Judgment KADER, J.: The appellant stand convicted by the Court of Session, Coimbatore Division at Coimbatore, in Sessions Case No.184 of 1982 under section 302, Indian Penal Code, on the accusation that on 6.10.1982, at about 9.15 p.m., just at the front door of his house in Thattan Thottam, Tirupur Town, he committed the murder of his wife Padmavathi by attacking her with an aruvalmanai (vegetable cutter). 2. The case of the prosecution is this: The deceased Padmavathi was the wife of the accused and the younger sister of P.W.1. At the time of this occurrence, the deceased and the accused had a 1 1/2 year old daughter. They were married about four years ago, and the accused was doing business in clothes. He suffered loss in the business and frequently insisted upon his wife getting money from her brother P.W.1. On 6.10.1982, at about 11.00 a.m. the deceased went to her brother and asked for money and P.W.1 promised to give money in the evening. At about 8.30 p.m. P.W.1 went to the house of his sister and at that time the accused was not there. At about 9.00 p.m., the accused came and picked up quarrel with his wife. He suspected the fidelity of his wife and abused her in filthy words. P.W.1 pacified his brother-in-law and told him that the matter could be talked over on the next morning. So saying, he left the house and was returning. He then heard the cry ‘Ayyo’ and when he turned, he found the accused attack his wife with M.O.1 aruvalmanai. saying “” He delivered on her head four or five cuts with M.O.1, dropped it and went away. P.W.1, who witnessed this ghastly occurrence, stood stunned. At that time, P.W.2 the land-lady was sitting there. 3. P.W.3, who lives on the rear side of the house of the deceased, came there on hearing the cry and she was informed of the occurrence by P.W.2.With the help of one Anandan, an ambulance was brought at 11.00 p.m. and the injured Padmavathi was taken to the Government Hospital, Tiruppur, where she was admitted at 12.35 a.m. 4. P.W.4, Dr. Venkatasami, examined the injured Padmavathi and found on her person the following injuries: 1. A linear haematoma measuring 6 cms. 10 cms. on the right side forehead. 2. A cut wound clean-cut edges 8 cms. 2 cms. P.W.4, Dr. Venkatasami, examined the injured Padmavathi and found on her person the following injuries: 1. A linear haematoma measuring 6 cms. 10 cms. on the right side forehead. 2. A cut wound clean-cut edges 8 cms. 2 cms. bone depth, on the vertex, slightly towards right side. 3. A cut wound 10 cms. 2 cms. bone depth, with exposure of fractured bone-ends at the left occipital region on the scalp. 4. A cut wound 6 cms. 2 cms. bone depth, with exposure of bone at 1” behind left ear. 5. Multiple irregular cut wounds zigzag in manner, one across the other, on the back of scalp at occipital region, at an area of 10 cms. 8 cms. with exposure of fractured bone ends. Bone pieces were felt. There was depressed fracture of skill beneath site. In the opinion of the medical officer, these injuries could have been caused with a weapon like M.O.1 at about 9.15 p.m. the previous night. Exhibit P-2 is the copy of the accident register and Exhibit P-3 if the wound certificate issued by P.W.4. 5. P.W.4 sent an intimation to the police under Exhibit P-4. It was received by P.W.9, Head Constable of Tiruppur South Police Station, at 1.15 a.m. on 7.10.1982. He immediately proceeded to the hospital and found the injured Padmavathi unconscious. He thereafter recorded a complaint from P.W.1 under Exhibit P-1, returned to the station and registered it as Crime No.614/82 under section 307, Indian Penal Code. Exhibit P-12 is the printed first information report. P.W.10, the Sub Inspector of Police, took up investigation. He visited the scene at 6.00 a.m. on 7.10.1982 and prepared the observation mahazar Exhibit P-13 and the sketch Exhibit P-14. He recovered from the scene M.O.1 Aruvalmanai. M.O.10 bloodstained earth, and M.O.11, sample earth. He went to the hospital and recovered from P.W.1, M.O.2, blood-stained saree, and M.O.3, blood-stained jacket, of the injured Padmavathi, under Exhibit P-16. At 1.00 p.m. on that day, he arrested the accused near Veera Pandi. On 8.10. 1982, at 5.30 p.m. the injured Padmavathi died in the hospital at Tiruppur. Exhibit P-5 is the death intimation. On receipt of the same, P.W.11 altered the section of the case into one under section 302, Indian Penal Code, and sent express reports to the Court and to the higher police officials. Exhibit P-7 is the printed first information report. 6. Exhibit P-5 is the death intimation. On receipt of the same, P.W.11 altered the section of the case into one under section 302, Indian Penal Code, and sent express reports to the Court and to the higher police officials. Exhibit P-7 is the printed first information report. 6. P.W.17, Inspector of Police, took up further investigation. He went to the hospital and conducted inquest over the body of the deceased from 12 midnight under Exhibit P-18. The body was then sent to the mortuary. 7. P.W.6, Dr. Bhanumathi attached to the Government Hospital, Tiruppur, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 9.10.1982 at 1.00 p.m. She found on the body the following injuries: 1. A linear sutured wound over the vertex, 2“long, bone deep. 2. An irregular zig-zag sutured wound over back scalp on the left side, about 10”. 3. A linear sutured wound about 3“long, about 5“below wound No.2. 4.A sutured wound 3“long, behind left ear. 5. A bluish black discolour for over the forehead, 2“x 1/4”. On removing the skin covering the scalp, the doctor found the following: 1. There was extravasation of blood beneath the skin underlying the forehead on the right side and right temporal region. 2. An irregular fracture of the skull bone underlying the sutured wound No.2 involving the occipital bone on the left side, 6“x 4“, with multiple bone pieces in the middle of the wound, brain being exposed. 3. An irregular fracture of the left occipital bone underlying the sutured wound No.4,2“x 2“. Multiple fragments were seen exposing the underlying brain. Clotted blood was found over both the parietal and occipital lobes of the brain. In the opinion of the medical officer, the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple fractures of the skill, 20 hours prior to the post-mortem examination. Exhibit P-7 is the post-mortem certificate issued by P.W.6. 8. After the post-mortem examination, M.O.4, Saree, M.O.5, Jacket, M.O.6 series (four silver minchis) M.O.7 ear ring, M.O.8 rubber bangles and M.O.9 gold tali were recovered from the body and produced at the police station. 9. At the instance of the Inspector of Police, the material objects were sent for chemical analysis and Exts. P-10 and P-11 are the reports of the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist respectively, which reports disclose the, presence of blood-stains on M.Os.1 to 3 and 10. 9. At the instance of the Inspector of Police, the material objects were sent for chemical analysis and Exts. P-10 and P-11 are the reports of the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist respectively, which reports disclose the, presence of blood-stains on M.Os.1 to 3 and 10. The blood-stains on M.Os.3 and 10 belonged to group ‘C 10. After the completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the accused on 13.11.1982. 11. The plea of the accused was one of total denial. He did not choose to examine any witness. 12. The learned Sessions Judge accepted in full the prosecution case and found the appellant guilty of the offence and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. Hence this appeal. 13. This tragic occurrence has taken place at the front door-step of the house of the accused, whose wife was the deceased. According to the prosecution, P.W.1, brother of the deceased, had come to her house to pay her some money. P.W.2, who is the landlady of the accused and who is living next door, was also there. At about 9.00 p.m., the accused came and there was a quarrel between him and his wife. He suspected the fidelity of his wife and abused her in filthy words. P.W.1 tried to pacify his brother-in-law and told him that the matter could be settled in the morning with the help of relatives. Thereafter, P.W.1 left the house and he had not gone a few steps when he heard the cry ‘ayyo’. He turned round and saw the accused hitting his wife with M.O.1 aruvalmanai on her head several times, saying. The occurrence was witnessed by P.Ws.1 and 7. 14. We have been taken through the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 and we find no infirmity therein. P.W.1 had come to his sister's house for paying money and his presence at the time is therefore natural. P.W.2 lives next door, and she is the owner of the house in which the accused and the deceased had been living. Her presence is therefore, quite natural. Their evidence is convincingly clear and cogent as to the occurrence. 15. It is urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant that P.W.1 could not have been present at all and he has been planted subsequently to serve as an eye-witness to the occurrence. Her presence is therefore, quite natural. Their evidence is convincingly clear and cogent as to the occurrence. 15. It is urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant that P.W.1 could not have been present at all and he has been planted subsequently to serve as an eye-witness to the occurrence. According to him, the delay in taking the injured to the hospital is indicative of the fact that P.W.1 was not present. The occurrence is said to have taken place at 9.15 p.m. An ambulance car was sent for and it came only at 11.00 p.m. and the injured was then taken to the hospital wherein she was admitted at 12.35 a.m. In the circumstances of the case, we do not find any unavoidable delay in taking the injured to the hospital. It is then pointed out that, had P.W.1 been present at the time, he would not have stood silent without interfering in the attack made by the accused on his wife and trying to rescue her. P.W.1 himself has answered this question saying that he was stunned and stood silent. It is well-known that different people act differently under different circumstances. It may be that P.W.1 was too much taken aback by the turn of events to interfere and save his sister. It is therefore no ground to urge that P.W.1 was not present at that time. It is next contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that if the occurrence, had really taken place inside the house, P.W.2, who was sitting outside, could not have seen it. We are unable to subscribe to this view. P.W.] himself has stated that when he went to the house of his sister, P.W.2 was sitting on the door-step. It is at that time the accused had come to his house and abused the deceased. Immediately after P.W.1 left the house, the accused had attacked her with M.O.1. The occurrence had taken place at the door step. Exhibit P-14 is the sketch prepared by the Sub Inspector of Police, who has recovered from the scene, the bloodstained earth. M.O.10. The chemical analysis proved that M.O.10 was stained with human blood-stains of Group ‘O’, which is the group to which the deceased's blood belonged, as is evident from the fact that the blood-stains on her jacket M.O.3 have also been found to belong to group ‘O’. M.O.10. The chemical analysis proved that M.O.10 was stained with human blood-stains of Group ‘O’, which is the group to which the deceased's blood belonged, as is evident from the fact that the blood-stains on her jacket M.O.3 have also been found to belong to group ‘O’. The weapon of offence, viz., M.O.1 has also been recovered from the scene. It is clear from Exhibit P-14 that this occurrence had taken place not inside the house, but just in front of the house at the door step. Hence, the argument that this unfortunate incident should have taken place inside the house and P.W.2 could not have witnessed it, has no legs to stand on. The further argument that P.W.2 was aged about 75 and her vision was not all right and so she could not have witnessed the occurrence, is also not acceptable. She has categorically stated that she has good vision and she witnessed the accused attacking his wife. 16. The medical evidence furnished by the testimony of P.W.4, who has examined the injured Padmavathi at about 12 midnight on 6/7.10.1982, and P.W.6, who conducted autopsy on her body, corroborate the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2. These two medical officers have deposed that the injuries found on the person of the deceased could have been caused with a weapon like M.O.1 which has also been stained with human blood. 17. The last contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the accused was a person of unsound mind at the time of the occurrence and is therefore entitled to the protection under section 84, Indian Penal Code. Reliance is sought to be placed on the report of the Tutor in Psychiatry and Assistant, Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore, dated 17.8.1983. It seems that an application, for bail has been moved on behalf of the appellant and on the basis of the allegations made in the application, a report has been called for by this Court and the Tutor in Psychiatry has forwarded to this Court his report dated 17.8.1983, wherein he has stated that the person Venkataraj was found to be of poor personal hygeine, not fully in touch with surroundings, distractable, spontaneously muttering to himself, talking irrelevantly and incoherently at times, dull and apathetic, hearing voices at times and lacking insight and judgment. The medical officer has opined that his was a case of Schizophrenia. The medical officer has opined that his was a case of Schizophrenia. On the basis of the report, it is urged on behalf of the appellant that he must have been a person of unsound mind even at the time of the occurrence. It has been repeatedly pointed out that there is a good deal of difference between medical insanity and legal insanity and Courts are concerned only with the legal, and not medical, aspect of the matter. In order to get the benefit of section 84, Indian Penal Code, it must be established that at the time of the occurrence the person, 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. If the person was conscious of the nature of his act, he is presumed to have been conscious of its criminality and circumstances such as absence of motive, absence of secrecy, multiplicity of murders, want of pre-arrangement and want of accomplices are insufficient to support the inference that the person who committed the crime suffered from unsoundness of mind. The mere fact that his mind was partially deranged or that he was subject to some uncontrollable impulse due to insanity is not a valid defence in criminal cases. There is absolutely no evidence on record to show that at the time of the occurrence the appellant was incapable of knowing the nature of the act done by him or that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law. As soon as he committed this crime, he dropped down the weapon and ran away. This is again indicative of the fact that he was conscious of what he had done. When examined by the Court below under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, the accused has clearly denied every one of the allegations, which would show that he was aware of the proceedings in Court and the allegations made against him. The fact that subsequent to his conviction he has developed some kind of mental disturbance is no ground to hold that he was suffering from legal insanity at the time of the occurrence. We are, therefore, not inclined to give credence to this contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant. 18. The fact that subsequent to his conviction he has developed some kind of mental disturbance is no ground to hold that he was suffering from legal insanity at the time of the occurrence. We are, therefore, not inclined to give credence to this contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant. 18. On an anxious consideration of all the facts and circumstances, we have no hesitation to agree with the Court below in holding that it is the accused who has attacked his wife with M.O.1 aruvalmanai inflicting several injuries on her head leading to the fracture of the skull bone and resulting in her death on 8.10.1982. The nature of the weapon used viz., M.O.1, a vegetable cutter in iron and the number of the injuries inflicted on the head of the deceased, leave no room for doubt that the intention of the accused was to cause death of his wife. The fact that the injured wife of the accused had survived the assault for nearly two days is no ground to hold that the offence committed by the accused was any the less murder. 19. We, therefore, find that the accused is guilty under Clause 1 of Section 300 , Indian Penal Code, and has been rightly convicted under section 302, Indian Penal Code. 20. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. V.K. ----- Appeal dismissed.