(1) THE sole appellant was tried under S. 302 and 506(2 Indian Penal Code for the offence of committing the murder of his wife and for intimidation. The trial court acquitted him of the charge under Section 506(2 Indian Penal Code and convicted him under Section 304 Part I Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. The accused as well as the State preferred appeals. The High court while dismissing the appeal filed by the accused, allowed the State appeal and altered the conviction to one under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. Hence the present appeal. (2) THE appellant was an Arabic teacher. His wife, the deceased, was also an Arabic teacher. They were living together with their three children in Pullampara Village. The appellant had suspicion about the chastity of his wife and suspected that she was having illicit connection with Public Witness 3, his neighbour. There were frequent quarrels. On 3/4/1982, the accused went along with his wife to the latters school for drawing her salary and after drawing the salary they returned home. At about 2.15 p.m., according to the prosecution, the accused caused the death of the deceased by cutting her with a chopper thereby inflicting a number of injuries as a result of which the deceased died on the spot. The appellant then came out of the house with a chopper and started shouting abusive words against Public Witness 3. He ran towards the house ofPW 3 to kill him. PW 3, however, escaped. A report was given to the police. Investigations commenced and an inquest was held over the dead body and the post-mortem was conducted and the medical evidence showed that the deceased had a number of injuries on her body and some of them were fatal by themselves. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was laid. The plea of the accused has been one of denial. However, a plea of insanity was set up and he examined Public Witness 2, a psychiatrist and also marked Exs. C-2 and C-3 in support of his plea of insanity. This evidence on his behalf was led to show that he was being treated for "paranoid state" which was diagnosed as "paranoid schizophrenia". However, a plea of insanity was set up and he examined Public Witness 2, a psychiatrist and also marked Exs. C-2 and C-3 in support of his plea of insanity. This evidence on his behalf was led to show that he was being treated for "paranoid state" which was diagnosed as "paranoid schizophrenia". (3) THE prosecution relied mainly on the evidence of Public Witness 6, the son of the deceased as well as the accused, aged about 7 years and on the evidence of PWs 2 and 3. The trial court rejected the plea of insanity but convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part I Indian Penal Code, holding that he must have committed the crime under a grave and sudden provocation. (4) THE High court having examined the evidence, agreed with the trial court that the accused alone committed the murder of his wife but rejected the plea of grave and sudden provocation. It was also pleaded before both the courts below that the accused was of unsound mind and he was under a delusion at the time of commission of the offence and, therefore, he was entitled to the general exception under Section 84 Indian Penal Code. (5) IN this appeal, the learned counsels main contention is that the evidence of Public Witness 2, a psychiatrist, shows that the appellant was undergoing treatment for the disease of "paranoid schizophrenia" from 28/8/1980 to 12/9/1980 as an out- patient for about 1 1/2 years and the OP tickets marked as defence exhibits would also show that he was receiving treatment on different dates between 10/2/1982 and 20/6/1982 and, therefore, on the date of the commissioning of the offence, he must have acted under a delusion because of the deceased and, consequently, the benefit under Section 84 ought to have been given to him. We see no force in this submission. Section 84 Indian Penal Code lays down that nothing is an offence which is done by a person who at the time of doing it by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that what he is doing is wrong and contradictory in law. There is no evidence whatsoever to show that the accused behaved in any such manner manifesting the state of unsoundness of mind on any occasion earlier. There is no evidence whatsoever to show that the accused behaved in any such manner manifesting the state of unsoundness of mind on any occasion earlier. On the other hand, there is ample evidence to show that both he and the deceased were teaching Arabic and that he suspected the chastity of his wife and both of them were going to the school to draw salary. As a matter of fact, on the day of offence, the accused followed the deceased to the school to help her draw her salary and it is only after their return to the house that something happened and the accused mercilessly killed the deceased. It is in this context, perhaps, the trial court took the view that there must have been sudden and grave provocation but that benefit also cannot be given because of merciless infliction of number of injuries on the deceased. Exception I is subject to many limits and the way the crime was perpetrated by the accused, it would not, in any manner, satisfy the requirements of the exception. Now, coming to the plea of insanity, we have got the evidence of DW 2. The same does not, in any manner, indicate that the accused-appellant must have been of unsound mind at the time of committing the offence, and was incapable of knowing the nature of the act which was done. We see no merit in this appeal and the same is. accordingly, dismissed.