Judgment SURESH CHANDRA MOOKHERJI, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28/29-9-1988 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Sessions Trial No. 10 of 1986 whereby, the appellant has been convicted under Section 304(11) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo regorous imprisonment for ten years. 2. On the fateful day i.e., 17-4-1984, the appellant who was suffering from some sort of mental ailment, had gone to one Dr. Ajit of Gola for his treatment and on his return at about 6 P.M. he suddenly lifted his minor son age about 5 years and threw him down and hereafter, attempted to press him. On seeing this, his relations cried out and when the brother of the appellant tried to get the boy released, the appellant inflicted a knife blow to him as a result of which, he subsequently died. 3. In due course, the investigation was taken up and after submission of the final form, the trial commenced with the result as indicated. 4. Since this appeal is disposed of on a short point, it is needless to a well upon the evidence on record in a creater detail. There is no controversy that : (a) the appellant was suffering from mental ailment for the last 3 to 4 years before the incident, (b) on the day of incident, he had gone to a doctor for medical check up and (c) that the appellant was suffering from mental ailment is also testified by four witnesses (Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 11) of whom, are his relations, being father and Wife. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that in the facts and circumstances, the appellant is entitled to benefit of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that an identical plea was taken before the trial Court, but it was negatived relying on the observation of Humphrays, J. in the decision of English Notable Trial of Alna Victoria. The observation of his Lordships been quoted and the trial judge came to the conclusion that the act of the appellant was not covered by the general exception provided in Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. The observation of his Lordships been quoted and the trial judge came to the conclusion that the act of the appellant was not covered by the general exception provided in Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. It would be useful to quote Section 84 : "Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who at the time of doing it, is, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law." 6. Now, the question of all questions is whether the appellant, who inflicted a knife blow to his brother, can claim the benefit of Section 84 I.P.C. The admitted positions have already been indicated and it appears that even on the date of incident, he had gone for his treatment for his mental ailment and immediately on his return, he suddenly picked up his five years son, threw him down and then started pressing him. This was apparently an abnormal act on the part of the appellant. Normally, it is not expected that a father would lift his son and then try to kill him in the manner as stated without any rhyme or reason. It further appears that when his relations could not release the boy from the clutches of the appellant, a last attempt was made by his brother when the appellant suddenly inflicted a knife blow to him. This was obviously another abnormal act of the appellant as, it is also not expected that a normal man would suddenly jump at his full brother and inflict a blow when he tried to rescue his (appellants) son. As a matter of fact, there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that for any particular reason (s) the appellant either intended to kill his son or caused hurt to the rescuer of the child for preventing him from doing an act which was either wrong or contrary to law. 7. The learned Judge has no doubt, rejected this plea when taken, but it appears that while altering the charge under Section 302 to one under Section 304(11) of the Indian Penal Code, he observed that the appellant was not in a "normal state". 7. The learned Judge has no doubt, rejected this plea when taken, but it appears that while altering the charge under Section 302 to one under Section 304(11) of the Indian Penal Code, he observed that the appellant was not in a "normal state". It would be better to quote his observations in this regard which are as follows : "But I find no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the accused was not normal in his behaviour." In such a situation, it can be said that the trial judge was also satisfied that his conduct/action was not a normal one. The conduct of a person can only be said to be normal if he behaves in a normal way, but when he deviates from that, it may be said to be "abnormal." 8 In the instant case it will be all the more probable to draw an inference that the appellant by reason of unsoundness of mind was incapable of knowing the nature of his act particularly in the background that he was suffering from mental ailment for the last 3/4 years. In the circumstances, I find it difficult to agree with the views of the learned trial judge on this issue. On the contrary, in the facts and circumstances, I satisfied that the appellant is entitled to benefit of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code and it is ordered accordingly. As this appeal is finally disposed of on this ground, let it be recorded that the other points raised in the memorandum of appeal have not been considered. 9. The result is that the appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court below is set aside, and the appellant is discharged from the liability of his bail bond.