JUDGMENT 1. - Mishriya, the appellant in this appeal was tried by the Sessions Judge, Balotra in respect of offnces under section 302, 3 7, 458 and 326 IPC The charge under section 302 I.P.C. related to the murder of Bhara, father of the appellant and Smt. Meera,the grand-mother of the appellant. Charges under sections 307, 458 & 326 IPC related to the assualt by the appellant on Lachiya (P.W. 12) with a 'kulhari'. The Sessions Judge convicted the appellant of all the charges and has sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for life u/s 302 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for seven years under section 307 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for five years u/s 326 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for five years u/s 326 IPC. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. The occurrence as alleged by the prosecution had taken pace in the night intervening April 4 and 5, 1977. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 5th April, 1977 at 12.30 p m. Shivji (P.W 1) lodged a report (Ex. P. 1) at police station Siwana. In the said report it was stated that in the night between 2-3 a.m. when he was sleeping in his house, he heard sounds of 'Mare-re, Mare-re' from towards the house of Lachiya. Since he wife of Lachiya was ill and thinking that she was dead he went to the house of Lachiya and found that Lachiya and the appellant were fighting with each other and that Shiviya (P.W. 4) and Nagiya (P.W. 3) were also present there and that Shiviya (P.W. 4) snatched the 'kulhari' from the possession of the appellant and thereafter the appellant was tied with a 'safa'. Lachiya had injuries on his back as well as on his throat and on being asked he stated that some quarrel had taken place between Bhera and the appellant with regard to 'biedi' and sometime earlier he (Lachiya) had got up to give medicine to his daughter and he heard sound of Bhera crying 'Mare re' and that he went towards the house of Bhera and saw the appellant assaulting Bhera with a 'kulhari' and Bhera was lying in front of his house. Thereupon he raised an alarm and the appellant run after him but he entered into his house & appellant also followed him & inflicted an injury on his throat with a kulhari' as a result of which he fell down. When he stood up the appellant again inflicted an injury with a 'kulhari' on his back. According to the F.I.R. Lachiya caught hold of the appellant from behind & tried to snatch the 'kulhari'& during this struggle they came out of the house & Lachiya & his wife raised cries. In the F.I.R. it was also stated that the appellant was telling loudly to everybody that he had killed his father & his grand mot,her with the 'kulhari'. Smt Meera was found dead in the courtyard of the house and Bhera was found dead outside the house. In the F.I.R. it was also stated that Suwadi, daughter of the appellant and Kharkali, his sister were crying and Suwadi was saying that the appellant had killed 'Male and 'Baa'. In the F.I.R. it was also stated that the Mukbiya of the village was called and thereupon Shivji went to the police station for lodging the report. On the basis of the aforesaid report a case under sections 302,458 and 307 IPC was registered and Shri Devilal (P.W. 16). S.H.O. police station Siwana commenced the investigating. The Investing Officer prepared the site plan (Ex. P. 15) and the memo of the site inspection (Es. P. 8). He also prepared the 'Farad surat Hal Lash' of deceased Bhera and Smt. Meera vide memos (Ex. P. 9 and P 10).The blood stained clothes of Bhera were seized vide seizure memo (Ex. P. 16) and the blood stained clot' es of Smt. Meera was seized vide seizure memo (Ex. P.17). The post-mortem examination of the dead bodies of Bhera and Smt. Meera was conducted by Dr. Om Prakash Vyas (P.W. 14) Medical Officer In-charge, Balotra vide post mortem reports (Ex P. 4 and P. 5). According to the post-mortem report (Ex. P 4; deceased Bhera had five injuries on his person caused by a sharp edged weapon. Injury No. 1 was a big wound extending from 2" below lobule of left ear extending on back of neck and right side upto right mostoid process. Cervical vetebral column was cut through, left mendible was broken in pieces. P 4; deceased Bhera had five injuries on his person caused by a sharp edged weapon. Injury No. 1 was a big wound extending from 2" below lobule of left ear extending on back of neck and right side upto right mostoid process. Cervical vetebral column was cut through, left mendible was broken in pieces. Margin of lower flap of skin of the wound was sharp. Margins of tuner flap sharp and irregular. The other wounds were on the left humerus bone right fore arm cutting through right ridious bone, and right side of chest 8" long vertically X 6" vide horizontally cutting right clavicle & upper four cartilages and rupturing right lung. According to the medical officer. Bhera had died instantaneously because of the injury to vital organ like spinal cord, right and cervical vessels leading to shock and death. The post mortem report (Ex. P. 5) show that Smt. Meera had a big gaping wound 8" long horizontally x 3" wide laterally on right side and 4" wide at centre cutting through trachea and big cervical vessels. Muscles of cervical region and big vessel-sure cut through and wound extended posteriorly up to servical region. According to the medical officer the deceased had died instantaneously because of injuries to vital organ like trachea cutting it through and through end big vessels of cervical region leading to shock & death The injuries of Lachiya (P.W. 12)were medically examined by Dr. Om Prakash Vyas vide injury report (Ex P. 6). According to the said injury report Lachiya had two incised wounds, one of them was grievous and the other simple. The grievous injury was an incised wound 3 long x 3/4" wide 1" deep obliquely directed laterally. The wound was horizontally placed on right side of neck at lower end, lateral and of wound extending up to right clavicle. A bony point separate from clavicle was present near sternal end of clavicle and there was slight irregularity in the continuity of right clavicle. The other wound was on the right upper inter scapular region. The appellant was arrested vide memo of arrest (Ex. P. 14) and the clothes of the appellant was seized vide memo (Ex. P. 11). The 'kulhari' was produced before the Investigating Officer by Nagiya and was seized vide seizure memo (Ex. P 13). The other wound was on the right upper inter scapular region. The appellant was arrested vide memo of arrest (Ex. P. 14) and the clothes of the appellant was seized vide memo (Ex. P. 11). The 'kulhari' was produced before the Investigating Officer by Nagiya and was seized vide seizure memo (Ex. P 13). After completing the investigation the police filed a charge against the appellant in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Balotra and the case was committed for trial to the court of Sessions and the appellant was tried by the Sessions Judge, Balotra. He framed charges in respect of offences under section 302, 307, 326 and 458 WC. When the charges were read over to the appellant on 30th May, 1977, the appellant admitted that he had killed his father and his grand mother and had caused injuries on the person of Lachiya and further stated that he had caused the injuries with a 'kulhari. He also stated that he did not want a trial and did not want to examine the witnesses. In view of the seriousness of the charges the Sessions Judge however, proceeded to hold the trial and examined the witnesses. 3. The prosecution, in support of its case. examined sixteen witnesses out of whom (P.W. 1) Shivji bad lodged the F.I.R., Tikma (P.W. 2) arrived at the scene of the occurrence shortly after the incident, Nagiya (P W. 3) and Shiviya (P.W. 4) had arrived at the house of Lachiya at the time when Lachiya and he appellant were grappling and snatched the ace from the possession of the appellant and tied him with a 'safa'. Kutnari Suwadi (P.W. 5) is the daughter of the appellant. Chandani (P W. 6) is the wife of Lachiya. Sawa (P.W. 7), Prabhulal (P W. 8), Shivasingh (P.W. 9), Bhanwarlal (P.W. 10) and Misariya (P.W. 11) had arrived at the scene shortly after the occurrence. Lachiya (P.W. 12) is the person who had sustained injuries at the hand of the appellant. Purshottom (P W. 13) did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile. Dr. Om Prakash Vyas (P.W. 14) is the Medical Officer who conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead bodies of Bhera and Smt. Meera and also examined the injuries of Lachiya and has proved the post mortem reports (Ex. Purshottom (P W. 13) did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile. Dr. Om Prakash Vyas (P.W. 14) is the Medical Officer who conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead bodies of Bhera and Smt. Meera and also examined the injuries of Lachiya and has proved the post mortem reports (Ex. P 4 and P 5) and injury report (Ex P. 6). Narpatraj (P.W. 151 is the attesting witness of the various memos prepared in the course of investigation Devilal (P.W.16) was the S.H O , police station Siwana, who conducted the investigation of the Lase. Kachab Singh (P.W. 17) was the head constable who was posted at police station Siwana and who bad recorded the F.I.R. lodged by Shivji. The appellant, in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr. P.C. denied the prosecution case. He denied that he had committed the murder of his father Bhera and grandmother Smt. Meera with a 'kulhari' or had inflicted injuries on the person of Lachiya with the 'Kulhari'. 4. The Sessions Judge held that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that it was the appellant who had inflicted the injuries on the persons of Bhera and Smt Meera with a 'kulheri' which resulted in their death and that it was he appellant who had inflicted injuries with a 'kulhari' on the person of Lachiya.For the purpose of arriving at the said conclusion the Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the extra judicial confession made by the appellant in the presence of Tikama (P.W 2), Sawa (P.W. 7) Prabhulal (P.W. 8), Shiva Singh (P.W. 9), Bahanwerlal (P.W. 10) and Misariya (P.W. 11) that he had killed his father Bhera and grandmother Meera. The Sessions Judge further found that the aforesaid extra-judicial confession finds corroboration from the medical evidence. The Sessions Judge further found that the aforesaid extra-judicial confession finds corroboration from the medical evidence. As regards the injuries found on the person of Lachiya the Sessions Judge held that the evidence of Lachiya finds corroboration from the evidence of Nagya (P.W. 3) and Shiviya (P.W 4) as well as the medical evidence and it is established that it was the appellant who had caused the said injuries with a 'kulhari' before the Sessions Judge it was contended on behalf of the appellant that at the time of the commission of the crime the appellant was not mentally sound and, therefore, the appellant cannot be held guilty of any offence in view of the provisions contained in section 84 I.P.C. The Sessions Judge rejected this contention and held that while Shivji (P.W 1), Suwadi (P.W.5) Shiviya (PW 4) and Chandan (P.W. 6) have spoken about the appellant having fits of insanity, the other witness namely (P.W.7) Sawa, (P.W.11) Misariya and (P.W.12) Lachiya have denied that the appellant was having any fit of insanity. The Sessions Judge was also of the view that reliance could not be placed on the testimony of P.W.5 Suwadi, who is the daughter of the appellant and Shivji (P.W.1) and that the evidence of Chandani (P.W.6) and Shiviya (P.W.4) was very vague and on the basis of that evidence it could not be said that at the time of commission of the crime the appellant was not in a mentally fit condition and was not aware of the nature and consequence of his act. The Sessions Judge, therefore, held that protection of section 84 I.P.C. could not be extended in the present case. In the circumstance, the Sessions Judge held the appellant guilty of the offences u/ss 302, 307, 326, 458 IPC and sentenced him to the various terms of imprisonment referred to above. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the Sessions Judge the appellant has filed this appeal from jail. 5. We have beard Shri B. Advani who has addressed the court as Amicus Curiae and Shri Niyajuddin Khan, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the Sessions Judge the appellant has filed this appeal from jail. 5. We have beard Shri B. Advani who has addressed the court as Amicus Curiae and Shri Niyajuddin Khan, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 6. In so far as the case of the prosecution that the appellant was the person who had inflicted the injuries on the persons of Bhera & Meera which resulted in their death the prosecution has examined Kumari Suwadi(P.W.5) daughter of the appellant & has also relied upon the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant soon after the incident. Kum Suwadi during the course of her examination in.chief has stated that the appellant had killed her grand father Bhera & her great grand-mother Meera but during the course of cross-examination she stated that at the time when her grand-father and great grandmother were killed she was sleeping and she learnt about it on waking up. This would show that Kum. Suwadi is not an eye witness of the occurrence relating to the asault on Beera and Meera and the evidence of Kum. Suwadi cannot, therefore, be relied upon fur the purpose of holding, that it was the appellant who had caused the death of Bhera and Meera. As regards the extra judicial confession there is the evidence of Tikama (P.W. 2), who is the uncle of the appellant. Tikama has stated that he had been informed by Mota that Bhera and his mother had been killed and that thereupon he went to the house of Bhera and he found Bhera and his mother lying dead. The dead body of Bhera was outside the house and the dead body of his mother was lying inside. At that time the appellant had been tied in front of the house of Lachiya. Tikama has further stated that he asked the appellant and the appellant told him that he had killed his father and his grandmother. Similary there is evidence of Sawa (P.W.7) Prabhulal (P.W.8), Sivsingh (P.W 9), Bhanwarlal (P.W.10) and Misariya (P.W.11) They all have stated that on hearing about the death of Bhera and his mother they had come to the house of Bhera and they had found the appellant tied outside the house of Lacbiya and on being asked the appellant had stated that he had killed his father and grandmother. The aforsaid version given by these witness about the extra judicial confession made by the appellant also finds corroboration from the testimony of Lachiya (P W.12) who has stated that in the night when be got up to give milk to his daughter he had heard the sound of Bhera crying 'mare-re' and thereafter he went out of the house and shouted as to why they were fighting and thereupon the appellant came armed with a 'kulhari, and inflicted injury on his neck with the 'kulhari'. Further corroboration of the extra judicial confession is also found in the F.I R. (Ex P.1) wherein it is mentioned that the appellant was telling everybody loudly that he had killed his father and his grandmother with the same 'kulhari' Corroboration to the extra judicial confession is also afforded by the medical evidence of Dr. Omprakash Vyas (P.W.14) who has proved the post mortem reports (Ex. P.4 and P.5). On the basis of the aforesaid evidence of the extra judicial confession proved by the aforsaid witness which has been corroborated by other evidence referred to above. We are satisfied that the prosecution has succeeding in establishing beyond reasonable doubt that it was the appellant who bad inflicted injuries on the persons of Bhera add Smt. Meera as a result of which they died instantaneously. 7. As regards the injuries found on the person of Lachiya, there is the evidence of Lachiya (P.W. 12) who has deposed that the said injuries were caused with a 'kulhari' by the appellant when he (Lachiya) went out of his house and shouted that they should not fight and thereafter the appellant bad come armed with the 'kulhari' and chased him inside the house and had inflicted the said injuries. The evidence of Lachiya (P W. 12) finds corroboration from the testimony of Nagiya (P W. 3) and Shiviya (P.W. 4) who have deposed that on hearing thecries of Lachiya they had come to the house of Lachiya and found the appellant and Lachiya engaged in a scuffle and that at that time the appellant was armed with a 'kulhari' and there were injuries on the person of Lachiya and that the 'kulhari' was snatched by Nagiya and Shiviya tied the appellant with a 'safa'. The aforesaid evidence also find corroboration from the testimony of Shivji (P.W. 1). The aforesaid evidence also find corroboration from the testimony of Shivji (P.W. 1). He has also stated that when he reached the house of Lachiya he had seen Nagiya and Shiviya snatching the 'kulhari' from the hands of the appellant and thereafter the appellant was tied with a 'safa' and at that time there were injuries on the back and shoulders of Lachiya In view of the aforesaid evidence of Lachiya corroborated by the testimony of Nagiya (P.W. 3) Shiviya (P.W. 4) and Shivji (P.W. 1) as well as the medical evidence, i.e. the injury report (Ex. P. 6) prepared by Dr. Om Prakash Vyas it must be held that the prosecution succeeded in establishing that it was the appellant had inflicted the injuries found on the person of Lachiya with a 'kulhari'. 8. Shri Advani has however, submitted that even if it be held that it was the appellant who had inflicted the injuries on the person of Bhera and Meera which resulted in their death and injuries on the person of Lachiya, the appellant cannot to held guilty of any offence in view of the provisions of section 84 I.P.C. inasmuch as the appellant was not in a mentally fit condition at the time of the commission of the occurrence and he was not in a position to know about the nature and consequences of his act. In support of his aforesaid submission Shri Advani has invited our attention to the statements of Shivji (P.W.1) Shivya (P.W. 4), Suwadi (P W. 5) and Chandani (P.W. 6). Shri Advani has alsb placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakar v. State of Gujarat ( AIR 1964 S.C. 1563 ) , decision of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Shanti Devi v. State (1968 Cr. L.J. 1156) and the decision of a learned Single Judge of the Orissa High Court in Surya Prasad v. State of Orissa (1982 Cr. LJ 931) . 9. L.J. 1156) and the decision of a learned Single Judge of the Orissa High Court in Surya Prasad v. State of Orissa (1982 Cr. LJ 931) . 9. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand, has supported the finding recorded by the Sessions Judge and has submitted that in the present case the appellant has nowhere set up the plea of insanity and further that from the evidence on record it is not established that the appellant was not mentally sound at the time of the commission of the offence and was not in a position to know about the nature and consequences of the act. The learned Public Prosecutor also relied upon the evidence of Tikama (P. W. 2), Nagiya (P. W. 3), Sawa (P. W. 7). Prabhulal (P. W. 8), Misariya (P. W. 11) and Lachiya (P. W 12) and Devilal (P.W. 16) to show that the appellant was not mentally unsound at the time of the commission of the offence. 10. The law relating to insanity as a defence in criminal law has been dealt with by the Supreme Court in Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat (supra) wherein it has been observed: "when a plea of legal insanity is set up, the court has to consider whether 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 was either wrong or contrary to law. The crucial point of time for ascertaining the state of mind of the accused is the time when the offence was committed. Whether the accused was in such a state of mind as to be entitled to the benefit of S 84 of the Indian Penal Code can only be established from the circumstances which preceded, attended and followed the crime." As regards the burden of proof in the context of the plea of insanity the Supreme Court has laid down: "The doctrine of burden of proof in the context of 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 mensrea; 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 Indian Penal Code: 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." The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court and other decisions have been considered by a learned Single Judge of the Orissa High Court in Surya Prasad v. State of Orissa (supra) and the legal position has been summed up as under:- "Every type of insanity recognised in medical science is not legal insanity. There can be no legal insanity unless the cognitive faculty of mind is destroyed as a result of unsoundness of mind to such an extent as to render the accused incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that what be is doing is wrong or contraty to law. Some indication of the precise state of the offender's mind at the time of the commission of the act is often furnished by the words of the offender used while committing the act or immediately before or after he commission. Speaking generally the petern of the crime, the manner and method of its execution, and the behaviour of the offender before or after the commission of the crime furnish some of the important clues to ascertain whether the accused had no cognitive faculty to know the nature of the act or that what he was doing is either wrong or contary to law. In order to find whether the accused was by reason of unsoundness of ming incapable of knowing the nature of the act, a Court may rely not only on defence evidence, but also on what is elicited from the prosecution witnesses as well as on circumstantial evidence consisting of the previous history of the accused and his subsequent conduct in the surrounding circumstances including absence of motive. If the evidence produced raises a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Judge as regards one or other of the necessary ingredients of the offence, the Judge has to acquit the accused." 11. The legal position is thus clear that in order that an accused may succeed in a plea of insanity it is necessary for him to establish that he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he was doing was wrong or contrary to law. The accused can establish his plea of insanity either by adducing evidence or by relying upon the evidence produced by the prosecution and if he succeeds in raising a reasonable doubt in the mind of the court as regards one or more ingredents of the offence including the mensrea of the accused, the accused will be entitled to be acquitted. For the purpose of determining as to whether the accused has succeeded in establishing his plea of insanity. his conduct before the incident, at the time of the incident and subtequent to the incident is relevant. As to whether the appellant had any motive in the commission of the offence may also be relevant for deciding this question. 12. In the present case the appellant at no stage of the trial had raised the plea of insanity. On the other hand at the time when the charge was read over to him by the Sessions Judge he admitted having killed his father and his grandmother and having inflicted injuries on the person of Lachiya with a 'kulhari. During the course of trial questions were put to the prosecution witnesses with regard to the mental condition of the appellant at the time of the incident and prior to the incident. During the course of trial questions were put to the prosecution witnesses with regard to the mental condition of the appellant at the time of the incident and prior to the incident. The case of the appellant is that the plea of insanity arises out of the evidence that has been adduced by the prosecution & for that reason the plea of insanity was considered by the Sessions Judge and for the same reason we are also considering this plea. 13. At the outset it may be observed that there is no evidence of any medical history of treatment of the appellant for insanity either before or after the incident. In support of the plea of insanity Shri Advani has relied upon the evidence of Shivji (P.W. 1), Shiviya (P.W. 4), Suwadi (P.W. 5) and Chandani (P.W. 6). Shivji (P.W. 1) during the course of cross examination by the counsel for the appellant, has stated that the appellant was having fits of insanity from time to time and that the fits of insanity were very frequent during the rainy season and that on the night of occurrence it had rained and there was thunder and, therefore, the appellant was having a fit of insanity and the said fit of insanity was such that the appellant did not know as to what he was doing and be did not know as to what was the consequence of striking with a 'kulhari'. Shiviya (P.W. 4), during the course of cross examination by the counsel for the appellant, has stated that the appellant was having fits of insanity sometime about 2-4 years back and that the appellant was working as a labourer. He has also stated that on the date of incident there were clouds and it had rained and on that date the appellant must have had a fit of insanity. He, however, stated that he was not aware as to whether the appellant bad a fit of insanity. He has also stated that be was not aware as to whether the appellant was having fits of insanity as a result of rain and thunder. He has stated that on the date of the incident the appellant was tied so as to prevent him from assaulting others because he did not know whom he might assault. He has also stated that be was not aware as to whether the appellant was having fits of insanity as a result of rain and thunder. He has stated that on the date of the incident the appellant was tied so as to prevent him from assaulting others because he did not know whom he might assault. He has also stated that he was not aware as to whether be was under a fit or not. Kum. Suwadi (P.W. 5) has stated during the course of cross examination that her father used to have fits of insanity and that when he had a fit he could not be controlled by anybody. She also stated that those fits were very frequent when there was rain or thunder. She also stated that on the night of the incident there was rain and the appellant had a fit and on account of the said fit he had killed Bhera and Meera. Chandani (P.W. 6) has stated during the course of cross examination that on the night of the incident there was rain and thunder and lightening. She also stated that the appellant had a fit of insanity and the appellant did not know ts hat he was doing. She also stated that earlier the appellant did not use to have fits and he was working as a labourer. 14. As against the aforesaid witnesses on which reliance has been placed by Mr. Advani there is the evidence of P.W. 2 Tikama, who happened to be the uncle of the appellant, and who has denied that the appellant was having fits of insanity. P.W.3 Nagiya has also stated during the course of cross-examination that he did not see the appellant having fits of insanity. He has, however, admitted that on the night of the incident there was rain and thunder as well as lightening. P.W. 7 Sawa has stated that the appellant is a normal person and he does not have any fits of insanity and he corries on his profession. He has also stated that the appellant had never earlier acted madly. P W. Prabhu Lal has also stated that he had not seen the appellant having fits of insanity. P W. 9 Shiva Singh has stated that he did not know that the appellant was having any fit of insanity. He has also stated that the appellant had never earlier acted madly. P W. Prabhu Lal has also stated that he had not seen the appellant having fits of insanity. P W. 9 Shiva Singh has stated that he did not know that the appellant was having any fit of insanity. P.W. 10 Bhahwarlal has also stated that neither he was aware nor he heard that the appellant was having fits of insanity. (P.W. 11) Misariya has stated that it is wrong that the appellant was having fits of insanity. (P.W.12) Lachiya has stated that the appellant was not having any fits of insanity and that he bad been tied for the reason that he may not inflict injury on others. He also stated that the appellant carries on his work and that he does not have any fit of insanity on account of rain or lightening. (P.W. 13) Purshottam has stated that he had heard that sometimes the appellant used to have fits of insanity but he had not beard that in the fit of insanity the appellant had committed any wrong. (P.W. 15) Narpatraj has stated that he had not heard that the appellant was having fit of insanity (P W. 16) Devilal, who was the Investigating Officer, has stated that the appellant was not mad and, therefore, he did not make any investigation about his madness. He also stated that he never had any suspicion that the appellant had committed this crime in the state of madness. 15. This shows that out of the witnesses that have been examined by the prosecution Tikama (P.W. 2) who is the uncle of the appellant, (P W. 7), Misariya (P.W. 11) and Lachiya (P,W. 12) have definitely stated that the appellant was not having fits of insanity. Shivji (P.W. 1) Shiviya (P.W. 4) Suwadi (P.W 5) and Chandani (P.W 6) do refer to the fact that the appellant was having fits of insanity in the past. The other witnesses have, however, expressed their ignorance about the appellant having fits of insanity. As regards the witnesses who have spoken about the appellant having had fits of insanity in the past it may be observed that Shivji (P.W. 1) is a witness who was declared hostile as he disowned a part of the report (Ex P. 1) lodged by him and in examination in-chief he tried to support the appellant, and Kum. As regards the witnesses who have spoken about the appellant having had fits of insanity in the past it may be observed that Shivji (P.W. 1) is a witness who was declared hostile as he disowned a part of the report (Ex P. 1) lodged by him and in examination in-chief he tried to support the appellant, and Kum. Suwadi (P.W. 5) is the daughter of the appellant who was aged 10 years at the time of her examination in the court and can be said to be a person interested in the appellant. As regards the other two witnesses viz., Shiviya (P W. 4) and Chandani (P.W. 6) it may be stated that Shiviya, while saying that the appellant was having fits of insanity sometimes 2-4 years earlier, has stated that he was not aware as to whether he had a fit of insanity on the date on which the incident took place. Therefore, the evidence of Shiviya does not throw much light on fir condition of the mind of the appellant on the date of the incident. Chandani (P.W 6), the wife of Lachiya (P W. 12) does state that the appellant was having a fit of insanity and the appellant was not aware as to what he was doing But she also states that the earlier the appellant was not having fits of insanity and was working as a labourer. She has also admitted that she was ill on the night of the occurrence and that she hid only seen the appellant entering her house and inflicting injuries on her husband and her husband caching him and that she does not know what happened thereafter. This shows that on the night of the occurrence Chandani had seen the appellant only for a very short while. As against the evidence of Chandani, there is the evidence of her husband Lachiya (P.W. 12) who was with the appellant for a longer period and who has stated that the appellant was not having any fit of insanity at that time In our opinion while considering the evidence of these witnesses it is also necessary to take into consideration the conduct of the appellant at the the time of the incident. As regards the conduct of the appellant at the time of the incident there is the evidence of Tikama (P.W. 2), Sawa (P W. 7) Prabhulal (P.W. 8), Shivasingh (P.W. 9), Bhanwarlal (P.W. 10); and Misariya (P.W. 11) who have stated that when asked the appellant had stated that he had killed his father Bhera and his grandmother Smt. Meera. Prabhulal (P.W. 8) Shiva Singh (P W. 9), Bhanwarlal (P.W. 10) have further stated that the appellant was expressing his remorse on his mistake. This would show that immediately after the incident the appellant was aware of the nature of the act which was committed by him and feeling sorry for the same. That the appellant was in proper senses at the time of the incident or shortly after the incident is also established from the evidence of Shivji (P.W. 1) who has deposed that he had asked the appellant about the cause of his killing his father and grandmother and the appellant had told him that his father did not give him the 'beedi' and, therefore, he killed him. This would show that the appellant was able to understand the questions which were being put to him and was in a position to give a proper reply to the same. 16. Shri Advani has however, submitted that in the present case the prosecuthn has not assigned any motive for the appellant's killing his father and grand mother and for inflicting injuries on the person of Lachiya and the fact that the aforesaid injuries were inflicted without any motive is a circumstance which supports the inference that the appellant was not in a fit mental condition at the time of incident and he was not aware of the nature and the consequence of his act. We are unable to accept the aforesaid contention of Shri Advani. It is true that no specific motive has been alleged by the prosecution. But from the evidence of Shivji (P.W.1) it does appear that a dispute had arisen between the appellant and his father on accountof refusal on the part of Bhera to give 'beedi' to the appellant and that seems to have enraged the appellant and led to his inflicting injuries on the person of his father Bhera. There is no evidence as to why the appellant had inflicting injuries on the person of Smt. Meera. There is no evidence as to why the appellant had inflicting injuries on the person of Smt. Meera. But it is quite possible that Smt. Meera. might have intervened between the appellant and his father and, therefore, she might have been assaulted by the appellant. In-so-far as the assault of Lachiya is concerned Lachiya was stated that after hearing the cries of Bhera he had shouted and thereupon the appellant armed with a 'kulhari', had charged him and had inflicted injuries on his person with the 'kulhari', This would show that the appellant inflicted injuries on the person of Bhera because he felt enraged on the refusal of Bhera to give him 'beedi' & that he inflicted injuries on Lachiya because he felt angry on account of Lachiya intervening between him and his father. It cannot therefore, be said that the appellant had assaulted Bhera and Smt. Meera deceased and Lachiya (P.W.12) without any reason whatsoever. 17. Talking into consideration the entire evidence on the record we are of the opinion that only on the basis of the statement of Shivji (P.W.1), Shivyia (P.W.4), Suwadi (P.W.5), Chandani (P.W.6), it is not possible to hold that the appellant was having a fit of madness at the time of the commission of the acts of assault on deceased Bhera and Smt. Meera and Lachiya (P.W.12) and that on account of the aforesaid fit of madness he was unable to appreciate the nature and consequence of his act. On the basis of the evidence on record it is not possible to hold that the requirements of the plea of insanity under section 84 I.P.C. have been satisfied in the present case. We are therefore, unable to give the protection of section 84 I.P.C. to the appellant. 18. In the result the appellant must be held guilty of the offence murdering his father Bhera and his grandfather Smt. Meera and for inflicting injuries with a 'kulhari' on Lachiya after entering into his house and the appellant has been rightly convicted for the offences under sections 302, 307, 458 and 326 I.P.C. by the Session Judge. In our opinion no ground is made out for interference with the conviction of the appellant for the said offences as well as the sentences imposed on the appellant by the Sessions Judge for the said offences. 19. In our opinion no ground is made out for interference with the conviction of the appellant for the said offences as well as the sentences imposed on the appellant by the Sessions Judge for the said offences. 19. The appeal has thus no force and it is, therefore, dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******