JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1. Baran, dated July 21, 1980, convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/. 2. The prosecution story unfolded during the trial is that on 8th Stine, 1979, at about 12 noon, the accused-appellant committed the murder of Sushri Geeta the daughter of PW 5 Kesari Lal. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that as for the commission of the murder is concerned he is not assailing the finding of fact. He submits that the appellant was mad at the relevant time and as such he is entitled for the benefit of section 84 of the Indian penal Code. 3. Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code lays down that nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to the statement of PW 1 Ganesh Ram. The relevant para reads as under: " xhrk bldh Hkkuth Fkh xhrk ds ejus ls igyd eqyfte gkftj vnkyr ikxy Fkk bykt ds fy;s viuh cgu ds ikl fetkZiqj jgrk FkkA bl eqyfte dks oks cl esa j[krs FksA " He has also invited our attention to the statement of PW 2. The relevant para reads as under: " xhrk bldh Hkkuth Fkh xhrk ds ejus ls igyd eqyfte gkftj vnkyr ikxy Fkk bykt ds fy;s viuh cgu ds ikl fetkZiqj jgrk FkkA bl eqyfte dks oks cl esa j[krs FksA " He has also invited our attention to the statement of PW 2. The relevant para reads as under: " xksiky eqyfte dsljk ds ;gha jg jgk Fkk ;g mu fnuksa esa ikxy FkkA iqfyl esa ;g ckrcrkbZ gks rksa esa ugha dg ldrkA ;g xyr gS fd eSa eqyfte ls fey x;k gwaA ftjg odhy eqyfte %& ikxy iu dh otg ls eqyfte Qjkj gks x;k Fkk] xkao&xkao Hkkx fQjrk FkkA ;g dksVk ls Hkkxk FkkA 10&12 fnu ckn Qrsgiqj ikxyiu dh voLFkk esa idM+k x;kA Qrgiqj ls idM+ dj eqyfte dks mldk cguksbZ dsljk idM+ yk;k FkkA ijUrq bldk dksbZ bykt dsljk ugha djok jgk Fkk esa bl eqyfte gkftj vnkyr dks ?kVuk ds igys ls gh turk gwWaA 'kq: esa nks pkj lky igys eqyfte ikxy ugha FkkA ?kVuk ds fdrus fnu igys ikxy Fkk ;g esa ugha dg ldrk ijUrq ftl fnu ;g gekjs xkao esa vk;k Fkk ikxy FkkA eqyfte viuk Hkyk cqjk dqN ugha lksprk gS u ml le; le>rk Fkk eqyfte ifjokj esa eqyfte dh ekrk , bldh vkSjr gh gSA eqyfte dh vkSjr ukrs ugha xbZ gSA " 5. He has also invited our attention to the statement of PW 3, father of the deceased, who has admitted that the accused was not capable to under stand anything either good 41 bad and he was insane. He has further invited our attention to the statement of PW 5 Panchu Lal. This witnesses also stated that the accused was insane and he was not capable to under stand good or bad at the relevant time. Learned counsel for the appellant has also invited our attention to the statement of PW 8 Bhanwarlal, who is the star witness of the prosecution. He has stated in his cross-examination as under: " esjk ekek blds ifgys ls gh ikxy gks jgk FkkA fQj dgk ikxy ugha gks jgk Fkk ckoyk gks jgk FkkA xksiky dks frokjh esa gh j[krs FksA xk; fd lky esa VV~Vh tkrk FkkA " 6. He has further invited our attention to the statement of PW 15 Radha Vallabh. He has stated in his cross-examination as under: " esjk ekek blds ifgys ls gh ikxy gks jgk FkkA fQj dgk ikxy ugha gks jgk Fkk ckoyk gks jgk FkkA xksiky dks frokjh esa gh j[krs FksA xk; fd lky esa VV~Vh tkrk FkkA " 6. He has further invited our attention to the statement of PW 15 Radha Vallabh. The relevant part of his statement reads as under: " eqyfte xksiky ikxy gks x;k Fkk blfy;s dsljk bykt ds fy;s xksiky dks vius ?kj ys x;k FkkA xksiky 'kjhQ yM+dk Fkk eqyfte vius }kjk fd;s x;s dk;ksZa ds 'kqHk v'kqHk ugha tkurk Fkk njkarh cjken gqbZ rc esjs firk ugha FksA " 7. On behalf of the defence also to prove the insanity, three witnesses have been examined. DW 1 and DW 2 viz. Meera Lal and Dakha are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the accused and they have stated that the accused was insane at the relevant time. DW3 Jagdish Prasad, Head-Warden of the Jail has been examined as defence witness and he has stated that at the time of admission of the accused in jail, it was considered that the accused is an insane man and so he was referred for treatment. He has produced Ex. D. 1 letter dated September 3, 1979. It has been specifically mentioned in this letter that it seems that the accused is insane and he needs the treatment. It has been further stated that the doctor at Kota had advised that he should be shifted to Jaipur. He sought the permission of ADM for sending the appellant to Jaipur. Ex. D is the letter dated October 3, 1979, in which also a reference has been made about the insanity. Ex. D. 4 is the certificate issued by Dr. D. C. Satija, Reader in psychiatric Centre, Jaipur. He found that the appellant is suffering from Schizophrenia, a type of insanity and he requires treatment after admission in hospital. Thus there is an ample evidence to prove that the accused was insane at the relevant time. 8. Every man is presumed to be same and to possess sufficient degree of a reason to be responsible for his acts unless the contrary is proved. Thus there is an ample evidence to prove that the accused was insane at the relevant time. 8. Every man is presumed to be same and to possess sufficient degree of a reason to be responsible for his acts unless the contrary is proved. The defence has succeeded in proving that at the time of committing the act the appellant was labouring under such defect of reason as not to know the nature and quality of the act which he is committing that is, the physical nature and quality as distinguished from the moral. 9. For the reasons mentioned above, we are of the view that the benefit of section 84 should be extended to the appellant. 10. The appeal is accepted for the reasons mentioned above. The conviction and sentence awarded by the lower court is set-aside. The accused be set at liberty if not required in any other case. However, it is made clear that if the accused appellant is found insane even now, then the State should take proper steps for reinstatement.Appeal accepted. *******