 5 1981 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ratchur, in SC No. 58 of 1980 whereby he has convicted him for the offence of murder punishable under s. 302 of IPC and concerned to suffer imprisonment for life there under. The accused Sanna Eranca Devarmani being a native of village Janthkal in Gangavatm taluk was recruited as a constable during the year 1978, when he was deputed to Gulbarga for handobast duty of Urus of Khaja Bande Navaz, there he was afflicted with mental insanits and sent for treatment to civil hospital Raichur After some treatment there, when he returned to duty he Was attached to Yelburga police station, In April 1979. The absconded from the guard duly entrusted to him and ran away from there to village Gadgtri and coming to know that the accused was again showing signs of mental insanity, the PSI secured him from Gadgeri and sent aim to mental hospital at Dharwad for treatment. ( 2 ) AFTER some treatment, when he was discharged from the hospital, on 8-9-1979, pw 2 Abbas Ali, the station House Officer of Yelburga Police Station deputed him for sentry duty at the Sub-Treasury office situated close to the police station with a 303 rifle MO 1 and 10 live catridges. There the accused was to do his duty for about a fortnight. On 11 9-1979, at about 4 PM, when PW 2 was in charge of the police station and PW 3 Ramachandra was on sentry duty there, PW 4 Veerabasappa went to the police station with ex P 3, the order passed by the JMFC, yelburga, regarding entrustment of the custody of two bullocks seized in CC No. 39/79 and requested PW 2 to entrust the two bullocks to him. When PW 2 Head constable Abbas AH asked him to pass a receipt for having received the custody of bullocks and PW 4 Veerabasappa pleaded his inability to write the receipt, PW 2 called the Police Constable Lingappa, the deceased, present in the police station, to write a receipt for PW. 4. When PW 2 Head constable Abbas AH asked him to pass a receipt for having received the custody of bullocks and PW 4 Veerabasappa pleaded his inability to write the receipt, PW 2 called the Police Constable Lingappa, the deceased, present in the police station, to write a receipt for PW. 4. Accordingly when the deceased Lingappa was engaged in writing the receipt as dictated by PW 2, the accused who was on sentry duty at the strong room in Sub Treasury suddenly went to the police station and standing at the entrance of the hail shot at the deceased. ( 3 ) AS the deceased fell down with the gun shot in jury, PW 2 hurried towards the accused with a view to cnatch away the gun But the accused however receded back and pushed PW 2 who was trying to snatch the gun, as a result when PW 2 fell down the accused fired another shot and went into the police station. PW 3 ramachandra who had by then taken position at the table, jumped upon the accused and held MO 1, but the accused however pulled (he trigger of the gun and fired the third shot towards the eastern wall of the hall, as a result a piece of bullet hit PW 6 police constable Ayyanagouda who was present at the door of the wireless room there. PW 3 who in the meanwhile gained control over the accused snatched the rifle from the hands of the accused with the help of others including P W 5 Hanamesha pcb No. 917, who returned from the guard duty and PW 9 Vasudeva Rao, PCB No. 678, who came there on hearing the reports of the gun-shots PW 2 also went there and with the help of the others managed to lodge the accused in the male lock up there. PWs 5 and 6 and others took the deceased Llngappa to the General Hospital at Yelburga for examination and treatment. PW 2 who had also sustained in jury went to the hospital. PW 13 Dr. Gurubasappa, Medical Officer who was on duty, got removed the bloodstained clothes mos 3, 4, 5 and 6 worn by the deceased and made them over to PW 5 police constable hanumesha and bandaged the injuries sustained by the deceased. PW 2 who had also sustained in jury went to the hospital. PW 13 Dr. Gurubasappa, Medical Officer who was on duty, got removed the bloodstained clothes mos 3, 4, 5 and 6 worn by the deceased and made them over to PW 5 police constable hanumesha and bandaged the injuries sustained by the deceased. Since the condition of the deceased was serious he advised to take him to the Civil Hospital at Gadag for better treatment. Accordingly, pw 6 secured a jeep towards gadag, but on the way near the village naregal when the deceased breathed his last, he went back with the deceased in the same jeep to the police station and made the dead body of the deceased to lie there in the police station. In the meanwhile, when PW 9 Vasudeva Roa, PCB No. 678, went to Bevur and informed PW 18 Raja guru, the PSI, and PW 19 Panduranga rao, Dy. SP, who was then working as the cpi and was on casual leave, about the incident, they went to Yelburga police station. ( 4 ) PW 9 also accompained them. PW 19 went to the General Hospital at yelburga and questioned P. W. 2 about the incident and recorded his complaint as per ex. P 2 and directed PW 18 to go to the police station and register the case. Accordingly, pw 18 went to the police station and on the basis of Ex. P 2 registered a case in Cr. No. 45/1979 for offence under s. 302 of IPC and issued FIR to the Court as per Ex. P 17. As directed by PW 19, pw 18 continued the investigation. He secured panchas including PW 14 Peersab and seized MOs 3 to 6 produced by PW 5 earlier entrusted to him by the Medical officer under Panchanama Ex. P 10. Thereafter, he formally arrested the accused who was in the lock-up and took up his personal search and seized five live catridges mo 16 along with khaki uniform worn by the accused under Ex. P11. He also seized the rifle MO 1 produced by PW 3 under panchanama Ex. P 12. On 12-9-1979, he sent the accused to the Court for judicial custody remand and held inquest proceedings over the dead body of the deceased as per Ex. P11. He also seized the rifle MO 1 produced by PW 3 under panchanama Ex. P 12. On 12-9-1979, he sent the accused to the Court for judicial custody remand and held inquest proceedings over the dead body of the deceased as per Ex. P 13 noting the condition of the place of incident there and seized four bullet pieces found near the eastern wall of the lock up and two bullet ends found behind the chair near the eastern wall of the lock up as also three brass pieces. He packed and sealed them all along with the other articles. He thereafter sent the dead body of the deceased to the Medical officer for post-mortem examination. He also questioned and recorded the statement of PW 4 and PW 9 on 13-9-1979. PW 19 took up investigation and recorded the statements of material witnesses and seized pyjama MO 2 worn by PW 2 who was still under treatment, under panchanama Ex. P 14. He also prepared a separate panchanama of the place of incident as per Ex. P 15. Later on he sent the bloodstained articles to the Chemical Examiner, Bangalore, and on receipt of the report of the ce, as per 1 x. P 5, and on completion of the investigation he placed charge sheet against the accused. ( 5 ) THE accused who pleaded not guilty raised the plea of insanity and contended that he knew he was compelled to do sentry duty on 11-9-79 from 2 PM to 6 pm though he was not feeling well in his head and he did not know what all transpired on that day. The learned Sessions Judge rejected this plea of insanity raised by the accused and accepting the evidence of occurrence held that the accused was guilty of the charge of the offence of murder levelled against him and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life. ( 6 ) IT may be mentioned here that the accused was also charged with the commission of offence of attempt to commit murder punishable under S. 307 and offence of simple hurt punishable under S 323 of IPC and acquited of the said two chargesgiving benefit of doubt. The State has not filed any appeal egainst the said order of acquittal on the said two charges. The State has not filed any appeal egainst the said order of acquittal on the said two charges. Smt. Anasuya, learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant, did not seek to dispute that the deceased died a homicidal death on account of gun-shot injuries fired by the accused. She however contended that on the facts and circumstances of the case, when the accused admittedly had a history of insanity and was treated for the same to the knowledge of the police as narrated in the complaint ex. P 2, in all fairness to the accused, the investigating Officer should have sent the accused immediately for examination by a Medical Officer and had the accused been subjected to medical examination immediately, in all probabilities the evidence would be available to show that the acts attributed to the accused were committed by him when he was afflicted with mental insanity with which he was suffering and the learned Sessions Judge, in the circumstances, was not therefore right in rejecting the plea of insanity raised by the accused, merely because the accused hat not led any evidence to show that at the time of commission of the offence by reason of insanity of mind he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act of what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law. She also submitted, that the approach of the Sessions Judge in reaching that conclusion was erroneous. Even if there was no positive evidence available regarding the mental disease, having regard to the history of insanity prior to and subsequent to the incident placed on record, the absence of motive for the commission of offence was sufficient to raise a doubt if the accused had or had not the necessary intention of committing the offence of murder levelled against him and that benefit of doubt was to be given to the accused and not to the prosecution and, therefore, the order of conviction and sentence as passed on the accused could not be sustained. ( 7 ) MR. ( 7 ) MR. Devaraju, learned State Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, argued that mere absence of motive is not by itself sufficient to conclude that at the material time of the incident the accused was either of unsound mind or incapable of knowing the nature of the acts committed by him or that he was incapable of knowing the acts so being committed by him were wrong or contrary to law. He submitted, the burden of bringing the case within the exception covered by S. 84 of IPC being on the accused and the accused having not adduced any evidence regarding unsoundoess of mind at the relevant time in regard to the commission of the offence the learned sessions Judge was Justified in finding the accused guilty and there are no substantial reasons to interfere with the order of conviction and sentence passed on the accused. ( 8 ) AS stated earlier the deceased died homicidal death on account of gun-shot injuries and it is the accused who had fired a 303 rifle MO 1 and in that the deceased having sustained gun-shot injuries, succumbed to death. The evidence given by the Medical Officer in this behalf having remained unchallenged, we do not consider it necessary to go into this aspect of the case. ( 9 ) IN view of the contentions advanced before us, the material point that requires to be considered is whether the accused had the requisite mens rea, that is to say, whether the acts of violence attributed to the accused were committed by him with the requisite intention of causing the death of the deceased or causing such bodily injuries as the accused knew were in all probability likely to cause his death. The burden of proving this beyond reasonable doubt lies heavily on the prosecution. It is also well established that this burden never shifts and it always rests on the prosecution. While thus the general burden to bring home the necessary ingredients of the offence of murder rests throughout on the prosecution and if the prosecution successfully discharge the burden, then the accused has to satisfactorily establish his plea of insanity by placing such material before the Court, oral or documentary and this may be either by admissions elicited from the witnesses or the materials placed by the prosecution itself. In the case of Dahyabhai v. State of Gujarat (1), the Supreme Court while enunciating the law on the point has observed as follows :"it is fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent and, therefore, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution therefore, in a case of homicide shall prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused caused death with the requisite intention described in S. 299 of the IPC. This general burden never shifts and it always rests on the prosecution. But, s. 84 of the IPC provides that nothing is an offence if the accused at the time of doing that act, by reason of un. soundness of mind was incapable of knowing the nature of his act or what he was doing was cither wrong or contrary to law. This being an exception under S. 105 of the Evidence Act the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within the said exception lies on the accused and the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances. Under S. 105 of the Evidence Act, read with the definition of "shall presume" in S. 4 thereof, the Court shall regard the absence of such circumstances as proved unless , after considering the matters before it, it believes that the said circumstances existed or their existence was so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that they did exibt. To put it in other words, the accused will have to rebut the presumption that such circumstances did not exist, by placing materials before the court sufficient to make it consider the existence of the said circumstances so probable that a prudent man would act upon them. The accused has to satisfy the standard of a "prudent man". If the material placed before the Court, such as, oral and documentary evidence, presumptions, admissions or even the prosecution evidence, satisfies the test of "prudent man" the accused will have discharged his burden. The evidence so placed may not be sufficient to discharge the burden under S. 105 of the Evidence act, but it may raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of a judge as regards one or other of the necessary ingredients of the offence itself. The evidence so placed may not be sufficient to discharge the burden under S. 105 of the Evidence act, but it may raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of a judge as regards one or other of the necessary ingredients of the offence itself. It may, for Instance, raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the judge whether the accused has the requisite intention laid down in S. 299 of the IPC. If the Judge has such reasonable doubt, he has to acquit the accused, for in that event the prosecution will have failed to prove conclusively the guilt of the accused. There is no conflict between the general burden, which is always on the prosecution and which never shifts, and the special burden that rests on the accused to make out his defence of insanity". Proceeding further, after a review of various decisions expounding the doctrine of burden of proof in the context of plea of insanity, the Supreme Court has observed as follows :"the doctrine of burden of proof in the context to the plea of insanity may be stated in the following propositions : (1) The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed the offence with the requisite mens rea ; and the burden of proving that always rests on the prosecution from the beginning to the end of the trial (2) There is a rebuttable presumption that the accused was not insane, when he committed the crime, in the sense laid down by S. 84 of the IPC ; the accused may rebut it by placing before the Court all the relevant evidence, oral, documentary or circumstantial, but the burden of proof upon him is no higher than that rests upon a party to civil proceedings. (3) Even if the accused was not able to establish conclusively that he was insane at the time he committed the offence, the evidence placed before the Court by the accused or by the prosecution may raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court as regards one or more of the ingredients of the offence, including mens rea of the accused and in that case the Court would be entitled to acquit the accused on the ground that the general burden of proof resting on the prosecution was not discharged". These very principles have been reiterated and re emphasised in the decisions in bhikari v. State of UP (2), Ratanlal v. State of MP (3), S. W. Mohammed v. State of maharashtra (4) and Oyaml Ayatu v. State of MP (5 ). ( 10 ) WHILE ordinarily the existence of motive for the commission of an offence alleged and the manner of its commission - the weapons used and the vital parts of the body on which the injuries are inflicted - may by themselves be sufficient in a given case to establish that the accused had committed the acts of violence with such intention of causing the death of the person murdered, because every person it presumed to know the natural consequences of his acts ; but where the acts of violence are committed by a person apparently for no motive and in an ordinarily ununderstandable manner killing his own kith and kin towards whom he had been all along affectionate or his colleague against whom he had no grouse, a doubt necessarily arises in the mind Of the Court as to whether at the relevant point of time the accused was an ordinary person who can be presumed to know the consequences of his acts. The crucial point of time for ascertaining the state of mind of the accused is the time when the offence was committed, and whether the accused was in such state of mind as to be entitled to the benefit of S. 84 of TPC can only be established from the circumstances which preceded, attended and followed the crime. Though there is no burden cast on the prosecution to establish negatively that the accused was not of unsound mind when he committed the acts of violence resulting in the death of the person or persons murdered, yet as under the present circumstances where the accused has a previous history of mental disease or lunacy and it is revealed during the course of investigation that the accused had such previous history of mental disease or lunacy, fairness in investigation does require probing into this aspect with an unbiassed approach, particularly when the accused himself cannot in the very nature of things assist in unravelling the necessary facts, being in custody and may be being mentally imbalanced. Therefore, it becomes obligatory on the part of the investigating agency, particularly when the accused is apprehended at about the time of the commission of the offence or shortly thereafter, to subject the accused to medical examination, at least to ensure itself that the accused was in fact a person of ordinary state of mind. If that is done, it necessarily rules out the possibility of the accused having committed the acts of violance attributed to him on account of mental disease or lunacy. The prosecution must place all such materials that could possibly be had. The failure to subject the accused to such medical examination immediately and to place all evidence that could be available may have, depending on facts and circumstances of a case, a serious consequence on the prosecution case, when such plea of insanity is raised by the accused at the trial, as that may give rise to a doubt whether the act or acts of violence were committed with the requisite intention of committing a particular offence and any such failure on the part of the prosecution to collect the evidence and place before the Court on the mental aspect of the accused, creates a serious infirmity in the case of the prosecution and consequently the benefit of doubt will have to be given to the accused, coming to the facts of the present case, the accused admittedly had previous history of lunacy. In the complaint Ex. P 2 recorded by PW 19, PW 2 the head constable, who was in charge of the police station, when the alleged offence was committed, has stated in unequivocal words that ( 11 ) THE evidence collected during the course of investigation and. as given by PW 7 Prahladarao showed that on the date of the Incident when the accused was on duty at strong room in sub -Treasury, he was found cleaning the gun and when questioned as to why he was doing so, he told that his Saheb la to come there and, therefore, he was doing so. But, as a matter of fact no one was to visit there. But, as a matter of fact no one was to visit there. After he was afflicted with the mental insanity when he was sent to bandobast duty to Gulbarga during Urus of khaja Bande Navaz there and treated for the same, he showed similar tendency of lunacy and he ran away from duty and he was again brought and sent to the mental hospital at Dharwad for treatment and he was treated there for 15 days and that was in the month of April, 1979. The evidence of PW 19 also, as noticed by the learned Sessions Judge himself, discloses that o. 8 -10 1979 the constables on duty at sub-jail reported about the abnormal behaviour of the accused and as directed by the JMFC, Yelburga, the accused was examined by the Medical officer PW 13 on 12-10-1979 and on his advice he was also sent for examination and treatment by a Psychiatrist and accordingly the accused was sent to mental hospital at Dharwad for examination and treatment. This previous history being within the knowledge of the Investigating officers, it was their duty to send the accused immediately on taking him to custody to a Medical Officer for examination of his mental condition, particularly when ho was allegedly caught while committing the acts of violence and lodged in the lock up. The Investigating Officers have neither themselves sworn to their having questioned the accused after arrestag him to ascertain his mental condition then, nor have they sent the accased to a medical Officer Immediately for examination and ascertained the mental condition of the accused. It is only long after the incident, on 8-10-1979, when (he Investigating Officer received report from the constables on aentry duty at the sub jail about the abnormal behaviour of the accused, he requested the JMFC, Yelburga, for examination by a Medical Officer. Neither he himself swears as to what was the abnormal behaviour of the accused nor (he report received from the constable on duty at the sub-jail has been produced. Thus, it became impossible for the accused to show anything about his mental condition at the time of the incident. In view of the above, it cannot be said with any amount of certainity that he was aa ordinary person presumed to know the consequences of his acts, when he allegedly committed the acts of violence. Thus, it became impossible for the accused to show anything about his mental condition at the time of the incident. In view of the above, it cannot be said with any amount of certainity that he was aa ordinary person presumed to know the consequences of his acts, when he allegedly committed the acts of violence. No doubt the burden to establish the legal insanity lies on the accused. But the burden cannot be as heavy as it lies on the prosecution to establish its case. Even if the accused had failed to establish conclusively the plea raised by him regarding the legal insanity within the meaning of S. 84 of ipc, the facts and circumstances, established in the case do show that the accused periodically suffered mental insanity and, when under such influence of insanity, his behaviour was abnormal. Though it is not possible to say on account of insanity to what extent the behaviour of the accused used to be abnormal and if there was or not any homicidal tendency during that period of lunacy, the failure on the part of the Investigating Officers to lead evidence as to the mental condition of the accused when he was in custody and to product the available records about the nature of insanity, in the given facts and circumstances of the case here, introduces an infirmity in proving the presence of mens rea, the essential ingredient of the offence of murder. This gives raise to a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court, and hence the third proposition of law as enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Dahyabhai (1) comes into play and, therefore, the accused would be entitled to an acquittal on the ground that the prosecution has failed to discharge the general burden that lies on it and establish the case beyond all reasonable doubt. The learned Sessions Judge, in our opinion, was not therefore right, in the circumstances of the case here, in his conclusion that the accused was in perfect state of mind when he committed the acts of violence, because he was not only found cleaning the gun but he loaded the gun with cartridges sod offered resistance when PW 2 tried to catch hold of him or because be had fired the third shot when PW 3 tried to disarm him. The circumstances relied opon by the learned Sessions Judge to reach that conclusion are not by them selves sufficient to show what was the real state of mind of the accused. ( 12 ) IN the result, for the reasons stated above, we allow the appeal, set aside tbt order of conviction and sentence passed on the appellant accused Sanna Eranna SOn of Kenchappa pavarmani by the Sessions judge, Rafchur, in SC No. 58 of 1980, and acquit him. We direct that he be set at liberty forthwith. --- *** --- .