JUDGMENT RAMANUJULU NAIDU, J. 1. The sole accused in Sessions Case No.13 of 1983 on the file of the Court of Sessions, Chittoor Division was convicted under Sec.302 of the Indian Penal Code for causing death of one Madduru Kamakshamma, hereinafter referred to as “the accused”, on 30.1.1982 at about twelve noon and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. He was also convicted under Sec.324 of the I.P.C., for causing injuries to Madduru Sankaraiah, Pallamala Subbaiah and Pallamala Guravamma shortly after committing murder of the deceased and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years on each count. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Criminal Appeal No.334 of 1984 was preferred by the accused, assailing the conviction. Earlier, he preferred Crl. App. No. 756 of 1983 from jail. 3. In all, five charges were framed against the accused. The first charge was framed against him under Sec.302 , of the I.P.C., for causing death of the deceased; the second charge was framed against him under Sec.326 of the I.P.C., for causing injuries to Madduru Sankariah (P.W.1) the third charge was framed against him under Sec.307 of the I.P.C., for attempting to cause death of Pallamala Subbaiah (P.W.3) the fourth charge was framed against him under Sec.324 of the I.P.C., for causing injuries to Pallamala Guravamma (P.W.4) and the fifth charge was framed against him under Sec.324 of the I.P.C., for causing an injury to Smt. Kanaparthi Pondamma (P.W.5). He was however acquitted of the fifth charge. 4. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded by the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 14, examined in support thereof, briefly stated, is as follows: The accused is a resident of Harijanawada of Pedda Kanuparthi village. The deceased was also a resident of the same Harijanawada. Madduru Sankaraiah, P.W.1, is the husband of the deceased. Pallamall Subbaiah, P.W.3, and his wife Guravamma, P.W.4 and K. Pondamma, P.W.5 are also residents of the same Harijanawada. Pallamala Eswaraiah, P.W.6, also a resident of the said Harijinawada, developed illicit intimacy with one Ankamma, sister-in-law of the accused. The accused suspected that P.W.6 also developed illicit intimacy with his wife, by name Papamma. The accused was smarting under a feeling that P.W.6 could seduce his wife and sister-in-law by administering to them love-portion supplied by P.W.1. Pallamala Eswaraiah, P.W.6, also a resident of the said Harijinawada, developed illicit intimacy with one Ankamma, sister-in-law of the accused. The accused suspected that P.W.6 also developed illicit intimacy with his wife, by name Papamma. The accused was smarting under a feeling that P.W.6 could seduce his wife and sister-in-law by administering to them love-portion supplied by P.W.1. About a week, prior to 30.1.1982, the accused chastised Ankamma, his sister-in-law, for having illicit intrigue with P.W.6. On 29.1.1982, the accused visited the house of P.W.1 and found him preparing some medicine. He immediately concluded that P.W.1 was preparing the medicine, in order to administer it to his wife, so that she might be madly in love with P.W.6. He thus nourished a grievance against both P.Ws.1 and 6 and decided to do away with them. 5. On 30.1.1982, at about 10 a.m., while P.W.1 and his cousin one Kuppaiah, P.W.8, were going along the street situate, near the house of the accused, the latter got wild and went against them and beat both of them with his chappel, remarking “you were disrupting our lawful wedlocks by administering medicines”. Thereupon, P.Ws.1 and 8 ran away to their houses. On the same day, at about twelve noon, the accused armed with a bill-hook, M.O.7, visited the house of P.W.1 and hurled abuses on him, remarking that he was responsible for his wife becoming a tool in the hands of P.W.6. So remarking, the accused pounced on P.W.1. P.W.1 however escaped from the intended attack and ran away towards P.W.6's house. The accused chased him. The deceased followed them and tried to dissuade the accused from attacking her husband. The accused got wild and struck the deceased indiscriminately all over her face and neck, resulting in her instantaneous death. The accused continued to chose P.W.1. P.W.1 managed to reach the house of P.W.6 and closed the door of the house from inside holding the iron bars of the door firmly, to prevent the accused from gaining access into the house. The accused however hacked the fingers of both his hands with M.O.7, standing from outside. The accused then left the house of P.W.6, announcing that he would do away with P.W.6. P.W.3, whose house is situate nearby, came out of the house and noticed the accused running with M.O.7. The accused however hacked the fingers of both his hands with M.O.7, standing from outside. The accused then left the house of P.W.6, announcing that he would do away with P.W.6. P.W.3, whose house is situate nearby, came out of the house and noticed the accused running with M.O.7. He questioned the accused as to why he should hack P.W.6, whereupon the accused struck him on his face. P.W.3 ran for his life and hid himself in his house. The accused successfully chased him, entered into his house and struck him on the head and face indiscriminately with M.O.7. While the accused was attacking P.W.3, his wife, P.W.4, intervened. She too was not spared by the accused, and he hacked her on her right hand and pierced her right shoulder with M.O.7. The accused then left for the outskirts of the village in search of P.W.6. At about that time, P.W.5 was returning from her field. She noticed the accused, coming opposite to her almost naked. When she questioned the accused, as to where he was going, he picked up a stone and hit her, causing an injury to her head. 6. At about past noon, P.W.3 was brought to the house of P.W.9, the Village Munsif of Pedda Kanaparthi, by P.W.4 and her daughter-in-law. P.W.9 noticed the injuries, inflicted on P.Ws.3 and 4. P.W.3 was unconscious. P.W.4 and her daughter-in-law reported to P.W.9 that the accused had hacked P.Ws.3 and 4. A few minutes later, P.Ws.1 and 5 also turned upon at the house of P.W.9. P.W.1 informed P.W.9 that the accused had hacked his wife to death. P.W.5 also complained to P.W.9 that the accused had hit her with a stone. P.W.9 then left his house in the company of P.W.1 to inspect the dead body of the deceased. On the way, he found the accused, being tied to a pole in a cattle shed by three villagers. He instructed them to tie the accused tightly and keep watch over him. So instructing them, he proceeded further, noticed the dead body of the deceased, and found a number of injuries, inflicted on the body of the deceased. He then returned to his house and recorded a statement, Ex.P1, from P.W.1, to the narration of the latter and obtained P.W.1's signature thereon. So instructing them, he proceeded further, noticed the dead body of the deceased, and found a number of injuries, inflicted on the body of the deceased. He then returned to his house and recorded a statement, Ex.P1, from P.W.1, to the narration of the latter and obtained P.W.1's signature thereon. Later, P.W.9 took P.Ws.3 to 5 to the Government Hospital, Srikalahasti, in a tractor belonging to one Munuswami of their village. They reached the hospital, at about 2.30 p.m. 7. Leaving P.WS.3 to 5 in the hospital, P.W.9 prepared his report, in duplicate (Exs.P5 and P6) and lodged Exs.P1 and P5 with P.W.12, the Sub Inspector of Police, Srikalahasti Rural at about 3.30 p.m. P.W.12 registered Ex.P1 as Crime No.20/82 of Srikalahasti Rural Police station under Sec. 302, 307 and 324 of the I.P.C., and issued an express FIR., Ex.P17 and despatched the same to the Munsif Magistrate, Kalahasti, and copies of the same to the concerned authorities. At 4 p.m., he received an intimation, Ex.P18 from the Government Hospital, Srikalahasti, that the condition of P.W.3 was critical and that P.W.3 was admitted in S.V.R.R. Hospital, Tirupati. Immediately, he reached the hospital at Tirupati at about 4.45 p.m., and found that the condition of P.W.3 was critical. He then examined P.W.4. He also examined P.Ws.1, 4 and 5 and seized blood-stained clothes M.Os.1 to 4 and 8 from P.Ws.1, 4 and 5. 8. On the same day, at about 8 p.m., P.W.12 visited the scene of offence along with P.W.9 and posted a guard at the dead body of the deceased. He then left for the cattle-shed of one Penchalaiah, where the accused was found tied to a pole. He released the accused, arrested him, and questioned him as to his complicity in the case, whereupon the accused made a statement Ex.P8, before him, and in the presence of P.W.9. Later, the accused led them to his house and brought out M.O.7 kept on the oven. P.W.12 seized M.O.7 under Ex.P9. 9. P.W.1 3, the then in-charge Inspector of Police, Srikalahasti Circle, left for the Government Hospital at about 3.00 a.m. on 31.1.1982 on receipt of a copy of Ex.P17 and found P.Ws.1, 4 and 5, receiving treatment there. Later, the accused led them to his house and brought out M.O.7 kept on the oven. P.W.12 seized M.O.7 under Ex.P9. 9. P.W.1 3, the then in-charge Inspector of Police, Srikalahasti Circle, left for the Government Hospital at about 3.00 a.m. on 31.1.1982 on receipt of a copy of Ex.P17 and found P.Ws.1, 4 and 5, receiving treatment there. At about 5 a.m., he left for Pedda Kanuparhi village and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased from 6 a.m. to 8 a.m. Ex.P10 is the inquest report drawn up by him. He seized bloodstained earth and its control, M.Os.9 and 10 respectively from the scene of offence. He also seized a socket, M.O.11 of M.O.7 from the scene of offence. Blood-stained earth M.O.12 and its control M.O.13 were also seized by him from the house of P.W.3. Later, he despatched the corpse of the deceased to the Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Srikalahasti, for the purpose of post-mortem examination. P.W.14, former Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Srikalahasti, examined P.Ws.1, 3, 4 and 5 and noticed the injuries described in Exs.P20 to P23 the wound certificates respectively issued by him. 10. P.W.7, Woman-Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Srikalahasti, conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on 31.1.1982 at 3 p.m. As many as 14 incised injuries more fully described in Ex.P4, the post-mortem certificate issued by her, were found inflicted on the body of the deceased. In her opinion, all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and the deceased would have died of shock and haemorrhage caused by the multiple injuries. She was also of the opinion that the incised injuries noticed by her might have been caused by a bill-hook like M.O.7. 11. After completion of investigation into the case, P.W.12 filed charge-sheet on 30.4.1982. 12. During his examination under Sec.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the plea put forward by the accused was one of legal insanity. The learned Sessions Judge rejected his plea and found him guilty of charges 1 to 4, and convicted him of the same, as stated already. 13. 12. During his examination under Sec.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the plea put forward by the accused was one of legal insanity. The learned Sessions Judge rejected his plea and found him guilty of charges 1 to 4, and convicted him of the same, as stated already. 13. The findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge that the accused caused death of the deceased by inflicting multiple injuries on him with M.O.7 and that he also caused injuries to P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 with M.O.7 shortly, after causing death of the deceased, are not challenged before us by Sri C. Obulapathi Chowdhary, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, very rightly in our opinion having regard to the unimpeachable evidence adduced by the prosecution, in that behalf. He however reiterated before us the plea of legal insanity put forward at the trial, on behalf of the accused. It was urged by him that, at the time of commission of the offences, on account of insanity, the accused was either incapable of knowing the nature of the acts committed by him, or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law. 14. The plea of insanity or of unsoundness of mind is enacted in Sec.84 of the I.P.C. The provisions, contained in Sec.84, are in substance the same as those laid down in the answers of the Judges to the questions put to them by the House of Lords in M’ Naughten's case. Under Sec.84 of the I.P.C., it is only unsoundness of mind which materially impairs the cognitive faculties of the mind that can form a ground of exemption from criminal responsibility, the nature and the extent of the unsoundness of mind required being such as would make the offender incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is wrong or contrary to law. 15. The scope of Sec.84 of the I.P.C. was elaborately dealt with by the Supreme Court in Dahyabhai v. State of Gujarat Dahyabhai v. State of Gujarat 1965 MLJ. (Crl.) 773 ; (1964) 7 S.C.R. 361 ;A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1563;(1965) 2 S.C.J. 531 In the said case, the appellant was the husband of the deceased Kalavati. She was married to the appellant in the year 1958. (Crl.) 773 ; (1964) 7 S.C.R. 361 ;A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1563;(1965) 2 S.C.J. 531 In the said case, the appellant was the husband of the deceased Kalavati. She was married to the appellant in the year 1958. On the night of 9th April, 1959, as usual, the appellant and his wife slept in their bed-room and the doors leading to that room were bolted from inside. At about 3 a.m. or 3.30 a.m., on the next day, Kalavati cried that she was being killed. The neighbours collected in front of the said room and called upon the accused to open the doors. When the doors were opened, they found Kalavati dead with a number of wounds on her body. The accused was sent up for trial to the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaira on a charge of murder of the deceased. The defence set up was that the accused was insane, when the incident was alleged to have taken place, and was not capable of understanding the nature of his act. The plea of the accused was rejected and the accused was convicted under Sec.302 of the I.P.C., and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. On appeal, the High Court agreed with the conclusion of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, through for different reasons, and confirmed the conviction of the accused and the sentence inflicted on him. It was urged before the Supreme Court that the accused had discharged the burden placed on him of proving that, at the time he killed his wife, he was incapable of knowing the nature of his act or what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law. It was further contended that, even the accused had failed to establish that fact conclusively, the evidence adduced by the prosecution was such, as to raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court as to the presence of the requisite mens rea of the accused and that the accused should have been acquitted for the reason that the prosecution had not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. Adverting to the contentions put forward on behalf of the accused, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed: “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 that the accused caused death with the requisite intention described in Sec.299 of the I.P.C. This general burden never shifts and it always rests on the prosecution. But, Sec.84 of the I.P.C., provides that nothing is an offence if the accused at the time of doing that act, by reason of unsoundness of mind was incapable of knowing the nature of his act or what he was doing was either wrong or contrary in law. This being an exception, under Sec.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 Sec.105 of the Evidence Act, read with the definition of “shall presume” in Sec.44 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 exist. To put in other words, the accused will have to rebut the presumption that such circumstances did not exist, by placing material 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 Sec.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 Sec.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 had the requisite intention laid down in Sec.299 of the I.P.C. 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. xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx 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 mens rea; and the burden of proving that always rests on the prosecution from the beginning to the ends 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 Sec.84 of the I.P.C., 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” 16. Finally, their Lordships added : “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 Sec.84 of the I.P.C., can only be established from the circumstances which preceded, attended and followed the crime” [Emphasis supplied] 17. In U. Kannan v. State U. Kannan v. State 1959 MLJ. (Crl.) 883; A.I.R. 1960 Ker. 24 the appellant. Kannan killed his mother in a ghastly manner using three deadly weapons. In the course of killing, the deceased begged him not to kill her. His reply to her plea was that she deserved something more than killing. After killing his mother, Kannan made no attempt whatsoever either to conceal his crime or to escape from the scene. There was no real motive, on the part of Kannan, nor was there any provocation offered by the deceased to kill her. It was also brought out at the trial that Kannan was subject to periodic epileptic fits from his childhood and symptoms of an impending epileptic seizure were noticed on the day, when he killed his aged mother. Kannan tried on a charge of murder of his mother was convicted by the Sessions Court, Tellicherry, under Sec.302 of the I.P.C., and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. On appeal a Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala held that the complete absence of motive or provocation, the nature and multiplicity of the weapons used, the duration of attack, the maniacal fury with which the attack was delivered and his subsequent conduct were all indications that the accused was acting under some insane impulse and that his act was therefore saved by Sec.484 of the I.P.C., from constituting the offence. 18. In Shanti Devi v. State Shanti Devi v. State A.I.R. 1968 Del. 18. In Shanti Devi v. State Shanti Devi v. State A.I.R. 1968 Del. 177 the appellant, Shanti Devi, was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, on a charge of murder of her infant child aged about one year, by cutting the neck of the child wit a razor and was convicted under Sec.302 of the I.P.C., and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. The defence put forward on her behalf was one of legal insanity and the plea was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. On appeal to the High Court of Delhi, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, adverting to the scope of Sec.34 of the I.P.C. observed: “It is difficult to prove the precise state of the offender's mind at the time of the commission of the offence but some indication thereof is often furnished by the conduct of the offender while committing it or immediately after the commission of the offence. Though for the purpose of Sec.84, it is the state of mind of the offender at the time of committing the offence which is relevant. Antecedent and subsequent state of mind and conduct of the offender become relevant only for the purpose of showing that the state of his mind was at the time when the act was committed. xxxx xxxx xxxx Again in order to find whether the accused was by reason of unsoundness of mind 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. Generally, a case in which the sanity of the accused is called in question, motivation for the crime with which he is charged assumes unusual importance, because if a serious crime like murder is committed by a man, who had absolutely no rational motive to commit it, the plea of unsoundness of mind can be more easily established than in other cases”. 19. It was noticed from the evidence alleged by the prosecution itself that, after having killed her own child, the accused remained completely unmindful of what happened, that she did not weep and that she did not make any attempt to run away or to conceal anything. 19. It was noticed from the evidence alleged by the prosecution itself that, after having killed her own child, the accused remained completely unmindful of what happened, that she did not weep and that she did not make any attempt to run away or to conceal anything. Referring to the said circumstances, the Division Bench observed: “It is impossible to believe that if a mother had killed her own child, knowing what she was doing, she will be in such a state, without exhibiting any feeling whatever, after having done the act and when the child which she has killed, the helpless and innocent victim of the horrible and heinous crime, is lying at her feet, just one foot away from her. This circumstance also, to our mind, is indicative of the fact that at the time when the appellant murdered her child, she was mentally incapable of knowing what she was doing. xxxx xxxx xxxx We are of the view that the absence of motive assumes not only unusual importance, but also almost conclusive and crucial importance in a case where a mother has murdered her child, and that too, a child of such a tender age as here. As a matter of fact, in such cases, the act speaks for Itself as the act of a mad woman; the act itself is intrinsically the chief evidence of insanity. xxxx xxxx xxxx Where a plea of legal insanity is set up, it is most material to consider the circumstances which have preceded, attended and followed the crime, whether there was deliberation and preparation for the act; whether it was done in a manner which showed desire to conceal; whether after the crime, the offender showed consciousness of guilt and made efforts avoid detection”. The Division Bench added: “We would like to point out that, in this case, the evidence as to the insanity of the the appellant before the occurrence, the evidence about her condition and reaction on the date of the occurrence, and the evidence about her insanity subsequent to the occurrence, all substantiate the defence of the appellant under Sec.84, I.P.C.”. 20. 20. In Sanaa Eranna v. State of Karnataka Sanaa Eranna v. State of Karnataka 1983 Crl.L.J. 619 one Sanna Eranna a native of Hanthkal village, Karnataka State, was convicted under Sec.302 of the I.P.C., for causing death of a police constable, by name Lingappa by firing him with a rifle and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life by the Sessions Judge, Raichur. In the course of the same transaction, he also caused injuries to two other constables. He was however acquitted of the charges framed in that behalf. The accused put forward a plea of insanity. The plea was rejected by the Sessions Judge. The accused admittedly had a previous history of mental disease or lunacy. While in jail as an idle prisoner, he was sent to the Mental Hospital at Dharwad, for examination and treatment. No evidence was however let in by the accused 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 or what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to Jaw. On appeal, a Division Bench of Karnataka High Court observed: “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 were inflicted - may 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 is 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 ordinarily person who could 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 Sec.484, I.P.C., 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 violence attributed to him to 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 serious infirmity in the case of the prosecution and consequently the benefit of doubt will have to be given to the accused“. 21. 21. Relying upon the circumstances brought out at the trial, the Division Bench upheld the plea of insanity and acquitted the accused. 22. In Dharmadass v. State of A. P. Dharmadass v. State of A.P. (1985) 1 A.L.T. 16 a Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider the scope of unsoundness of mind, in the context of Sec.84 of the I.P.C. 23. The facts of the case were: One Dharmadass, a national of Sri Lanka, came into contact with one Md. Bin Mohsin Chawoosh. Dharmadass did not have acquaintance with Chawoosh earlier and he was in the company of Chawoosh for Jess than 15 hours. During that brief period Chawoosh provided Dharmadass with food and shelter and showered kindness on him. Chawoosh tried to help Dharmadass to secure refund of a ticket which remained unused by Dharmadass. The Railway authorities asked Dharmadass and Chawoosh to contact them on the morning of 31st January, 1982. In the early hours of 31st January, Dharmadass and Chawoosh had tea together. At about 7.40 a.m., while Chawoosh was reading a newspaper at his residence. Dharmadass was sitting on a nearby stool. At that time, a relation of Chawoosh turned up and passed on to him information of death of his uncle at Armoor. Chawoosh decided to leave for Armoor in a taxi. He sent his relation to fetch a taxi. Chawoosh got up to dress himself. Chawoosh kept his dagger, which he used to carry with him always, on the stood. Suddenly, Dharmadass picked up the dagger and stabbed Chawoosh for no ostensible reason. When Chawoosh raised an alarm, Dharmadass ran towards the nearby taxi-stand of Nampally and, on the way, he stabbed eight more persons. The learned Sessions Judge tried Dharmadass and convicted him under Secs.302 and 324 of the I.P.C. On appeal, preferred to this Court, the plea put forward was that Dharmadass was in a state of unsound mind when he committed the acts in question. The evidence in support of the plea was not clinching although it was brought out at the trial that Dharmadass was in a state of “fear complex and anxiety that somebody would attack him “known in medical term as paranoid schizophr. The doctor, who examined, Dharmadass, did not notice any neurological deficiency. The evidence in support of the plea was not clinching although it was brought out at the trial that Dharmadass was in a state of “fear complex and anxiety that somebody would attack him “known in medical term as paranoid schizophr. The doctor, who examined, Dharmadass, did not notice any neurological deficiency. A team of doctors observed him between 8th of August and 30th of August, 1984, after he was convicted and found that he was not suffering from a disease. 24. Speaking for the Bench, Raghuvir, J., briefly reviewed the leading cases on the subject and also summed up some manifestations of insanity. The following observations of Raghuvir, J., make interesting reading: “In the instant case, Chawoosh was a person who helped the appellant in the night of January 30. He took him to Nampally station once at zero hours, again at 4’0 clock to obtain refund of ticket money. The railway officers speak of these circumstances, referred earlier. On that night, Chawoosh and appellant consumed food together. The next day at dawn, they consumed tea together. When Azrani reported the death of Chawoosh's uncle, the deceased was reading a newspaper conversing with appellant. These circumstances go to show there was absolutely no repture anterior to the incident. It appears, Chawoosh was getting dressed, he put his Jambia on the stool. Seeing Jambia, It appears, provoked a series of reverberations in the mind of the appellant. What they were, devils alone should know. After the incident, the appellant ran to taxi-stand, on the way injured more than six or eight people. A crowd chased him and caught hold of him. The graphic picture in the evidence of series of witnesses abundantly shows the appellant was not a normal person. His behaviour was not normal. He did not know what he was doing. He became not responsible for his act”. In the view taken, the Division Bench held that the acts of Dharmadass, resulting in the death of Chawoosh and infliction of injuries to eight other persons did not constitute offences, under the I.P.C. , and that Dharmadass was entitled to the benefit of Sec.84 of the I.P.C. 25. In two other recent decisions in Harald Correa v. State (Police Station Osmania University, Crl.App.No.123 of 1983, dt.11.3. In two other recent decisions in Harald Correa v. State (Police Station Osmania University, Crl.App.No.123 of 1983, dt.11.3. 1985 and Machi Parvaiah rendered by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of myself and Anjaneyulu, J., the entire scope of Sec.84 of the I.P.C., was fully discussed and reviewed. 26. In the first case, Harold's case, Crl.App. No.123 of 1983 dt.11.3.1985, one Harold Correa was employed as an electrician in the Railway Station at Moula Ali. He had a daughter aged about three years, and a son, aged about one-and-half years. He had two younger brothers by name Monthu and Frank. Monthu was married. All of them were living together at Tarnaka. The three brothers had separate bed-rooms. All of them Jived in harmony till 3.5.1981, when Monthu was married. After his marriage differences cropped up amongst the brothers. It was eventually arranged that Harold Correa and his family should have a separate mess, while his two brothers and sister-in-law together should have separate mess. In spite of separate messes, all of them lived together in the same house. On 6.5.1982, Monthu aged his wife left for Bangalore on a short holiday. One Miss Jean aged, about twenty years was a friend of Frank. She was studying B.Ed., course at Guntur. She planned to visit Delhi and, on her way to Delhi a few days prior to 14.5.1982, she made a transit halt to spend sometime with Frank. She stayed in their house as a guest of Frank. On 14.5.1982, at about 7.15 p.m. Harold Correa returned home. His wife and two children as also Frank and Miss Jean were in the house at that time. As soon as Harold Correa reached home, he entered the room of Frank and found Miss Jean relaxing herself on a mattress reading a book. He stabbed her. At that time Frank was taking bath in the bath-room attached to the bed-room where Miss Jean was stabbed. Miss Jean raised cries. Frank opened the bath-room and rushed into the bed-room. He too was stabbed by Harold Correa. Later, he advanced towards his wife and stabbed her. He did not even spare his son and daughter and they too were stabbed. In the meantime Frank managed to come out of the house and raised an alarm. He narrated the incident to some of the passers-by who alerted the police. He too was stabbed by Harold Correa. Later, he advanced towards his wife and stabbed her. He did not even spare his son and daughter and they too were stabbed. In the meantime Frank managed to come out of the house and raised an alarm. He narrated the incident to some of the passers-by who alerted the police. Within a few minutes a police party reached the house of Harold Correa and noticed Frank lying outside of the house with stab injuries. When the police party went into the house, they noticed Miss Jean and the wife of Harold Correa with bleeding injuries inflicted on their person. They also noticed the two children of Harold Correa, lying in a pool of blood. Harold Correa hid himself in his bed-room, bolting the door from inside. The police party broke open the door of the bed-room. Harold Correa was found lying on a cot. He was immediately taken into custody by the police party. All the injured were rushed to Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. Between 10 p.m. at 10.50 p.m., Miss Jean and the two children of Harold Correa succumbed to the injuries. Harold Correa's wife and Frank fortunately survived, though they suffered with grievous injuries. Harold Correa was tried for the offences of causing death of his two children, and Miss Jean and also for attempting to murder Frank by the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, and he was convicted under Sec.302, I.P.C., for causing death of his two children and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life on each count. He was also convicted under Sec.304, Part I, I.P.C., for causing death of Miss Jean and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for eight years,. He was also convicted under Sec.326, I.P.C., for causing grievous hurt to his brother and wife, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years on each count. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 27. On appeal preferred by Harold Correa before this Court, it was urged that, when he had committed the acts, he suffered instant and temporary insanity and that the acts committed by him, by reason of unsoundness of his mind, would not constitute offences. In other words, a plea of insanity founded on Sec.84, I.P.C., was put forward, on behalf of the accused. In other words, a plea of insanity founded on Sec.84, I.P.C., was put forward, on behalf of the accused. In support of the plea, it was fervently argued that the accused had no motive either to cause death of, or grievous hurt to any of the inmates of the house, that even if there was some motive to kill his brother there was no motive on his part to kill Miss Jean and his two kids, that the acts of stabbing by the accused was purposeless, that the accused did not try to escape from the scene of offence or hide himself, that no sane person would indulge in acts of the type committed, without any motive or purposeful object, and that the various circumstances pointed out to only one conclusion viz., that the accused was smarting under the influence of some delusion as otherwise he would not have gone on a stabbing-spree. Holding that the actions of the accused were motiveless and purposeless too, the Division Bench observed: “The total absence of motive in this case may give a clue to the state of the accused's mind at the time when he committed the offences. For this purpose, let us look to the acts themselves. Do they spell out, in their own nature, the acts of an insane man or of an unsound mind ………. a mind so sick and imbalanced that it did not realise what it was doing……The accused did not demonstrate normal behaviour in slaying the house-guest Jean and his two little children. Indeed, it is inexplicable that, without any motive or purpose, the accused should have killed the house-guest and his own children. The accused did not make any endeavour to conceal himself or to conceal the weapon with which he stabbed the victims. On the contrary, he remained at the scene of offence until the police came out and took him into custody. The above conduct of the accused certainly pointed out to extraordinary behaviour. The Investigating Officials should have thought fit to find a clue for this abnormal behaviour on the part of the accused without simply resting on their ears to secure a conviction to the accused. The above conduct of the accused certainly pointed out to extraordinary behaviour. The Investigating Officials should have thought fit to find a clue for this abnormal behaviour on the part of the accused without simply resting on their ears to secure a conviction to the accused. 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, fairness in investigation does require probing into this aspect 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 or 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. The failure to subject the accused to such medical examination immediately and to place before the Court all evidence that could be available may have a serious consequence on the prosecution case when such plea of insanity is raised by the accused at the trial. 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 gives rise to a doubt whether the act or acts of violence were committed with the requisite intention of committing a particular offence. Consequently the benefit of doubt will have to be given to the accused.” The Division Bench added: “On the evidence placed before us we are not certain that the acts of the accused on 14.5.1982 in stabbing the five persons as enumerated above were not the result of an unsound and imbalanced mind possessed by the accused at the time of committing the alleged offences. On the facts we are unable to exclude from our minds the feeling that possibly the accused became temporarily insane, for reasons we are unable to guess, and acted on an irresistible impulse resulting in the Commission of the alleged offences without being aware of the nature of his acts and the consequences thereof. On the facts we are unable to exclude from our minds the feeling that possibly the accused became temporarily insane, for reasons we are unable to guess, and acted on an irresistible impulse resulting in the Commission of the alleged offences without being aware of the nature of his acts and the consequences thereof. We consider that the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt”. 28. In the second case, Machi Parvaiah's case, Crl.App.No.442 of 1983, dt.14.3.1985, one Parvaiah tried on a charge of murder of his mother was convicted under Sec.302, I.P.C., and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. The facts of the case were: On 23.9.1982 at about 3 p.m., the accused returned to his house with an axe in his hand. His sister and mother were in the kitchen speaking to each other. The accused gave a beedi to his mother to light it and when his mother bent her head down into the, woven to light the beedi, the accused cut her neck with the axe, as a result of which she died instantaneously. The plea put forward by the accused was one of legal insanity enacted in Sec.84, I.P.C. The plea was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 29. On appeal preferred to this Court, it was urged before the Division Bench that the accused was of unsound mind and suffering from a fit of insanity, when he had committed the act. It was brought out at the trial that the accused had absolutely no motive to kill his mother, that any amount of cordiality subsisted between him and his mother, that he never quarreled with her, that he did not abscond from the scene of offence after killing his mother, that he did not try to hide himself or conceal the weapon with which he had killed his mother and that he remained at the scene of offence, wailing over his mother's death, along with his sister. It was also brought out at the trial that the accused was under the influence of evil spirits and behaving as if some one practised black magic on him and that he also received medical treatment, without any result. It was also brought out at the trial that the accused was under the influence of evil spirits and behaving as if some one practised black magic on him and that he also received medical treatment, without any result. After reviewing the decided cases on the subject, the Division Bench observed: “We would, however, reiterate that the decisions in the above cases do support the proposition that in a case where the conduct of the accused in committing an act demonstrates an abnormality, the prosecution should place before the Court some evidence to indicate that the accused Was In a proper state of mind at the time when he committed the alleged offence. Even if no evidence is forthcoming regarding the conduct and behaviour of the accused proceeding, attending and following the commission of the offence, the Court can look into the acts themselves to ascertain whether they provide intrinsically the chief evidence of insanity. In the present case, surely the conduct and behaviour of the accused attending the commission of the offence was extraordinary. Without any motive or provocation whatsoever, he cut his mother's neck with an axe. Evidence led by the prosecution indicated that the accused was on very cordial terms with his mother and there were no quarrels or disputes. After cutting his mother's neck the accused put down the axe, sat at the scene of offence and started weeping for his deceased mother along with his sisters and other relations. The accused did not make any attempt to flee from the scene of offence or conceal himself or conceal the weapon. The prosecution should have considered this extraordinary behaviour on the part of the accused as meriting an investigation into the State of the accused's mind at the time when he committed the alleged offence. The obligation of the prosecution to investigate into this matter was all the greater in view of the statements made by P.Ws.2 and 3 the sister and brother-in-law of the accused, that for the past two years the accused was under the influence of some black-magic and underwent treatment without result. The obligation of the prosecution to investigate into this matter was all the greater in view of the statements made by P.Ws.2 and 3 the sister and brother-in-law of the accused, that for the past two years the accused was under the influence of some black-magic and underwent treatment without result. We are constrained to observe that the Investigating authorities, instead of acting fairly and sending the accused to an expert for medical examination regarding his state of mind, endeavoured to give a lie to the statements made by P.Ws.2 and 3, regarding the accused's previous insanity, by requiring these witnesses to retract from their statements made earlier before the Investigating authorities and the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kamareddy. In a case where the accused was taken into custody, immediately after the commission of the offence, there Is no way the accused can establish his state of mind. Fairness in investigation requires that the Investigating officials should probe into this aspect and subject the accused to medical examination, at least to ensure 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 violence attributed to him on account of any mental disease or lunacy. The failure to subject the accused to such medical examination immediately and to place before the Court all the evidence that could be available may have a serious consequence on the prosecution case when such plea of insanity is raised by the accused at the trial. The 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 raises a doubt whether the act or acts of violence were committed with the requisite intention of committing a particular offence. Consequently, the benefit of doubt will have to be given to the accused”. 30. After adverting to the evidence adduced at the trial, the Division Bench added: “On the above evidence placed before us, we are not certain that the act of the accused on 23.9.1982 in inflicting a cut on the neck of his deceased-mother with an axe was not the result of an unsound and imbalanced mind possessed by the accused at the time of committing the act. On the facts we are unable to exclude from our minds the doubt that the accused acted in a fit of insanity and on an irresistible impulse and inflicted the injury on his mother's neck with his axe resulting in her death without being aware of the nature of his acts and the consequences thereof. We give the benefit of doubt to the accused and set aside the conviction of the accused by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nizamabad under Sec.302, I.P.C., and the sentence of imprisonment for life awarded“. 31. From the aforesaid discussion, the following principles of law emerge: (1) The plea of insanity or of unsoundness of mind is enacted in Sec.84 of the I.P.C. The provisions contained in Sec.84 of the I.P.C., are in substance the same, as those laid down in the answers of the Judges to the questions put to them by the House of Lords in M’Naughten's case. (2) Under Sec.84 of the I.P.C., it is only unsoundness of mind which materially impairs the cognitive faculties of the mind, that can form a ground of exemption from criminal responsibility, the nature and the extent of the unsoundness of mind, required being such as would make the offender incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is wrong or contrary to law. (3) It is a fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent and that the prosecution should prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed the offence imputed to him with the requisite mens rea. The burden of proving that always rests with the prosecution from the beginning to the end of the trial. (4) There is a presumption that the accused was not of unsound mind when he committed the crime in the sense laid down, under Sec.84 of the I.P.C. The presumption is rebuttable and the accused may rebut it by placing before the Court all the relevant evidence -oral, documentary or circumstantial. The burden of proof on him is not higher than that rests upon a party in a Civil proceeding. The burden of proof on him is not higher than that rests upon a party in a Civil proceeding. Even if the accused was not able to establish conclusively that he was insane, at the time when he committed the offence, the evidence placed by the prosecution may raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court as to the presence of the requisite mens rea. (5) 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 Sec.84 of the I.P.C., can only be established from the circumstances which preceded, attended and followed the crime [Emphasis supplied]. (6) When the crime was committed by the accused, without any provocation or deliberation, complete absence of motive on his part, coupled with his subsequent conduct in not concealing himself or the crime, would furnish a clue to the state of the mind of the accused, at the time when he committed the offence. More often than not, the impugned act of the accused itself might spell out the act of an insane person and provide intrinsically the chief evidence of insanity. (7) Where the conduct or behaviour of the accused, attending the commission of the offence, was abnormal and extraordinary, the prosecution should place before the Court some evidence to indicate that the accused was in a proper state of mind, at the time when he committed the offence. (7) Where the conduct or behaviour of the accused, attending the commission of the offence, was abnormal and extraordinary, the prosecution should place before the Court some evidence to indicate that the accused was in a proper state of mind, at the time when he committed the offence. Though there is no burden cast on the prosecution to establish negatively that the accused was not of unsound mind, when he committed the offence, in a case where he was taken into custody immediately (1986) 1 MLJ (Crl) 417 at 430after the commission of the offence, and was therefore helpless to establish his state of mind, fairness in investigation requires the investigating officials to probe into the same by subjecting the accused to medical examination, at least to ensure that the accused was in fact a person of ordinary state of mind. The obligation on the part of the prosecution is much more where, during the course of the investigation, it is revealed that the accused had a previous history of mental decease or lunacy. (8) The failure to subject the accused to such medical examination immediately and to place before the Court all evidence that could be made available may create a serious infirmity in the case of the prosecution and consequently may give rise to a doubt whether the impugned act was committed with the requisite mens rea. Undoubtedly, the benefit of doubt shall be given to the accused. 32. Bearing in mind, the above principles of law, we would like to scrutinise the evidence adduced and the circumstances brought out at the trial in support of the plea of legal insanity put forward by the accused. 33. It may be recalled that, on the fateful day at about 10 a.m. in the first instance, the accused beat P.Ws.1 and 8 with a chappal, while they were going along the street situate near the house of the accused, remarking “you were disrupting out lawful wedlocks by administering medicines”, whereupon P.Ws.1 and 8 ran away to their houses. On the same day, at about 12 noon, the accused armed with M.O.7, visited the house of P.W.1 and abused him remarking that he was responsible for his wife, becoming a tool in the hands of P.W.6. So remarking, the accused pounced on P.W.1. P.W.1 however escaped from the intended attack and ran away towards P.W.6's house. The accused chased him. So remarking, the accused pounced on P.W.1. P.W.1 however escaped from the intended attack and ran away towards P.W.6's house. The accused chased him. The deceased followed them and tried to dissuade the accused from attacking her husband. The accused got wild and struck the accused indiscriminately all over her face and neck, resulting in her instantaneous death. Later, the accused chased P.W.1 and, when P.W.1 managed to reach the house of P.W.6 and closed the door of the house from inside holding the iron bars of the door firmly, the accused hacked the fingers of both his hands with M.O.7 standing from outside. Thereafter, the accused left the house of P.W.6, announcing that he would do away with P.W.6. On the way, he noticed P.W.3 and on being questioned by P.W.3 as to why he should hack P.W.6 the accused struck him on his face. P.W.3 ran for his life and hid himself in his house. The accused successfully chased him, entered into his house and struck him on the head and face indiscriminately with M.O.7. While the accused was attacking P.W.3, his wife P.W.4 intervened. She too was not spared by the accused and he hacked her on her right hand on hit her right shoulder with M.O.7. The accused then left for the outskirts of the village, in search of P.W.6. On the way, he picked up a stone and hit P.W.5, causing an injury to her head, when she questioned him as to where he was going. 34. It may be noticed that, though the accused had some motive to attack P.W.1, he had no motive whatsoever to attack the deceased and P.Ws.3 to 5. The attack on them was purposeless. When the accused left for the outskirts of the village is search of P.W.6, P.W.5 noticed him, coming opposite to her almost naked. Admittedly, the accused did not try to escape from the village. After killing the deceased and causing injuries to P.Ws.1, 3, 4 and 5 he did not hide himself in any place. He allowed himself to be tied to a pole in a cattle shed by three villagers. 35. P.W.1 admitted in his cross-examination that the accused had been labouring under a feeling that he had capacity to prepare medicines to win over females, when the accused assaulted him and his brother with a chappal. He allowed himself to be tied to a pole in a cattle shed by three villagers. 35. P.W.1 admitted in his cross-examination that the accused had been labouring under a feeling that he had capacity to prepare medicines to win over females, when the accused assaulted him and his brother with a chappal. P.W.4 also admitted in his cross-examination that the accused was called “Pichchodu” (mad follow). It was. also elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.12, the investigating officer that when the accused was being handcuffed he beat H.C.865 with hand cuffs and he also bit the little finger of the incharge Inspector of Police. 36. Admittedly the accused was arrested on 30.1.1982 and was remanded to judicial custody. The accused was not subjected to any medical examination by the investigating officer, after he was arrested, though the accused exhibited abnormal behaviour in attacking the deceased and P.Ws.3 to 5. It was only on 3.4.1982 when the wife of the accused filed a petition before the committing Magistrate informing the Magistrate that the accused was mentally unsound and incapable of making his defence. The learned Magistrate forwarded the accused to the Superintendent, S.V.R.R. Hospital, Tirupati, for examination and for issue of a certificate as to his mental condition. The accused was kept in Psycheatry ward of the hospital for observation from 21.4.1982 to 3.5.1982 and treated by D.W.1, Professor of Psycheatry S.V. Medical College, Tripati. D.W.1 found him to be suffering from “Hystarical psychoses”. He was of the opinion that the accused would be able to make his defence only after necessary treatment in a mental hospital. Ex.D5 is the report of D.W.1, while Ex.D6 is the case-sheet relating to the accused, during the period of observation in the hospital. D.W.1 made the following observations in Ex.D6: “The patient was going into spells of dissociation and talks to the person who he thinks controls him”. D.W.1 stated, even in chief-examination, that the accused was telling him that he was possessed by somebody else that he was controlling him, and his actions, that his unshakable belief was that his actions were being controlled by external agency. In his cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor, he stated that all that was the accused's delusion. D.W.1 stated, even in chief-examination, that the accused was telling him that he was possessed by somebody else that he was controlling him, and his actions, that his unshakable belief was that his actions were being controlled by external agency. In his cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor, he stated that all that was the accused's delusion. When called upon by the Court to explain what was meant by “Hysterical psychoses”, D.W.1 answered thus: “Hysterical psychoses is a type of undifferentiated or reactive psychotic reaction and this does not find place in the older textbooks and is a fairly new concept. This type of psychotic reaction lasts for 2 to 4 weeks, has got good prognosis and is usually precepitated by an over-whelming stress. The spells of dissociation may last from few minutes to few hours. During that period, the parts of the mind do not function conjointly or in a concerted way and they function independently causing mental symptoms like wandering etc. Generally, this situation is brought about by acute mental stress”. The accused was later referred to the Superintendent, Government Hospital, for mental care at Waltair. On 14.10.1982, the Superintendent of the hospital made a note of his condition and forwarded the same to the Court. It is Ex.D7, and it runs thus: “Patient is having persecutory delusions and feels that his life is being manipulated by external agencies. His speech is interpolated with delusions and irrelevance. Has no insight into his condition. Does not have any notice of the circumstances that led to his prosecution. He needs further treatment”. Subsequently, the Superintendent of the Hospital in his letter dated 20.1.1983 addressed to the Magistrate, no doubt, stated that he was free of psychotic features and was fit to stand trial. 37. During his examination under Sec.313, Cr.P.C., the accused denied any knowledge of the acts, committed by him, and stated that he had no control over his body or actions. He added “that a snake bit me and an ant hill sprung up in my house. I dug it out. I am of unsound mind. I get dreams when I worship”. 38. To sum up, the accused had no motive whatsoever to attack the deceased and P.Ws.3 to 5. The attack on them was purposeless. He added “that a snake bit me and an ant hill sprung up in my house. I dug it out. I am of unsound mind. I get dreams when I worship”. 38. To sum up, the accused had no motive whatsoever to attack the deceased and P.Ws.3 to 5. The attack on them was purposeless. When the accused left for the outskirts of the village in search of P.W.6 after attacking P.Ws.1, 3, 4 and the deceased, P.W.5 noticed him coming opposite to her almost naked. Admittedly, the accused did not try to escape from the village nor did he hide himself after killing the deceased, and causing injuries to P.Ws.1, 3, 4 and 5. He produced M.O.7 before the investigating officer, and allowed himself to be tied to a pole in a cattle shed by three villagers. When the accused was being handcuffed he beat the Head Constable with handcuffs and also hit the little finger of the incharge Inspector of Police. There was remissness on the part of the investigating officials in not subjecting the accused to medical examination, after he was arrested, though the accused exhibited abnormal behaviour in attacking the deceased and P.Ws.3 to 5. It was only at the instance of the wife of the accused he was referred to S.V.R.R. Hospital, Tirupati, for observation and treatment from 21.4.1982 to 3.5.1982. D.W.1, Professor of Psychistry, S.V. Medical College, Tirupati, found him to be suffering from “Hysterical psychoses”. The accused was later referred to the Superintendent Government Hospital for mental care at Waltair and was treated there for nearly three months, before he was found fit to stand trial. At the end of the trial, during his examination under Sec.313, Cr.P.C., it was revealed that the accused was suffering from insane delusion. 39. On the material placed before us, we are not certain that the impugned acts of the accused were not the result of an unsound and imbalanced mind possessed by him at the time of committing the same. We are unable to exclude from our minds the feeling that the accused either suffered from temporary insanity or acted under an irresistible impulse or an insane delusion, resulting in the commission of the various acts of violence without being aware of the nature of the acts or the consequence thereof. We are unable to exclude from our minds the feeling that the accused either suffered from temporary insanity or acted under an irresistible impulse or an insane delusion, resulting in the commission of the various acts of violence without being aware of the nature of the acts or the consequence thereof. The acts of the accused not having been accompanied by the requisite mens rea do not constitute any offences punishable under the I.P.C. The accused is thus entitled to benefit of doubt. We accordingly set aside all the convictions and the sentences of imprisonment inflicted on him thereunder. In the result, the appeals preferred by the accused are allowed. [Order dated 18.10.1985] 41. Sri Obulapathi Choudary, the learned counsel for the appellant, submits that no relative or friend of the appellant offered to take custody of the appellant, In the circumstances we direct the Superintendent, Central Jail, Rajahmundry in which the appellant is lodged to produce the appellant before the Superintendent of the District Headquarters Hospital at Rajahmundry, for examination and submission of a report as to whether the appellant is of sound and sane mind by now, and as to whether it is desirable to release him. The report should be submitted within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order. [Order dated 22.11.1985] 42. The Superintendent, Government Headquarters Hospital, Rajahmundry, after examining the appellant herein, Sri Kanaparthy Pitchaiah, certifies that he is mentally sound. 43. In view of the certificate, we direct the appellant to be released from Jail forthwith, if not required in any other case. Appeals allowed.