Judgment Loknath Prasad and Prashanta Kumar Sarkar JJ. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction -recorded by 7th Addl. Judicial Commissioner. Ranchi vide her judgment dated 8.6.90 in S.T. No. 100/88 through which the sole appellant was found guilty under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and he was convicted and sentenced to under go imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case in short is that the informants daughter, namely, Kamala Devi was married to the appellant in the year 1983 and prior to occurrence Kamala Devi came to her Naihar i.e. in the house of the informant and in the night of 14/15-8-97 the appellant alongwith her wife were sleeping together in a room of the residential house of the informant situated in Lower Chutia, P.S. Chutia. It has been alleged that in the mid night the informant and his wife heard alarm of their daughter and she was asking for help. Accordingly, informant and his wife rushed to the bed room where her daughter was sleeping at 12.30 P.M. or so and in the electric light they had seen the appellant assaulting Kamala Devi by knife and the moment the appellant had seen the informant he had thrown the knife in that very room and escaped from the other door but a alarm was raised and neighbours came and the appellant in order to save himself jumped in a well. It is also the prosecution case that the injured Kamala Devi was immediately rushed to R.M.C.H. Bariatu but in course of treatment she died at about 2.30 A.M. or so in that very night and police was also informed who came in the morning and rescued the appellant from the well and took him in custody and fardbeyan of the informant was recorded at about 7.30 A.M. 3. The inquest of the deceased was prepared at the R.M.C.H. itself for post mortem examination and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted as against the appellant. The appellant claimed himself innocent in the trial court and denied to have committed the murder of deceased who is admittedly his wife and alternatively a plea was taken about the legal insanity of the appellant and suggestion was thrown to the witnesses that the appellant was mentally unsound and insane right from the year 1985. The appellant claimed himself innocent in the trial court and denied to have committed the murder of deceased who is admittedly his wife and alternatively a plea was taken about the legal insanity of the appellant and suggestion was thrown to the witnesses that the appellant was mentally unsound and insane right from the year 1985. In that view of the matter, he under the influence of insanity and not aware of the legal consequences might have committed the murder. In that view of the matter, the appellant is entitled to protection in view of the provision of Sec. 84 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court found the prosecution case to be true and rejected the plea of legal insanity and recorded an order of conviction. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by this order this appeal had been preferred. 4. The alleged occurrence took place in the mid night of 14/15-8-1987 that too in the residential house of the informant and according to the prosecution the deceased, the wife of the appellant was in the house of the informant and the appellant came one day prior to the occurrence and husband and wife in the relevant night were together in a bed room. So P.W. 2 Ram Kumar Keshri, the father of the deceased and P.W. 4, Janki Devi, mother of the deceased are the only witnesses of the occurrence because they were only family members present in the house. P.W. 2 and 4 both of them had consistantly stated that in the relevant night her daughter Kamala Devi and her husband (appellant) were together in the bed room and in the mid night they heard an alarm of their daughter and she was crying for help so they rushed to the bed room and in the electric light they had seen the appellant giving blows by knife and the moment he had seen them he had thrown knife in that very room and escaped from another door and then they raised alarm and the people assembled and on fear of being apprehended the appellant jumped in a well. It is also their evidence that they immediately removed the daughter to R.M.C.H. for treatment where she died at about 2.30 A.M. or so during the course of treatment and the police was also informed in the night itself and in the morning at about 7.30 A.M. or so the police from Chutia P.S. came rescued the appellant from the well and he was taken into custody and fardbeyan of P.W. 2 was recorded. It is also their evidence that blood stained knife found in that very bed room which was handed over to the police and motive was also alleged and these witnesses had claimed that their daughter was being tortured earlier by her husband and she complained about that and also sent a letter prior to occurrence alleging cruelty and attrocities and apprehension of her life. 5. The (Ext. 7) is the inquest which was prepared by the Investigating Officer on the next morning showing that the deceased had received several knife injuries and a production list (Ext. 8) was also prepared to show that a knife was produced containing blood stained which was found in the bed room itself. It has also come in evidence that appellant made an attempt to escape and while escaping and out of fear he jumped in a well and immediately after the occurrence the police rescured him from the well and took him into custody. P.W. 5 Dr. Tulsi Mahto on 1.6.8.87 itself held autopsy on the deadbody of the deceased and found as many as 5 stab injuries and the injury Nos. 4 and 5 were on the abdomen and on the chest which were serious and according to Doctor these injuries were sufficient to cause death within 6 to 24 hours. P.W. 5 Dr. Tulsi Mahto on 1.6.8.87 itself held autopsy on the deadbody of the deceased and found as many as 5 stab injuries and the injury Nos. 4 and 5 were on the abdomen and on the chest which were serious and according to Doctor these injuries were sufficient to cause death within 6 to 24 hours. So the evidence of the two eye witnesses who were expected to remain present at the time of occurrence coupled with the production of the weapon used by the appellant i.e. knife and the post-mortem indicating that the deceased was given several blows by knife some time in the mid night of 14/15-8-1987 and above all the apprehension of he appellant itself near the P.O. from well by the police immediately after the occurrence clearly proves his presence in the house of the in-laws where the occurrence took place and all these facts clearly prove without any shadow of doubt that the appellant at the time of occurrence came to the house of the in-laws and he was sleeping with her wife and in the mid night gave several blows by knife in such a way that it can be safely inferred that his sole intention to commit the murder of the deceased. The motive as alleged is also well proved because it is the consistant evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 4 that the appellant used to ill treat his wife and Ext. 4 is the letter written by the deceased herself and the contents of the letter also indicate that it was written from her matrimonial house intimating that she was under great mental agony and she was living consistantly under threat and attrocity. This indicate that relation between husband and wife was not co-ordial rather it can be said strained which resulted in this occurrence. 6. This indicate that relation between husband and wife was not co-ordial rather it can be said strained which resulted in this occurrence. 6. The learned Counsel for the appellant in order to make out a case of legal insanity, contended that though there is ample evidence on the record to show that this occurrence took place but under the circumstances and also as the occurrence took place all in sudden and the appellant was not of sound mind and he was incapable of knowing offence, if any, alleged to have been committed and thus, in view of the provision of Sec. 84 of the I.P.C. the appellant is not liable to be convicted for any of the offence alleged to have been committed while under the influence of legal insanity. Sec. 84 is in exception of Chapter of Penal Code and according to the provision nothing is offence which 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 he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. So if any offence is committed by a insane that too of that nature that the person concerned was not in a position to understand about the consequences of his criminal action then the exception as laid down under Sec. 84 of the I.P.C can be claimed by any accused but initially the burden of proving that the accused was insane that too legal insanity is on the accused itself. No doubt the burden of proof is not so high which is expected from the prosecution for proving the guilt but in order to satisfy the court and to avoid a clear licence to the wrong doers and to claim exception very liberally under this provision of law definitely the accused has to prove the legal insanity otherwise temptation will be to commit the offence and a protection night be claimed and so the provision clearly indicates that this exception can be claimed only by legal proof that too whether the accused was suffering from legal insanity at the time of occurrence itself. 7. 7. In the instant case suggestion was only thrown to witnesses that the appellant was insane right from year 1985 itself and he was under the treatment of the expert doctor and admittedly occurrence took place in the night of 14/15-8-1987 but surprisingly not a single prescription or any evidence was adduced to show that at the time of occurrence or prior to occurrence the appellant was of unsound mind or undergoing any treatment. It appears that long after this occurrence and when the accused in custody and when the trial of the Sessions case was taken up at the instance of the appellant that too in March, 1989 the appellant was referred to mental hospital where he was treated by Dr. Chakraborty and some prescriptions and certificates which are Exts. A, 3 and C were proved by formal witnesses i.e. D.Ws. 1 and 2. Any of the doctors who treated the appellant had not been examined. Further more practically there is nothing on the record to show that the appellant was insane at the time of occurrence or even prior to that only in the year 1989 this plea that too at the time of trial in the Sessions court, was taken. If that is so it can be said that this plea was taken subsequently and definitely at the time of occurrence practically there is nothing on the record to justify the claim of the appellant that he was insane and legally entitled for protection under Sec. 84 of the I.P.C. 8. Further more the court is required to record a finding of legal insanity and for that the action, conduct and circumstances are to be enquired to arrive at a conclusion. Mere plea or the manner of assault or the brutality of the assault that too of all in a sudden, will not lead to any conclusion that the accused was legally insane because the principles laid down on this point by the Apex Court that even the severity or brutality of the assault cannot be recorded as the only test of insanity only for the apprehension that in that situation the harden criminal will be tempted to commit offence in a very brutal fashion showing insanity. No doubt there are several blows by knife but from that it cannot be inferred that the appellant was insane. No doubt there are several blows by knife but from that it cannot be inferred that the appellant was insane. On the other hand, his conduct was that of a very natural person. He was behaving quite normal prior to occurrence according to P.Ws. 2 and 4 and very fact that in the mid night by concealing a weapon, clearly indicates that he was very much conscious that the knife is a weapon of offence. An insane person generally will not bring, that too by way of concealment of any weapon rather he will use any weapon or any article which he will get at the time of occurrence. The conduct of insane in all natural probability will be not to escape and to avoid his apprehension rather he will commit violence not to a particular person or a man but to any person who will come in the way. In the instant case the appellant simply committed the murder of his wife that too by a knife which he brought in the late hour of the night and the moment he had seen witnesses he wanted to escape and his conduct was that of a normal criminal. 9. Considering the circumstances in which offence was committed and the conduct of the appellant clearly indicates that he was not insane at the time occurrence. Under the circumstances we are of opinion that plea of legal insanity of the appellant had not been proved at all rather from Ext. 4 and the evidence of the witnesses it can be said that the appellant was in the habit of torturing his wife. 10. If the plea of insanity fails then the alleged occurrence and the charges under Sec. 302 of the I.P.C. as against the appellant is well proved. In that view of the matter, we are of opinion that there is no merit in this appeal and so the appeal is dismissed and the judgment of conviction and sentence as recorded by Smt. Shakuntala Sinha, 7th Addl. Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in S.T. No. 100/88 is hereby confirmed and maintained.