K. P. MOBAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sambalpur acquitting the respondent of an offence under section 307 of the Indian Panel Code (I. P. C. for short ). ( 2 ) THE prosecution case in brief is that the respondent and the injured (P. W. 2) were residing in Chhipilima as neighbours. On 29. 9. 1980 between 7. 30 and 8 p. m. P. W. 2 was proceeding towards a grocery shop. The respondent saw P. W. 2 near his house and requested him to purchase Bidi and match-box worth Rs. 0. 50 paise. P. W. 2 returned to the house of the respondent and delivered Bidi and match-box to him. Thereafter both of them smoked Bidi. All of a sudden the respondent picked up a spear (MO. I) from his house and when P. W. 2 enquired as to what it was, the respondent answered that it was a weapon. The respondent then expressed words of disgust and thrust the spear by its pointed and sharp side on the abdomen of P. W. 2 who caught hold of the spear and pulled it out when there was tussle between the two. P. W. 2 received a bleeding injury on abdomen and raised an alarm hearing which his son (P. W. 3) and neighbours including P. W. 4 arrived at the scene of occurrence. The respondent was caught and P. W. 2 was immediately removed to Burla Medical College Hospital. P. W. 3 lodged FIR. (Ext. 2 ). P. W. 2 who had been admitted as an indoor patient was discharged on recovery on 22. 10. 1980. During investigation M. O. I was seized by the Investigating Officer (P. W. 5) from the cow-shed of the respondent. After close of investigation charge sheet was submitted against the respondent for having committed an offence under section 307, I. P. C. ( 3 ) THE defence plea was that the respondent committed the offence at a time when he was under hallucination and by reason of unsoundness of mind he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act committed by him. Therefore, he was entitled to the benefit of the exception provided in section 84, I. P. C. ( 4 ) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge accepted the defence case and held as follows: To me it appears that on account of withdrawal from chronic alcoholism, the accused was suffering from delirium tremens which is a kind of unsoundness of mind and while taking Bidi, there are reasons to doubt that he had the attack and by reason of unsoundness of mind, he committed the act without knowing the nature of it and without the knowledge that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law. The accused is therefore entitled to the protection u/s. 84 I. P. C. and is entitled to an acquittal. ( 5 ) LEARNED Additional Standing Counsel vehemently urged that the respondent could not at all discharge the burden of proving legal insanity at the time of commission of the offence. On the other hand his conduct before commission of the offence, at the time of commission thereof and thereafter was inconsistent with the plea of unsoundness of mind. According to him the learned Additional Sessions Judge laboured under the wrong impression that medical insanity, if at all there was any, was proved by the respondent by preponderance of probabilities. Accordingly, this is a fit case in which this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code should interfere. Learned advocate for the respondent on the other hand supported the order of acquittal. ( 6 ) IN an appeal from an order of acquittal, the powers of the High Court to reassess the evidence and reach its own conclusion are as extensive as in an appeal against an order of conviction. But as a rule of prudence it should always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (n the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at the trial; (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt; and (4) the slowness of an appellate court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses. Where two reasonable conclusions can be drawn on the evidence on record, the High Court should as a matter of judicial caution refrain from interfering with the order of acquittal. ( 7 ) IN other words, if the main grounds on which the court below has based its order acquitting the accused, are reasonable and plausible, and cannot be entirely and effectively dislodged or demolished, the High Court should not disturb the order of acquittal. Ganesh Bhavan Patel and another v. State of Maharashtra. This is a salutary principle and dictates self imposed limitations on the powers of the High Court otherwise plenary. The evidence of the case shall have to be approached keeping the aforesaid principle as the back drop. The learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded the following finding on the main issue as to whether the respondent had inflicted the injury, a punctured wound, on the abdomen of P. W. 2 :- In view of the evidence of P. Ws. 2, 3 and 4 coupled with the material evidence of P. W. 1 which has not been challenged it must be held that the accused dealt the spear blow on the abdomen causing this grievous injury in question. On consideration of the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses, it is difficult to arrive at any other conclusion. So it is established beyond any reasonable doubt that the respondent was the author of the injury caused by MO. I on the abdomen of the injured, P. W. 2. ( 8 ) IT is settled law that 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 wrung 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 section 84 of the Indian Penal Code can only be established from the circumstances which preceded, attended and followed the crime. Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat. Whether the accused was in such a state of mind as to be entitled to the benefit of section 84 of the Indian Penal Code can only be established from the circumstances which preceded, attended and followed the crime. Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat. In a Division Bench decision reported in Sukru Sa v. State of Orissa, B. K. Patra, J. analysed the difference between legal insanity and medical insanity and held :- It is only legal insanity which furnishes a ground for exemption from criminal liability. There can be no legal insanity unless the cognitive faculties of the accused are as a result of unsoundness of mind completely impaired. In order to constitute legal insanity unsoundness of mind must be such as to make the offender incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he is doing what is wrong or contrary to law N. K. Das. J. dealt with the subject in great details in Surya Prasad Rout v. State of Orissa and held that every type of insanity recognised in medical science is not legal insanity. It is only legal insanity which gives protection to the accused under section 84 Indian Penal Code. The above views were reiterated by a Division Bench of this Court in Kusa Majhi v. State. ( 9 ) IT is therefore necessary to scrutinise the evidence with more than ordinary care in under to find out if at the time of commission of the offence, the respondent was suffering from legal insanity. The injured, P. W. 2 stated flat the respondent gave him 50 paise for purchase of match-box and Bidi from the grocery shop. The witness purchased the same and came to the house of the respondent where both of them smoked Bidi. At that time the respondent brought a spear (M. O. I) from his house. When the witness enquired as to what was, the respondent replied that it was a weapon. Soon thereafter, the respondent expressed words and disgust and pierced the spear into the abdomen of the witness. The witness caught hold of the spear and there was tussle between both of them over the spear. When the witness enquired as to what was, the respondent replied that it was a weapon. Soon thereafter, the respondent expressed words and disgust and pierced the spear into the abdomen of the witness. The witness caught hold of the spear and there was tussle between both of them over the spear. P. W. 4 a neighbour heard the cries of P. W. 2 and rushed to the house of the respondent and found both P. W. 2 and the respondent were having a tussle over M. O. I. He saw a bleeding jury on the abdomen of P. W. 2. He caught hold of the respondent who gave out that he would finish two to four persons. P. W. 2 stated in his cross-examination that the respondent was drinking heavily everyday and in the year 1979 he was some what mentally deranged. While smoking Bidi, he suddenly behaved an abnormal manner. P. W. 4 stated in his cross-examination that when he caught hold the respondent, his eyes had become red and was looking as an abnormal man. The Investigating Officer (P. W. 8) stated that he arrested the respondent at 11. 30 pm. a couple hours after the occurrence in his house. He did not find any abnormality in his behaviour the time of arrest. He also seized M. O I from the cow-shed of the respondent. The aforesaid evidence will show that when the respondent was drinking heavily, he might have behaved in an odd manner giving an impression to ordinary people that he was mentally ill. Such behaviour is usually found with habitually d heavily drunk persons. So it was no wonder that the respondent was showing such ns in the year 1979. At the time of occurrence and immediately thereafter, the behaviour the respondent was found by P. Ws. 2 and 4 be abnormal which was not unusual, because, in a fit of anger he had assaulted P. W. 2 without any rhyme or reason. After the occurrence no abnormality was found in him, because, he was not kept under medical observation. On the other hand during trial when he was examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. he answered like a perfectly normal man. Now turning to the defence evidence. After the occurrence no abnormality was found in him, because, he was not kept under medical observation. On the other hand during trial when he was examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. he answered like a perfectly normal man. Now turning to the defence evidence. It will appear that D Wi, the Record Keeper of V. S. S. Medical College, produced the Out-door Medicine Register from which it appeared that serial No. 15 dated 28. 9. 1980 related to one K. B. Behera, son of Chandra Behera of Burla. He was treated by Dr. B. C. Kar of the Medicine Department (Ext. A ). There was no further evidence that the above entry related to the respondent and even if it related to him, he was treated for unsoundness of mind. D. W. 2 a P. C. medical student treated one K B. Behera as an Out-door patient on 28. 9. 1980. The patient was suffering from chronic alcoholism with peripheral neuropathy and hansens infection. His complaint was sleeplessness and sense of apprehensiveness in the night and weakness. Peripheral neuropathy means loss of touch on the body. In the case of the patient he treated, there was loss of touch of the feet. He made the above endorsements on the Outdoor ticket (Ext. B ). There was no further evidence that the patient D. W. 2 treated was the respondent. Assuming, it was respondent, he was not treated for unsoundness of mind but for chronic alcoholism with peripheral neuropathy and hansens infection which did not tentamount the legal insanity. The learned Additional Sessions Judge made an academic study of the effect of alcoholism by copiously quoting from Modis Medial Jurisprudence and a passage from Readers Digest and without any evidence on record or any support from D. W. 2 abruptly arrived at the conclusion that the respondent, on account of withdrawal from chronic alcoholism was suffering from delirium tremens which is a kind of unsoundness of mind and which got aggravated when the respondent smoked Bidi. There is absolutely no legal support to such a conclusion and cannot in the circumstances, be accepted. On the other hand, such a conclusion is without any basis. ( 10 ) NOW a few words about motive. It is true that the motive factor has not come out to the surface. There is absolutely no legal support to such a conclusion and cannot in the circumstances, be accepted. On the other hand, such a conclusion is without any basis. ( 10 ) NOW a few words about motive. It is true that the motive factor has not come out to the surface. In all cases motive for a crime cannot be established, and for absence of proof of motive, a crime otherwise proved cannot be held not to have been proved. Therefore it has been well said that the ways of human mind are inscrutable. So no weight can be attached to this factor. ( 11 ) ON consideration of the principle of law and the evidence on record, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that there was absolutely no proof of legal insanity of the respondent before committing the offence, at the time of commission thereof and also subsequently. Therefore the respondent cannot seek protection under section 84 I. P. C. ( 12 ) THE next question that fans for consideration is the offence the respondent committed. According to the evidence of P. W. 1, the Medical Officer who examined P. W. 2 a couple of hours after the occurrence, the injury was dangerous in nature and threatened the life of the injured. The injured was admitted as an indoor patient and discharged on 22. 10. 1980 (Exts. 1 and 3 ). From the aforesaid evidence, it appears that the injury was grievous in nature and the spear (MO. I) was indisputedly a dangerous weapon. The facts and circumstances discussed above, show that the respondent had no intention to attempt on the life of the injured. So it was not a case covered by section 307 I. P. C. On the other hand, the offence is squarely attracted by section 326, I. P. C. ( 13 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed and the order of acquittal is set aside. The respondent Khetrabasi Behera is convicted under section 326 I. P. C. and is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Appeal allowed. .