JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated April 16, 1992, passed by the Sessions Judge, Udaipur, by which the accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 326 IPC. 2. The appellant was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur, for the offences under Sections 307,326 and 323 IPC. The case of the prosecution is that on March 5, 1991, at about 5.00 p.m. Ganga Ram and accused Khema - the two brothers - were sitting inside the house of Khema Ram and were talking together. Ganga Ram asked Khema Ram why he was not taking care of his field and, also, not doing any business. On hearing this, accused Khema enraged, look-up a spade and inflicted injury on Ganga Ram by the spade by asking that he would kill him and after killing him there will be no necessity of doing any work. The spade blow was aimed at the head of Ganga Ram, but it landed on his nose, due to which the nasal bone of Ganga Ram was fractured. When Ganga Ram tried to run away, the accused inflicted second blow by the spade, which hit Ganga Ram on his right shoulder. When Smt. Kamla tried to intervene, she, also, received an injury on her finger. An alarm was raised and on hearing the alarm, Kesu Lal and Chaturbhuj came and rescued Ganga Ram. 3. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined eight witnesses. PW 1 Smt. Kamla, PW 2 Ganga Ram, PW 3 Kering, PW 4 Chaturbhuj and PW 8 Kesu Ram are the five eye witnesses of the occurrence, out of whom, PW 2 Kering has not supported the prosecution case and was declared hostile. PW 8 Kesu Ram has, also, stated that he reached the place of occurrence only after the incident was over. He has, also, not supported the prosecution case. Then there remains the testimony of the three eye witnesses, namely, PW 1 Smt. Kamla, PW 2 Ganga Ram and PW 4 Chaturbhuj. PW 6 is Dr. Yogesh Sharma, who took the X-ray of the injuries of Ganga Ram while PW 7 Dr. Jamna Lal Kumawat examined the injuries of Ganga Ram. PW 5 Dharampuri, Head Constable, conducted the investigation and presented the challan. 4. PW 6 is Dr. Yogesh Sharma, who took the X-ray of the injuries of Ganga Ram while PW 7 Dr. Jamna Lal Kumawat examined the injuries of Ganga Ram. PW 5 Dharampuri, Head Constable, conducted the investigation and presented the challan. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the occurrence which took-place in the house of Ganga Ram and has, also, not challenged the participation of the accused-appellant Khema in the incident. Even accused-appellant Khema, in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC, has admitted the incident and his participation therein. The only argument, raised by him the learned counsel for the appellant is that at the relevant time when the incident took-place, the appellant was insane and by reason of unsoundness of mind, was incapable of knowing the nature of the act and the pros and cons thereto and, therefore, his case falls within the Exception provided under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the judgment, passed by the Court below and further submitted that there is no evidence on record, on the basis of which it could be gathered that the appellant, at the relevant time, was insane. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. PW 1 Smt. Kamla, in her statement before the Court, has specifically admitted that accused Khema was insane and used to live as a person of unsound mind because his wife had left him. She has, also, admitted in the cross-examination that after her marriage, she had seen him in a state of insanity. He used to loiter in the village in a state of insanity. In the examination-in-chief, she has stated as under:- " [ksek 'kq: ls ikxy dh rjg gh jgrk Fkk D;ksafd mldh vkSjr ukrs pkyh x;h Fkh] mldks [kkuk ugha f[kykr Fkh] ml le; og ikxy gks jgrk Fkk] vkSj mldks ekjihV djrk FkkA " 7. PW 2 Ganga Ram, the injured, has, also, stated that accused Khema was insane and used to loiter in the village. He has, also admitted that there was no enmity between him and the accused and the accused inflicted injury suddenly. PW 2 Ganga Ram, the injured, has, also, stated that accused Khema was insane and used to loiter in the village. He has, also admitted that there was no enmity between him and the accused and the accused inflicted injury suddenly. In the cross-examination, he has stated as under:- " [ksek ikxy gSA ;g xkWao esa ikxy dh rjg ?kwerk jgrk gS&&&&&A [skrk ?kwerk fQjrk FkkA bldks eSaus ugha ns[kk fd og dgka ls vk;kA ml le; og ikxyiu esa gh FkkA " 8. Similar is the statement of PW 4 Chaturbhuj. He has, also, admitted that accused Khema used to live in jungle for most of his time. He has, also, admitted in the cross-examination that for the last four-five years, he is in the state of insanity. He became insane after his wife left hint His statement in the cross-examination reads as under : " ;g bldh vkSjr ds Hkkxus ds ckn ls ikxy gSA ;g fiNys 4&5 lkyksa ls ikxy gSA ;g [ksrksa vkSj taxyksa esa ckfj'k gksus ij Hkh ikxyksa dh rjg ?kwerk gS] dksbZ dqN dgrk gS rks iRFkj ekjus yxrk gSA " 9. The statements of these three witnesses, thus, clearly show that the appellant Khema, at the time of the incident, was in the state of insanity and the act was done by reason of unsoundness of mind and at that time he was incapable of knowing the nature of his act that he was going to perform and he was not knowing whether the act he was doing, was contrary to law. In this view of the matter. I am of the opinion that the case of the appellant clearly falls within the Exception mentioned in Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant Khema is allowed. The judgment, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur, convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant is set-aside and the accused-appellant is acquitted of all the charges. The appellant is in jail and he shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.Appeal allowed. *******