CHATTERJEE, J. ( 1 ) CONVICTED of two offences, - one under S. 302, I. P. C. for murdering his wife (Kalidasi) with a dagger and another under S. 324, I. P. C. for causing hurt to his mother-in-law with the same self dagger and sentenced to R. I. for life and also to a fine of Rs. 1000/- for the first offence and to R. I. for one year for the second offence, the accused Sudhir Ch. Biswas has come up in appeal before us. Sudhir Ch. Biswas is in jail now. Briefly put the prosecution case as against him stood as follows : - ( 2 ) THE village Berkamgachi and the village Birnagar are situate side by side within the P. S. Ranaghat in Nadia district. On 24-12-80 Smt. Gauridasi (P. W. 10) mother-in-law of the accused Sudhir was coming to her own village Birnagar via Berkamgachi being accompanied by her daughter Kalidasi Biswas and her son-in-law Sudhir himself. It would be at about 4. 30 p. m. then. While they were passing through the way near Berkamgachi Deep Tube Well No. 73, the accused Sudhir began to assault Gauridasi, his mother-in-law and gave her several strokes. Kalidasi her daughter tried to intervene but in doing so she too was severely dealt with by the dagger so much so that she fell down on the ground. A little girl Rekharani Kirtaniya (P. W. 3) was standing aside. She raised hue and cry and hearing her cries neighbouring people flocked to the place. The incident was thus witnessed by several local people. Rekharani's father Nimai Kirtaniya (P. W. 4) was one of them. P. W. 5 Nimai Mondal was in his house. Hearing the hue and cry he ran to the spot and found the two injured women lying over there as also the accused person with his blood stained wearing apparels. Sachin Mondal (P. W. 7) another villager, similarly being attracted by the hue and cry came up to the spot. He saw the dagger lying on the ground and the accused Sudhir standing over there. P. W. 2 Santosh Modak another resident of Berkamgachi was sitting then within a local shop. Hearing cries he rushed to the spot. He saw Sudhir stabbing his wife. P. W. 1 Budheswar Biswas similarly could see the accused Sudhir standing with a blood stained dagger with him. P. W. 2 Santosh Modak another resident of Berkamgachi was sitting then within a local shop. Hearing cries he rushed to the spot. He saw Sudhir stabbing his wife. P. W. 1 Budheswar Biswas similarly could see the accused Sudhir standing with a blood stained dagger with him. Sudhir was red-handed caught by the local inhabitants. The two injured women were lying on the ground with blood injuries. ( 3 ) THE last named witness P. W. 1 Budheswar Biswas who was a local man picked up the injured Kalidasi wife of Sudhir and took her to Ranaghat hospital where however the lady breathed her last soonafter. The mother-in-law was also taken to that hospital. Both the injured were examined by the M. O. P. W. 11 Dr. K. P. Biswas. The mother-in-law however survived. Four hours after the incident one Kalipada Pal a local resident ran up to the police station Ranaghat and gave a written ejahar adumbrating all necessary details connected with the incident. The written complaint was subsequently treated as F. I. R. and marked Ext. 3. On the self-same night the I. O. S. I. Ruhidas Biswas (P. W. 13) came to the P. O. , prepared a rough sketch map (Ext. 4) and examined several witnesses recording their statements under S. 161, Cr. P. C. At the P. O. , near the Deep Tube Well No. 73, he seized the blood stained dagger, some control earth and blood stained earth under seizure list 1/1. On the next day. i. e. on 25-12-80 he seized the blood stained yellow terilene shirt which was worn by Sudhir under seizure list Ext. 2/1. He took the accused in police custody. On 25-12-80 he went to the local Ranaghat hospital and sent the dead body of Kalidasi for post-mortem examination. P. W. 14 S. I. B. L. Roy Choudhury took up the investigation of the case from the hands of Ruhidas Biswas. He recorded the statements of several witnesses under S. 161, Cr. P. C. including the statement of mother-in-law Gauridasi. He sent the seized articles for forensic report through the S. D. J. M. Ranaghat on 17-4-81. Charge sheet of the case was submitted on 21-4-83 by the subsequent Police Officer Sri Shyamal Samadar (P. W. 15), Sri Samadar collected post-mortem report as also the forensic report in due course of investigation of the case. He sent the seized articles for forensic report through the S. D. J. M. Ranaghat on 17-4-81. Charge sheet of the case was submitted on 21-4-83 by the subsequent Police Officer Sri Shyamal Samadar (P. W. 15), Sri Samadar collected post-mortem report as also the forensic report in due course of investigation of the case. Thereafter in due course Sudhir was committed to the Court of Session. ( 4 ) BEFORE the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nadia, accused Sudhir faced the trial. At the trial two distinct charges were framed as against Sudhir, - one under S. 302, I. P. C. for murdering his wife and another under S. 324, I. P. C. for causing hurt to Gauridasi with a sharp cutting weapon namely the dagger. Before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, P. W. 10 Gauridasi revealed the whole incident in detail. She deposed as to how and by what weapon and when she was assaulted by her own son-in-law. Her evidence was believed by the learned trial Court. Her evidence was corroborated by Dr. K. P. Biswas, M. O. (P. W. 11) of Ranaghat Hospital who had the opportunity to examine her shortly after the incident. From P. W. 11 it appears that the old lady received as many as 4 incised wounds on different parts of her body. The opinion of the Doctor was that the wounds were caused by a dagger. Before the doctor Gauridasi had given out that she had been assaulted by her son-in-law "as a result of quarrel due to family problem". On all these points P. W. 11 was not cross-examined at the trial. The Court it appears was also impressed by the child witness P. W. 3 Rekharani Kirtaniya. Her evidence is that in her presence Sudhir murdered his wife and assaulted his mother-in-law. The father of the child witness, Nimai also corroborated her in material particulars. It is this Nimai who caught hold of the accused at the spot and tied him up with a pole. The evidence of the child was that she had cried out seeing the incident. It is quite natural. It is also quite natural that hearing her cries other people namely her father and other witnesses namely P. W. 1 Budheswar, P. W. 2 Santosh Modak, P. M. 6 Nimai Mondal, P. W. 7 Sachin Mondal etc. would assemble at the spot. It is quite natural. It is also quite natural that hearing her cries other people namely her father and other witnesses namely P. W. 1 Budheswar, P. W. 2 Santosh Modak, P. M. 6 Nimai Mondal, P. W. 7 Sachin Mondal etc. would assemble at the spot. The learned trial Court found trial all these natural and probable witnesses were absolutely disinterested and that there was nothing to disbelieve them when they said that they had seen the accused, the dagger and the two injured women over there. The child herself marked the acts of assault made by Sudhir upon the two women. The father of the child had also seen Sudhir assaulting his wife with a dagger. It is true that in their earlier statements before the I. O. these eye-witnesses did not relate the incident with all its details. We are however, relieved to find that the broad facts of the case were never omitted before the I. O. ( 5 ) IT is the admitted case of both sides that the accused Sudhir is a Beggar. He used to roam in the villages begging for food from door to door. This is the evidence of the child witness as also of Nimai Mondal (P. W. 5 ). In his examination under S. 313, Cr. P. C. Sudhir also gave out that his "occupation was beggary". It does not stand to reason that all these witnesses would perjure themselves in a body against a beggar of their village. Their evidence also found support in the Doctor's testimony on the record. Two doctors were examined. Of them the M. O. P. W. 11 Dr. K. P. Biswas and Dr. K. P. Dutta (P. W. 12) both were of the opinion that the injuries on the body of Kalidasi were caused by a dagger. The further opinion of Dr. K. P. Dutta who held the post-mortem examination was that there was a very deep chest injury touching the 8th rib adjacent to the intercostal muscle and cutting nerves, pleura and the right lung at the side with profuse haemorrhage inside the body. The death in his opinion was due to chest injuries over the vital part on her body and the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death. The cross-examination of this doctor was declined by the defence at the trial Court. The death in his opinion was due to chest injuries over the vital part on her body and the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death. The cross-examination of this doctor was declined by the defence at the trial Court. In view of these abundant materials on the record regarding the guilt of the accused, learned trial Court came to the only reasonable conclusion that the accused was guilty of both the offences of murdering his wife as also of assaulting his mother-in-law in the way as alleged by the prosecution. ( 6 ) MR. Jaiswal, learned advocate appearing for Sudhir the appellant in his usual fairness has submitted that he does not want us to disbelieve the P. Ws. P. Ws. according to him were rightly believed by the learned trial Court. He has however, invited our attention to the evidence of the child witness who disclosed before the Court in her cross-examination that "the accused used to beg in our mohalla and it seems to me that he was an abnormal type of man". Similar is the evidence of Nimai P. W. 5 who gave out in his cross-examination that "i saw this accused to beg in our house and also saw this man to roam in our village in mad condition". Mr. Jaiswal has also drawn our attention to the order sheet dt. 2-3-81 of the trial Court's record of the S. D. J. M. , Ranaghat to show that the S. D. J. M. concerned could at least for a day mark some abnormality regarding the behaviour of Sudhir while he was in judicial custody. Mr. Jaiswal has also invited our attention to the two cases reported in AIR 1964 SC 1563 and 1968 Cri LJ 1156 (Delhi ). He has argued that the quoted evidence has cast a reasonable doubt in our mind as regards one or more of the ingredients of the offence including mens rea of the accused and that the general burden of proof resting on the prosecution was not thus discharged. We have given our best consideration to the aforesaid contention of Mr. Jaiswal. Mr. We have given our best consideration to the aforesaid contention of Mr. Jaiswal. Mr. Jaiswal wants to save his client by showering on him the benefit of S. 84, I. P. C. In our considered opinion insanity to be recognised as an exception to criminal liability must be such as to disable an accused person from knowing the nature of the act, when he committed the criminal act. If at the time of committing the offence the accused knew the nature of the act, he is guilty. Unsoundness of mind means and implies a state of mind in which an accused is incapable of knowing that he is doing any wrong or anything contrary to law. And the burden of proving this is upon the person who takes the plea. More concentricity or strange behaviour of the accused is not enough to constitute his unsoundness of mind vide Keshaorao v. State of Maharashtra, 1979 Cri LJ 40) (Bom ). Moreover it is only legal insanity that furnishes ground for exemption from criminal liability. We may point out even at the risk of repetition that in order to constitute legal insanity the, unsoundness of mind must be such as to make the offender incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he is doing an act contrary to law. It is precisely this state of mind at the time of offence, neither ante nor post offence which is only material for the purpose of determining whether the accused was of unsound mind. Insanity in other words must exist at the time of commission of offence. The view we have taken finds strong support in the illustrious case of Kalabati reported in AIR 1964 SC 1563 . There the prosecution case was that Kalabati was sleeping along with her husband-appellant. She cried out at night and on the morning she was found dead. Accused-appellant in that case took the plea that he was insane. It was held that the "entire conduct of the accused from the time he killed his wife up to the time the sessions proceedings commenced was inconsistent with the fact that he had a fit of insanity when he killed his wife. The crucial point of time for ascertaining the state of mind of the accused is the time when the offence was committed". The crucial point of time for ascertaining the state of mind of the accused is the time when the offence was committed". None of the witnesses in our case had uttered a single word regarding the then abnormal conduct or behaviour or state of mind of Sudhir at the P. O. On the contrary the evidence on record is that at the P. O. the accused first tried to assault his mother-in-law and being opposed by his wife he fell (a prey) upon her and began to stab her with a dagger repeatedly. Even when the wife fell on the ground he sat upon her waist and did not stop short of assaulting her again. Mr. Jaiswal has craved by saying that his client did not try to run away. We however cannot forget that his client was tied up by the villagers with a pole so much so he could get hardly any opportunity to flee away from the spot. It is not the case of the prosecution here that the dagger was picked up by Sudhir on the way and that he suddenly made use of it like a mad man. ( 7 ) MRS. Moitra appearing for the State respondent has rightly argued by saying that it was a case of cool and calculated murder so much so that Sudhir was carrying with him a dagger. Mrs. Moitra has reminded us that Sudhir was a beggar and that the beggar was not expected to carry a dagger with him. Indeed we agree with Mrs. Moitra that there was a method in the alleged madness of the accused Sudhir. We have spared much thought over the contention of Mr. Jaiswal and to our mind it does not appear that the accused Sudhir might have been a mad man at the time of occurrence. On the contrary our considered view is that the accused was perfectly sane at the time of occurrence and that he committed the crime in the usual way not being pressurized by any unsoundness or abnormality of his mind. It is significant to note in this connection that in course of his examination under S. 313, Cr. P. C. as many as 30 questions were put to Sudhir. Sudhir answered all of them satisfactorily. His answer to the last question was "on the day of incident I went to perform my work. It is significant to note in this connection that in course of his examination under S. 313, Cr. P. C. as many as 30 questions were put to Sudhir. Sudhir answered all of them satisfactorily. His answer to the last question was "on the day of incident I went to perform my work. On returning home from my work I found that my wife was lying on the ground being murdered, I did not murder her. " Sudhir cannot be believed. He was evidently speaking lies. We prefer to believe the villagers who deposed against him at the trial. In his petition of appeal sent through Dum Dum Central Jail, Sudhir has stated that at the time of incident he was not drunk that he did not murder his wife and that he was only trying to control his wife's misbehaviour. We do not know what was or could have been the "misbehaviour" that his wife did exhibit before him. One thing, however, is clear namely that the husband Sudhir was not justified in taking away her life by striking her chest vehemently with a dagger leading her to the said catastrophe. The averments made in the "petition of appeal" are also untrue because they contain no explanation as to why he assaulted his mother-in-law first. ( 8 ) IN view of the facts and circumstances discussed above we find no good reason to set aside the judgment of the learned trial Court. In our considered opinion Sudhir was rightly convicted of the offence under S. 302, I. P. C. and S. 324, I. P. C. No argument was advanced before us regarding any impropriety of the sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The appeal should therefore stand dismissed. ( 9 ) IN the result, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is affirmed. ( 10 ) CHAKRABARTY, J. :- I agree. Appeal dismissed.