JUDGMENT : Pasayat, J. - In this appeal from jail conviction for commission of offence punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'IPC') and sentence of imprisonment for life as imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada, are challenged by Bhima Charan Mohanta (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused'). 2. Case of the prosecution leaving out unnecessary details is as follows: On 15.8.1983 in the afternoon, Surendra Mukhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') and his son and daughter-in-law were skinning a dead cow near Kundhei jungle. Suddenly accused came there and dealt one axe blow on the hand of the deceased. Thereafter when the deceased tried to run away, the accused chased him and dealt several blows on his head and other parts of the body which resulted in his instantaneous death. After dealing the blows, the accused dragged the body of the deceased inside the jungle, concealed it and the axe. Investigation was undertaken on the basis of report lodged at the police station. P.Ws. 1 and 2, who are son and daughter of the deceased respectively, were claimed to be eye-witnesses. Placing reliance on their evidence, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused-appellant guilty. During trial, a plea was taken that the provisions of Section 84, IPC apply to the facts of the case, as the accused-appellant was insane. Learned trial Judge observed that though during the course of hearing, the accused was found to be of unsound mind, but there was no material to show that at the time of commission of offence the accused suffered from any insanity. 3. In support of the appeal, Mr. Anil Deo reiterated the plea relating to applicability of Section 84, IPC. Learned Counsel for the State supported the judgment. 4. Law relating to applicability of Section 84, IPC is fairly well settled. The policy of the law is to control not only the sane, but so far as is possible, also the insane. It is not, therefore, every person mentally diseased who ipso facto, is exempted from criminal responsibility. Such exemption is allowed only where the insane person is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. Section 84 lays down the legal test of responsibility in cases of alleged unsoundness of mind. Such exemption is allowed only where the insane person is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. Section 84 lays down the legal test of responsibility in cases of alleged unsoundness of mind. It is by this test, as distinguished from the medical test that the criminality of an act is to be determined. 5. Section 84 provides that a man who is, by reason of unsoundness of mind, prevented from controlling his own conduct and deprived of the power of passing a rational judgment on the moral character of the act he meant to do cannot be legally responsible for the act. If a man suffers under a partial delusion only and is sane in other respects he must be dealt with as if the facts with respect to which the delusion existed were real. A man who by reason of mental disease is prevented from controlling his own conduct, and a man who is deprived, by disease affecting the mind, of the power of passing a rational judgment on the moral character of the act he meant to do, is entitled to the benefit of this section. A human creature deprived of reason, and disordered in his senses, is still an animal, or instrument possessing strength and ability to commit violence; but he is no more so than a mere mechanical machine which, when put in motion performs its powerful operations on all that comes in its way, without consciousness of its own effect, or responsibility for them. In like manner, the man under the influence of real madness has properly no will, but does what he is not conscious or sensible of doing and therefore, cannot be made answerable for any consequences. 6. Under Section 84 an accused is protected not only when, on account of insanity he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act, but also when he did not know either that the act was wrong or that it was contrary to law, although he might know the nature of the act itself. 6. Under Section 84 an accused is protected not only when, on account of insanity he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act, but also when he did not know either that the act was wrong or that it was contrary to law, although he might know the nature of the act itself. He is, however, not protected if he knew that what he was doing was wrong, even if he did not know that it was contrary to law, and also if he knew what he was doing was contrary to law even though he did no know that it was wrong. This section deals with the deficiency of the will due to weak intellect. Jurists have given various reasons for the exemption of lunatics or persons of unsound mind from criminal responsibility. It has been said that a mad man is best punished by his own madness. It has been further laid down by Blackstone that a mad man has no will. He is, therefore, in all ages an object of commisseration, but as society has to be protected even against the attacks of a maniac, Section 328 and 329 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short, the 'Code') provided for his detention to prevent mischief. 7. There are certain principles to be borne in mind in applying Section 84, IPC. They are as follows: (a) every type of insanity is not legal insanity; the cognitive faculty must be so destroyed as to render one incapable of knowing the nature of his act or that what he is doing is wrong or contrary to law; (b) the Court shall presume the absence of such insanity; (c) the burden of proof of legal insanity is on the accused, though it is not as heavy as on the prosecution; (d) the Court must consider whether the accused suffered from legal insanity at the time when the offence was committed; (e) in reaching such a conclusion, the circumstances which preceded, attended or followed the crime are relevant considerations; and (f) the prosecution in discharging its burden in the face of the plea of legal insanity has merely to prove the basic fact and rely upon the normal presumption of law that every one knows the law and the natural consequences of his act. There are four kinds of persons who may be said to be non compos mentis (not of sound mind): (1) an idiot; (2) one made non compos by illness; (3) a lunatic or mad man; and (4) one who is drunk. 8. Considered on that background, in the absence of any material to the contrary, finding of guilt and the conviction recorded cannot be faulted. Evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 amply corroborate the prosecution version and nothing has been elicited from their cross-examination to discard credibility of their version. No material whatsoever to bring in application of Section 84, IPC was adduced during trial. The conviction and sentence are accordingly confirmed. 9. Before we part with the case it is to be noted that the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada was directed to report about present mental condition of the accused. Report of the learned Sessions Judge reveals that on a personal contact with the accused and on going through the report of the Jail Medical Officer he was convinced that his present mental condition is unsound. The report of the Jail Medical Officer is also to similar effect. We direct that the accused be treated at a Mental Hospital. After serving out the sentence, his release shall be on the basis of relevant provisions contained in Chapter XXV of the Code. 10. The appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid observations. A. Deb, J. - I agree. Final Result : Dismissed