JUDGMENT 1. - This jail appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.9.96 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sojat in Sessions Case No. 173/92 whereby the appellant has been convicted under S. 302, I.RC. and a sentence of life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, two months' imprisonment has been imposed. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the prosecution of the appellant and the present appeal are as follows : 3. Mangia Ram (PW 7) s/o Late Pokar Ram is resident of village Sardarsarnand. After death of Mangia Ram's mother Smt. Dhalki, Pokar Ram (since deceased) again married Smt. Champa who was already married previously. Accused- appellant Patta Ram is son of Smt. Champa from her former husband and so the appellant Patta Ram is foster brother of Mangaia Ram who was living with his mother Smt. Champa even after Smt. Champa had gone in second marriage with Pokar Ram. 4. At and about the time of fateful incident alleged to have taken place on the right intervening 5th and 6th June, 1997, they were separately living in the village Sardarsarnand itself. Smt. Mangi (PW 5) and Leela (PW 6) are daughters of Mangaia Ram. At about 5 A.M. Smt. Gairki wife of Mangaia Ram and her daughter Smt. Mangi had gone to obey the call of the nature out of their residence in the outskirts of the village. On returning their home, while Smt. Mangi (PW 5) was standing in the chowk of her house, Smt. Gairki, her mother was lying on a cot. The accused-appellant immediately came with an axe and entered their house. He started assaulting Smt. Gairki inflicting repeated blows of axe on Smt. Gairki inflicting repeated blows of axe on Smt. Gairki and, as a result, due to multiple injuries on vital parts of her body, she succumbed to the injuries instantaneously. The accused appellant filed away with the axe. Mangaia Ram (PW 7) who had also gone out to ease himself returned some time after the occurrence and he was told about the incident by Smt. Manghi (PW 5) Leela (PW 6), younger sister of Smt. Mangi, who was also present by the side cf the deceased at the time of the incident, also corroborated statement of Smt. Mangi. Mangaia Ram (PW 7) who had also gone out to ease himself returned some time after the occurrence and he was told about the incident by Smt. Manghi (PW 5) Leela (PW 6), younger sister of Smt. Mangi, who was also present by the side cf the deceased at the time of the incident, also corroborated statement of Smt. Mangi. Mangaia Ram found the dead body of the deceased wife lying in the chowk with multiple injuries and bleeding from the wounds. The neighboured came to the site. Meanwhile, Lakha Ram (PW 8), who is Sarpanch of the village and also Pradhan of the Panchayat Samiti, Soiat, also came to the place of occurrence and he saw the dead body of Smt. Gairki so lying in her house. He was told about the incident by Smt. Mangi. He immediately, on his motor cycle, rushed to the Police Station, Sheopura whereat he lodged written report Ex.P 8 before Chhoga Ram (PW 14), Officer-in-charge of Police Station, Sheopura on 6.6.91 at 6.45 A.M. on which Ex.P 23 FIR under Section 302 I.RC. was registered and investigation was immediately taken up. Chhoga Ram went to the place of occurrence. He found dead body of Smt. Gairki so lying in her house. He immediately prepared Ex.R 2 inquest report as well as Ex.R 1 panchayatnama of the dead body Ex.R 3 and Ex.R 4 site plan and memorandum thereof were prepared. 5. The dead body was subjected to post mortem by Dr. Manas Chakravarti, Medical Jurist, Govt. Hospital, Sojat on 6.6.91 itself and he found the following injuries on the dead body of Smt. Gairki: 1. Lacerated wound-9x7x5 cm Bone deep wound with exposed, trachea, oesophagus larynx. 2 cm above clavicle and sternum and extending 3 cm below chin filled with coagulated blood and contracted skin seen. 2. Lacerated wound-8x3 1/2x3 cm below zygoma Bona extending from malar immunise to It. ear Bone deep with coagulated Blood. 3. Lacerated wound-6x2x1 cm muscle deep 1/2cm above Rt. clavicle. 4. Lacerated wound-4x2x2 cm middle finger, Rt. side anteromedial aspect of middle x proximal phaianx. Bone deep. 5. Lacerated wound-oblique 5x2x3 cm 4 cm below it, scapula extending upto midline post. 6. Lacerated wound-5x2x1 cm skin deep about 2 cm above forehead line It. side. 6. He opined that Smt. Gairki had died because of massive haemorrhage leading her into shock because of multiple wounds described above. side anteromedial aspect of middle x proximal phaianx. Bone deep. 5. Lacerated wound-oblique 5x2x3 cm 4 cm below it, scapula extending upto midline post. 6. Lacerated wound-5x2x1 cm skin deep about 2 cm above forehead line It. side. 6. He opined that Smt. Gairki had died because of massive haemorrhage leading her into shock because of multiple wounds described above. He also seized articles 1 to 5 (vide Ex. R 3) from the dead body. 7. The appellant was arrested vide Ex.P. 10 who was found to be wearing Dhoti (article 6) which appeared to be stained with blood and, accordingly, the same was seized and taken into police custody, vide Ex.P 11. The accused, while in police custody, gave information Ex.P. 22 under S. 27 of the Evidence Act to Chhoga Ram that he had hidden the axe as described therein in the Dhaliya' of his residential house and, consequent upon this information, Chhoga Ram, at the instance of accused himself, recovered axe (article 8) vide Ex.R 9 recovery memo from the said place. The clothes of the deceased as well as Dhoti and the axe suspected to be stained with blood, were duly sealed and placed at the time of their seizure and after having been kept in a duly intact condition, the same were forwarded to the Rajasthan State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur (for short 'the RSFSL, Jaipur) for chemical examination. 8. It transpired during the course of investigation that there were two real sisters of the accused-appellant and Mangaia Ram (PW 7) did not fulfil his social obligations in respect of his foster sisters and this had enraged the accused-appellant which motivated him to have killed Smt. Gairki. 9. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet under S. 302. I.RC. having been filed in the committal court, the case was committed to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Sojat who charged the accused-appellant with commission of offence under S. 302, I.RC. to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and hence the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses who are RW. 1 Kana Ram, RW. 2 Banshi Dass, RW. 3 Himmata Ram, RW. 4 Jassa Ram, RW. 5 Smt. Mangi, RW. 6 Leela, RW. 7 Mangaia Ram, RW. 8 Lakha Ram, PW. 9 Babu Lal, PW. 10 Guman Singh, P.W. 11 Kana Ram, PW. 12 Bhaga Ram, PW. 13 Ayoob Khan , RW. 1 Kana Ram, RW. 2 Banshi Dass, RW. 3 Himmata Ram, RW. 4 Jassa Ram, RW. 5 Smt. Mangi, RW. 6 Leela, RW. 7 Mangaia Ram, RW. 8 Lakha Ram, PW. 9 Babu Lal, PW. 10 Guman Singh, P.W. 11 Kana Ram, PW. 12 Bhaga Ram, PW. 13 Ayoob Khan , RW. 14 Chhoga Ram and RW. 15 Dr. Manas Chakravarti and RW. 16 Amar Singh. 10. The accused-appellant was examined under S. 313, Cr.P.C. and he denied the prosecution story that he had killed Smt. Gairki. He also pleaded that Mangaia Ram and his family members were annoyed with him because of dispute in regard to family property and so they have deposed against him. He further stated that he understand some treatment for his mental ailment/dis-order in the year 1989 when he had to remain admitted to the hospital as an indoor patient and that he was also not medically fit during the summer period. He did not adduce any defence evidence. 11. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial judge, relying on the ocular testimony of RW. 5 Mangi and RW. 6 Leela who were the eye-witnesses of the occurrence along with the medical evidence and the supporting corroborating evidence, held the accused-appellant guilty of the offence charged with and convicted and sentenced him, as above, resulting in present appeal. 12. We have heard the learned Amicus Curiae at length for the appellant as well as the learned PP. for the State and have also gone through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses besides the legality and correctness of the impugned judgment as well as the record of the trial court and the same has been fully considered by us. 13. The learned Amicus Curiae, while assailing evidence of the prosecution witnesses specially that of RW. 5 Mangi and RW. 6 Leela and so also that of P.W. 15 Dr. Chakravarti, submitted that the prosecution has not been able to bring home guilt for commission of murder of Smt. Gairki to the accused-appellant and there are material discrepancies and contradictions in the statements and contradictions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses making them unreliable. 5 Mangi and RW. 6 Leela and so also that of P.W. 15 Dr. Chakravarti, submitted that the prosecution has not been able to bring home guilt for commission of murder of Smt. Gairki to the accused-appellant and there are material discrepancies and contradictions in the statements and contradictions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses making them unreliable. There was no -apparent motive for commission of this heinous offence by the accused-appellant and, instead, P.W. 7 Mangaia Ram did not oblige his foster brother and sister who were living separately and because of this, on account of suspicion, though, as submitted by Mr. Khatri, there could not have been any witness of the occurrence and it was a blind murder having been seen by none including P.W. 5 Mangi and P.W. 6 Leela and that, subsequently, because of difference between Mangaia Ram and the accused-appellant, the letter has been falsely implicated in this case. 14. Therefore, his further submission is that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable manner of doubt that it was the accused-appellant and none else who caused the injuries to the deceased resulting in her death. Besides, he further submitted that the medical Jurist Dr. Chakravarti who performed the post-mortem of the dead body of Smt. Gairki, did not depose that in his opinion, the injuries so found and referred to above on the dead body were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to have caused her death and, consequently, there are no circumstances to conclude that it was a case of culpable homicide amounting to murder and so also the learned trial judge fell into a serious error while holding the accused-appellant guilty of commission of murder. 15. However, the learned PR has vehemently maintained that the impugned judgment resulting in conviction of the appellant does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality or a serious irregularity and the same warrants no interference in this appeal. 16. We have given our considerate thought to the impugned judgment and the evidence and material available in the record of the trial court. 17. The questions that arise for disposal of this appeal are : 1. Whether the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable manner of doubt that the death of Smt. Gairki was a homicidal one much less amounting to a murder simpliciter falling under section 300, I.RC.; 2. 17. The questions that arise for disposal of this appeal are : 1. Whether the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable manner of doubt that the death of Smt. Gairki was a homicidal one much less amounting to a murder simpliciter falling under section 300, I.RC.; 2. in case it was a case of murder, whether it is similarly proved that the appellant alone was the author/perpetrator of the crime; and 3. Whether the appellant has any probable defence to commit the act or his act is covered by any of the exceptions to provide him immunity from criminal liability. 18. We propose to dispose of the same ad verbatim as follows : Re. 1 and 2 19. Since both of these questions are interrelated and, as per convenience, the same are being discussed and decided together. 20. The learned trial judge has relied on the oral testimony of P.W. 5 Smt. Mangi and PW. 6 Leela as eye- witnesses of the occurrence. They are, admittedly, daughters of the deceased mother. 21. The learned Amicus Curiae has attempted to throw a serious challenge to the testimonies of both these witnesses to dislodge their evidence in an attempt to show that there were no witnesses to the actual occurrence and they have been roped in falsely and hence their evidence has been wrongly relied upon and accepted by the learned trial judge. 22. P.W. 5 Smt. Mangi, in her statement dated 13.4.94 when she stated her age to be 20 years at the time of her examination, stated that though she was married at that time but she was, at the time of fateful incident, with her parents, in the morning of 6.6.91 at about 5 A.M., she as well as her mother (deceased) Smt. Gairki got up and both of them went to the outskirts of the village to obey the call of the nature and after a little while they returned the Air home. Her mother was lying on a cot while she was standing in the chowk towards 'poly' (main entrance of the house). Her sister Leela (P.W. 6) was also present by the side of her mother. Her both younger brothers of tender age were asleep. Her mother was lying on a cot while she was standing in the chowk towards 'poly' (main entrance of the house). Her sister Leela (P.W. 6) was also present by the side of her mother. Her both younger brothers of tender age were asleep. The accused-appellant suddenly entered the house being armed with an axe and, without loss of any time, he started assaulting her mother inflicting injuries on her body with the axe. On infliction of first blow by the appellant, she attempted to get up but the accused-appellant went on inflicting repeated blows of axe as a result of which, lastly, her neck was also cut. Her mother fell down bleeding and died instantaneously. Thereafter, the appellant fled away with the axe towards the village pond. She further stated that, after some time, PW. 8 Lakha Ram, who is Sarpanch of the village panchayat and so also (Pradhari of the Panchayat Samiti came on the spot and she narrated the whole incident to Lakha Ram. She further stated that the appellant came to her house to kill her mother to death and hence she was brutally assaulted and killed to death before his retreat. She has also stated that she had signed Ex.R 1 to Ex.R 3 as an attesting witness. 23. RW. 6j Leela, aged 16 years, who was examined on 3.5.93, supporting the aforesaid statement of her elder sister, not only stated that her sister though married, was present at the house of her parents and was standing by the side of her mother at the time of the occurrence. As also stated by Smt. Mangi, she further stated that their father Mangia Ram (PW. 7) had gone to obey the call of the nature in a different direction in the outskirts of the village who returned after some time of the occurrence. She further stated that she had risen up to go to fetch fodder for their cattle. Both her mother as well as Smt. Mangi had returned their house after obeying call of the nature and her mother was lying on a cot. In the meantime, accused-appellant entered their house with an axe and he started assaulting her mother resulting in multiple injuries and her consequential death. She also stated that the accused fled away with his axe towards the village pond. 24. There is no other eye-witness of the occurrence. In the meantime, accused-appellant entered their house with an axe and he started assaulting her mother resulting in multiple injuries and her consequential death. She also stated that the accused fled away with his axe towards the village pond. 24. There is no other eye-witness of the occurrence. Though, as borne out of statements of both the aforesaid witnesses and so also that of RW. 7 Mangia Ram as well as RW. 8 Lakha Ram some minor discrepancies have crept in in there statements whether it was Mangia Ram himself who had reached his house being the place of occurrence prior to arrival of RW. 8 Lakha Ram or that Lakha Ram had reached earlier than Mangia Ram but this discrepancy has been finally set at rest in their subsequent admissions by RW. 5 Smt. Mangi and RW. 6 Leeia while admitting that their father Mangia Ram had reached the place of occurrence before Lakha Ram appeared on the scene. Therefore, looking to the grilling cross-examination of both these witnesses whose testimony appears* to be straight forward, natural and inspires confidence and, besides, it also appears to be quite natural that RW. 7 Mangia Ram returned his house before Lakha Ram had appeared on the scene. 25. The learned Amicus Curiae, while relying on the decision rendered in Smt. Jamni v. State, (1995 (2) WLC (Raj.) 84) , submitted that both these witnesses are not reliable since there are contradictions in regard to number of injuries as well as the manner in which the same were allegedly inflicted on the person of the deceased. Besides, there are also contradictions in regard to arrival of the witnesses on the scene just after the alleged occurrence and that neither RW. 5 Smt. Mangi nor P.W. 6 Leela, in case they were eye-witnesses, attempted to intervene by coming to the rescue of their mother as it could have been their natural conduct and so also they did no cry or shout for help to attract neighboured and the assailant was, as stated by both these witnesses, allowed to go scot-free. Therefore, his submission is that there is no eye-witness of the occurrence. Both these witness of the occurrence. Therefore, his submission is that there is no eye-witness of the occurrence. Both these witness of the occurrence. Both these witnesses being daughters of the deceased are, because of their relationship, highly interested in the deceased and, therefore, there is no other reliable and sufficient evidence to the exclusion of the ocular testimony of these witnesses and hence there is also absence of circumstantial evidence to hold that it was a case of murder simpliciter and the accused-appellant was the perpetrator of the crime and none else. 26. As regards presence of both these eye-witnesses, since the same is most natural and inspires confidence, by no stretch of imagination, it can be held that the presence of daughters at the residence of their parents was unnatural. Though P.W. 5 Smt. Mangi was already married at the time of the occurrence but since the marriage was celebrated not long before the incident and looking to her age, her presence at the house of parents was not unnatural. Though, the learned Amicus Curiae has also attempted to show that looking to the conduct of these alleged eye-witnesses, the presence of Smt. Mangi at the time of the occurrence at her house cannot be believed but, at the end of cross-examination of RW. 6 Leela, it was suggested by the defence that since both Smt. Mangi as well as the witness (Leela) were asleep and so they could not have seen the assailants and they have falsely named the accused-appellant as an assailant of their mother because of dispute regarding family property and this vanishes away the force of arguments so advanced by the learned Amicus Curiae in regard to presence of RW. 5 Smt. Mangi. 27. PW. 5 Smt. Mangi stated that the accused inflicted four injuries on the person of her mother. The first blow was inflicted on her temporal region of the skull, the second blow was given below her ear and while third and fourth blows fell on her neck and rest of the injuries were inflicted while she was lying on the ground. RW. 6 Leela stated that the accused-appellant inflicted first blow on the head of her mother while she was lying on the cot and while her mother attempted to get up, the accused inflicted two more injuries near her ear on her neck. As a result, her mother fell to the ground and died. RW. 6 Leela stated that the accused-appellant inflicted first blow on the head of her mother while she was lying on the cot and while her mother attempted to get up, the accused inflicted two more injuries near her ear on her neck. As a result, her mother fell to the ground and died. She also stated that fourth blow was given on the shoulder of her mother and that four injuries were inflicted by the appellant. At the same time, she has also stated in her cross-examination that while her mother was so being assaulted brutally she ran out of her house and started shouting. Both of them have clearly stated that the accused-appellant, who was foster brother of their father, had suddenly appeared on the scene and started killing their mother and, as was natural, they were frightened and could not intervene or immediately rush for help by the neighbours. The accused, without loss of any time, had appeared on the scene of occurrence prepared and armed with a deadly weapon being axe and, since it was time between 5 A.M. to 5.30 A.M. as stated by these witnesses and so also borne out of evidence of other witnesses and so also borne out of evidence of other witnesses and there was enough light of other witnesses and there was enough light and opportunity for both the witnesses to have seen sand identified the appellant while he was fatally assaulting their mother and, therefore, there is no substance in the submissions of the learned Amicus Curiae that the assailants could not have been seen and identified at the time of occurrence and because of animosity he has been subsequently roped in. 28. Both these witnesses have also clearly stated that there was no animosity between their family and the accused-appellant. 29. There are minor discrepancies in regard to the actual time when the deceased and RW. 5 Smt. Mangi had returned their house after obeying call of the nature and when the accused appeared on the scene and arrival of RW. 7 Mangia, PW. 29. There are minor discrepancies in regard to the actual time when the deceased and RW. 5 Smt. Mangi had returned their house after obeying call of the nature and when the accused appeared on the scene and arrival of RW. 7 Mangia, PW. 8 Lakha Ram as well as the neighbouring witnesses but, the difference hardly ranges between 15 minutes to 30 minutes and since their mother was, to their utmost surprise and astonishment, brutally killed within no time by none else but by their uncle who is appellant before this court and when the dead body of their mother was lying before them. It is but natural that some discrepancy in regard to actual timings has crept in. They had no axe to grind against the accused-appellant to have falsely implicated him leaving out the real culprit in case it was not the appellant and some body else who had committed the murder of their mother as has been contended by the learned Amicus Curiae. 30. As regards number of injuries found on the dead body of Smt. Gairki, as noticed by P.W. 15 Dr. Chakravarti, Medical Jurist, the injuries described hereinbefore numbering six though described as lacerated wounds were found on the dead body of the deceased but, neither it is natural nor it is probable nor it is the expectancy of the law that the eye-witnesses of the occurrence must necessarily remember and recall all the blows so inflicted regarding their number, manner and seats of the body of the deceased where on they landed. The accused suddenly appeared on the scene and without any loss Of time started assaulting the deceased with the axe causing multiple injuries as a result of which she had fallen to the ground and died which she had fallen to the ground and died instantaneously and hence when this evidence is fully supported by the medical evidence to be discussed hereinafter, the so called discrepancies in regard to the manner, number and seats of injuries as deposed to by the eye-witnesses do not run counter to the medical evidence and, instead, their statements are fully corroborated by the medical evidence. 31. The Medical Officer conducting autopsy on the dead body is expected to thoroughly examine the dead body externally and internally and to find out external as well as internal injuries found of the dead body and, resultantly, RW. 31. The Medical Officer conducting autopsy on the dead body is expected to thoroughly examine the dead body externally and internally and to find out external as well as internal injuries found of the dead body and, resultantly, RW. 15 Dr. Chakravarti also, after thorough examination of the dead body, noted as many as six wounds found on the body of the deceased which have been described as lacerated wounds and the controversy whether any lacerated wound also could have been inflicted by a cutting/sharp weapon like axe has to be taken hereinafter. 32. However, Ex.R 34 post-mortem report shows that there was a wound measuring 6x5 cms. bone deep wound with exposed trachea, oesophagus and larynx 2 cms above clavicie and sternum and extending 3 cms below chin filled with coagulated blood and contracted skin. The post-mortem further showed that the larynx and trachea were divided and cut into pieces. Similarly, injuries No. 2, 3, 4 and 5 were found on the zygoma tic bone, below left maxilla and left side of the fore-head and all these injuries lend substantial corroboration to the ocular testimony of RW. 5 Smt. Mangi and RW. 6 Leela. 33. Therefore, on this ground as well, there is no substance in the attack aimed at the ocular testimony and reliability of these witnesses. 34. As a result, so far as ocular testimony is concerned, the evidence of PW. 5 Smt. Mangi and PW. 6 Leela has been rightly relied upon and accepted by the learned trial Judge. The same is clear, cogent and unimpeachable in regard to killing of their mother and she having died on the spot because of the injuries received in the incident. It is also established that it was a violent and homicidal death as borne out of the evidence of RW. 15 Dr. Chakravarti since the deceased received not less than six injuries on her person including the one resulting in cutting into the pieces the larynx and trachea which resulted from the injuries inflicted on the neck of the deceased and these injuries led to a massive hemorrhage Resulting in immediate shock and, therefore, there is no escape from arriving at the irresistible conclusion that Smt. Gairki (deceased) was assaulted with a deadly weapon and since her vital organs were cut and seriously injured and she died of the same instantaneously. 35. 35. There is no probability or slightest doubt that the deceased could have received injuries resulting in her death in any other manner as opposed to the prosecution story as unfolded in the statements of the aforesaid two eye-witnesses. 36. As a result, the testimony of both these witnesses is fully corroborated by the medical evidence. 37. Besides, RW. 7 Mangia Ram who had returned to his house after the occurrence and so also statements of RW. 1 Kana Ram, P.W. 2 Banshidass, PW. 3 Himmata Ram and RW. 11 Kana Ram who are neighbours of Mangia Ram and have also stated that they had reached the place of occurrence just after the same, lend corroboration to their statements. Besides, P.W. 14 Chhoga Ram, Investigating Officer, who reached the place of occurrence and inspected the site and found dead body of Smt. Gairki lying in the chowk of her house with multiple injuries as are borne out of Ex.R 1 Panchayatnama and Ex.R 2 inquest report which also further gets corroboration from the evidence of RW. 4 Jassa Ram, P.W. 8 Lakha Ram, P.W. 9 Babu Lal as well as PW. 7 Mangia Ram. 38. All these witnesses have further stated that, after the occurrence, they reached the house of Mangia Ram and they told by RW. 5 Mangi, as is also her mstatement, that it was the accused-appellant and none else who had entered her house and fatally assaulted Smt. Gairki resulting in her instantaneous death and the appellant having escaped with the axe from the scene of occurrence before those witnesses appeared on the scene. There is nothing in their statements to show that any of them was deposing witnesses including Pradhan RW. 8 Lakha Ram being Motbirs and independent witnesses and, at the same time, having no grudge or ulterior motive to have falsely named the accused-appellant as perpetrator or the crime, immediately came out with the first version before the Investigating Officer that it was the appellant and none else who had killed Smt. Gairki and, resultantly, their sworn testimony during the course of trial, lends further corroboration to the ocular testimony of PW. 5 Smt. Mangi and RW. 6 Leela. 39. 5 Smt. Mangi and RW. 6 Leela. 39. The learned Amicus Curiae, on the first hand, assailed the evidence of the aforesaid two eye-witnesses on the ground of their relationship with and interested ness in the deceased but, as already concluded hereinbefore, they would be the last persons to heave the real culprit, if any, and to have falsely implicated the accused-appellant. Merely because both these witnesses happened to be relations of and interested in the deceased, that by itself, is never a ground for discarding evidence when their evidence, as concluded above, inspires full confidence after exercising checks and cross-checks to evaluate their evidence with care and caution. 40. As regards the alleged minor contradictions or inconsistencies, in the present situation, there is further guarantee of truthfulness and reliability of both these eye-witnesses and such minor contradictions and inconsistencies and natural specially when both the eye-witnesses because of their mothers having been brutally killed instantaneously before their eyes were in the trauma and the aforesaid witnesses including RW. 7 Mangia flam and P.W. 8 Lakha Ram as well as the neighbours who have also supported the first version of Smt. Mangi, have also fully supported the genesis of the origin of the prosecution case and, therefore, even if there is absence of any circumstances or corroborating evidence, we do not feel any hesitation or reservation is placing implicit reliance on the ocular testimony of RW. 5 Smt. Mangi and RW. 6 Leela. They are innocent rustic village girls and their conduct and the testimony so given before the court does not suffer from any stigma or calls for any reservation while placing implicit faith on their testimony. 41. However, there is also medical evidence in the form of Ex.P. 34 post-mortem report conducted by RW. 15 Dr. Chakravarti and he has left no doubt in his statement that the deceased died because of the injuries including those inflicted on the neck resulting in dividing oesophagus as well as vessels of neck resulting in cutting and dividing into pieces larynx and trachea. 15 Dr. Chakravarti and he has left no doubt in his statement that the deceased died because of the injuries including those inflicted on the neck resulting in dividing oesophagus as well as vessels of neck resulting in cutting and dividing into pieces larynx and trachea. He has clearly opined that as many as six lacerated wounds specially, as referred to above, wound No. 1 and 2 being on the neck which had clearly exposed the trachea, oesophagus and larynx being cut and so also similar wounds having been caused on the right clavicle and below zygoma tic bones extending from malar eminence to left ear. Therefore, the factum of receiving fatal injuries at the hands of the accused-appellant and his having been armed with an axe and infliction of all these injuries as concluded hereinbefore by the accused and none else, Smt. Gairki fell to the ground and after receipt of six injuries, instantaneously died, is fully proved, Ex.R 13 to Ex.R 14 photos, as proved by PAN. 13 Ayub Khan photographer. Therefore, there is no hesitation in concluding that it was the act of the accused-appellant which had resulted in causing fatal injuries specially on the neck of the deceased which was the proximate and direct cause of her death. 42. However, RW. 15 Dr. Chakravarti who performed the post-mortem on the dead body, did state that he found as many as six wounds described as lacerated wounds on the dead body and he had prepared Ex.R 34 post-mortem report but neither the learned A.RR who was prosecuting the case on behalf of the State nor the learned defence counsel asked the medical officer as to whether these injuries signally or cumulatively were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to have caused death and whether the same were caused by any sharp/cutting weapon. Besides, the prosecution did not ask the medical officer nor did not medical officer nor did the medical officer of his own accord, as it was expected from the expert, state that the injuries so received by the deceased were either individually or cumulatively sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to have caused death. 43. Besides, the prosecution did not ask the medical officer nor did not medical officer nor did the medical officer of his own accord, as it was expected from the expert, state that the injuries so received by the deceased were either individually or cumulatively sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to have caused death. 43. However, though the learned Amicus Curiae, while relying on the Single Bench decision of this court in Munna v. The Stale of Rajasthan (1984 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 529 submitted that since the medical officer failed to opine that the injuries so received by the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, and in absence of specific opinion of the medical officer, this cannot be said that either all or any of the injuries so received by the deceased and finding mention in Ex.R 34 post-mortem report was/were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of the deceased and hence his further submission is that in case it is held that the accused-appellant and none else was responsible for killing Smt. Gairki, the act of the accused-appellant did not ravel beyond the ambit of culpable homicide not amounting to murder attracting liability under S. 304 Pt. II, I.RC. only. 44. However, we are unable to subscribe to the submissions so made by the learned Amicus Curiae. As also held in Ramdeo v. The State of U.P (1995 (Supp) (1) SCC 547 , the medical opinion is only opinion evidence and it snot decisive. Where oral testimony of eye-witnesses if found to be truthful, reliable and trustworthy, vague opinion of doctor cannot affect their value end credibility of the prosecution case. 45. As regards evidence of RW. 15 Dr. Chakravarti who has described the injuries as lacerated wounds found on the dead body of Smt. Gairki, was not asked to name the weapon with which all these injuries were caused. The prosecution also did not produce and point out the axe recovered during the course of investigation to the medical officer requiring him to opine as to whether these lacerated wounds could have been caused with the axe (Art. 1) or not. However, as regards the defence, the statement of medical officer has gone completely unchallenged and there is no cross-examination in respect of the statement given in examination-in-chief by the witness. However, as regards the defence, the statement of medical officer has gone completely unchallenged and there is no cross-examination in respect of the statement given in examination-in-chief by the witness. Therefore, when as already hereinbefore, we are convicted on the basis of reliable and credible evidence that the accused-appellant came armed with an axe and, as to be discussed hereinafter, axe (article 1) having been recovered by RW. 14 Chhoga Ram Pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the accused-appellant and the same having been confirmed to be stained with human blood on examination at RSFSL, Jaipur, we do not entertain slightest doubt that the deceased was killed with the injuries having been caused with a weapon like axe which had resulted in cutting trachea, oesophagus and larynx forming part of the neck of the deceased. 46. We may further observe that as the circumstances of the case and so also the aforesaid evidence of the medical officer show, it cannot be said that the said injuries could not have been caused by an axe. The axes are generally used in villages for curring twigs and branches and so they are not sharp objects resembling any sword or knife and hence when, on account of their having been used in cutting hard object, turning/becoming blunt, in case any injury is inflicted with the cutting portion of axe also and the same lands on any hard object such as clavicle, mandible or even tracheal region, even lacerated injuries are possible be caused, in such cases, it is the duty of the court to scrutinise the opinion of the expert tendered in evidence very closely and to find out the basis upon which the opinion was based. After all, it is only an opinion evidence and cannot be safely relied upon unless basis of opinion is found to be firm. However, the experience and competence of the expert will be a factor while appreciating and placing reliance on the opinion of the expert. Presently, as already discussed above, since there is direct evidence regarding commission of the crime and perpetrator of the same and hence this question, lastly, relegates to academic interest only but, as already discussed above and so also supported by RW. 15 Dr. Presently, as already discussed above, since there is direct evidence regarding commission of the crime and perpetrator of the same and hence this question, lastly, relegates to academic interest only but, as already discussed above and so also supported by RW. 15 Dr. Chakravarti, oesophagus, larynx and trachea having been lacerated and cut into pieces which was only possible by infliction of injuries with a weapon like axe, resultantly, blood escaping from cut vessels entering the trachea and windpipe necessarily resulted in causing fatal obstruction to respiration and, resultantly, the direct and proximate cause of instantaneous death of the deceased has been respiratory obstruction and resultant haemorrhage and shock. 47. Therefore, when these vital parts of the body of the deceased were cut and divided into pieces, there could not have been any escape from death and, therefore, the submissions of the learned Amicus Curiae against the cause of death, nature of injuries as well as the weapon with which the same were caused and the consequential result, do not dissuade us from arriving at the part of the accused-appellant who inflicted all these injuries with the axe which has been stated by the eye-witnesses to be in possession of the accused-appellant while he came to the place of occurrence and also when he retreated after finishing Smt. Gairki to death. 48. It is also worthwhile to mention that though the accused-appellant is, admittedly, foster brother of RW. 7 Mangia Ram and both RW. 5 Smt. Mangi and RW. 6 Leela have admitted that there was no animosity of their family with the accused-appellant but, as has been the defence and so also stated by the accused-appellant in his statement under Section 313, Cr.RC., since the natural mother of the accused-appellant, who had begotten the accused-appellant from her former husband, subsequently, contacted 'nata' marriage with the father of RW. 7 Mangia Ram and accused-appellant has also two real sisters and, the grievance of the accused-appellant had been that since RW. 7 Mangia Ram did not fulfil his social and family obligations towards the real sisters of the accused-appellant and hence their relationship were strained. 49. This is the admitted case of the defence and there is no other apparent motive for the appellant. 7 Mangia Ram did not fulfil his social and family obligations towards the real sisters of the accused-appellant and hence their relationship were strained. 49. This is the admitted case of the defence and there is no other apparent motive for the appellant. The prosecution is not required to prove motive in each case for commission of the crime since it is within the exclusive mind and heart of the perpetrator of the crime but even as per admission of the accused-appellant, his relationship with PW. 7 was strained. Though absence of motive is not fatal, neither the same is an ingredient of offence including that of murder but in case the prosecution succeeds in proving motive on the part of perpetrator of the crime, that further lands additional strength to the prosecution story in case the prosecution has been otherwise successful in bringing home guilt to the accused-appellant beyond reasonable manner of doubt as is the case in hand. 50. Accordingly, in our opinion, it was the motive for the accused-appellant which actuated him to seize the opportunity in the dawn of the fateful day finding Smt. Gairki along with her daughters in absence of Mangia Ram who had gone to outskirts of the village to obey the call of the nature, and to have killed her to death inflicting multiple fatal injuries. 51. The learned trial judge also relied on the circumstance of recovery of article-1 axe resulting from discovery statement given by the accused-appellant vide Ex.R 22 to RW. 14 Chhoga Ram. Chhoga Ram has stated that, after arrest of the accused-appellant vide Ex.R 10, as supported by RW. 10 Guman Singh, the accused-appellant was wearing 'Dhoti' (article-6) and the same was seized, packed and scaled vide Ex.R 11 as also supported by RW. 10 Guman Singh. This 'Dhoti' bore some blood stains. 52. So also as per the statements of RW. 14 Chhoga Ram and RW. 8 Lakha Ram as well as RW. 9 Babu Lal Harijan, article-1 axe was recovered, packed and sealed vide Ex.R 9. RW. 14 Chhoga Ram has clearly stated that, pursuant to Ex.R 22 information, the accused led them to his house and brought out and produced the axe before them so sealed vide Ex.R 9 and taken into possession. The same appeared to be blood stained. Lakha Ram also supported this statement. RW. 14 Chhoga Ram has clearly stated that, pursuant to Ex.R 22 information, the accused led them to his house and brought out and produced the axe before them so sealed vide Ex.R 9 and taken into possession. The same appeared to be blood stained. Lakha Ram also supported this statement. Lakha Ram is Sarpanch of the village and also Pradhan of the Panchayat Samiti and hence he is a respectable and independent witness and there are no grounds or any stigma which makes evidence of these witnesses suspicious. RW. 9 Babu Lal has, though declared hostile, also subscribed signature to Ex.R 9 in token of its correctness but, however, while turning hostile to the prosecution he has stated that the axe was lying by the side of the dead body but he further stated that he did not see the axe on the day of the death of the deceased. Apparently, the evidence of RW. 9 Babu Lal Harijan, having turned hostile, does not inspire confidence and we do not hesitate to discard his evidence on the face of reliable, cogent and clear, evidence of RW. 14 Chhoga Ram and P.W. 8 Lakha Ram. 53. Resultantiy, we are in agreement with the conclusion and the finding of the learned trial judge that article-6 'Dhoti' was recovered from the person of the accused-appellant while article-1 axe was recovered on the information of the accused-appellant and the same were stained with blood. They were duly seized, packed and sealed. 54. RW. 14 Chhoga Ram, RW. 16 Amar Singh, who is the then Officer-in-charge of the Malkhana of the Police Station, Sheopura as well as RW. 12 Bhaga Ram, Constable, have clearly deposed that article-6 'Dhoti' and article-1 axe remained duly packed and sealed in an intact condition and so also articles 2 to 5 seized from the dead body of Smt. Gairki by RW. 16 Amar Singh, who is the then Officer-in-charge of the Malkhana of the Police Station, Sheopura as well as RW. 12 Bhaga Ram, Constable, have clearly deposed that article-6 'Dhoti' and article-1 axe remained duly packed and sealed in an intact condition and so also articles 2 to 5 seized from the dead body of Smt. Gairki by RW. 14 Chhoga Ram, as stated hereinbefore, the cloths of the deceased so having been identified by the daughters of the deceased and Mangia Ram himself and further on their being deposited with the RSFSL, Jaipur and the same having been so certified to be received in duly packed and sealed condition, on their chemical examination, as supported by Ex.R 12 receipt thereof and the resultant report Ex.R 35, all the clothes recovered and seized from the body of the deceased being articles 2 to 5 were' stained with human blood. Similarly, article-6 'Dhoti' and article-Kulhadi' so seized and examined were found to be stained with human blood This has been denied by the accused-appellant in a casual manner and he did not explain human blood stains found on the 'Dhoti' which he was wearing at the time of his arrest and so also there is no explanation for his possession of the blood stained axe (article-1) recovered vide Ex.R 9 just after the occurrence. 55. As a result, the prosecution also proved beyond reasonable manner of doubt that the blood stained article- 6 Dhoti' was recovered from the person of the accused-appellant just after the occurrence and so also article-1 axe was also recovered from his possession pursuant to his disclosure statement Ex.R 22 vide Ex.R 9 and these circumstances with the commission of the crime and it further fortifies the ocular testimony of the eye- witnesses. 56. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in the contention of the learned Amicus Curiae against the violent and homicidal death of Smt. Gairki and that too at the hands of the accused-appellant and none else. 57. 56. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in the contention of the learned Amicus Curiae against the violent and homicidal death of Smt. Gairki and that too at the hands of the accused-appellant and none else. 57. As regards absence of statement of medical officer that the injuries so received by the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death to bring the act of the accused within clause thirdly of Section 300 I.RC., though, as already concluded hereinbefore, there is omission but there is no denial from the side of the accused-appellant or any other witness that the injuries resulting in cutting and dividing the vital parts being trachea, larynx and oesophagus (neck) were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Since, resultant and inescapable consequence of the injuries was instantaneous haemorrhage and shock resulting in death and so there was complete respiratory failure and, as a result, there could not have been survival of the victim under any circumstances. 58. Therefore, we do not entertain any doubt in concluding that the injury so received by the deceased on her neck was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause her death which is the direct, proximate and immediate cause of instantaneous death of the deceased and the case of the accused-appellant is covered by clause thirdly of Section 300, I.RC. Besides, clause firstly of Section 300, I.RC. provides that culpable homicide is murder, if the act, by which the death is caused, is done with the intention of causing death. Section 300, I.RC. inter alia provides that except in the cases hereinafter excepted. Culpable homicide is murder in case the act of the accused is covered by any or more of the acts covered by those four clauses. 59. In case, the act is covered by any of the clauses described thereunder except in cases excepted thereunder, apparently, the case of the accused-appellant does not fall within any of the exceptions from 1 to 5 provided thereunder, the same falls under Section 300 I.P.C. simpliciter. 60. The learned Amicus Curiae, while pointing out towards Ex.R 8 report, admittedly, purporting to have been lodged and signed by P.W. 8 Lakha Ram on which RW. 60. The learned Amicus Curiae, while pointing out towards Ex.R 8 report, admittedly, purporting to have been lodged and signed by P.W. 8 Lakha Ram on which RW. 14 Chhoga Ram registered Ex.R 23 formal FIR under Section 154, Cr.RC., submitted that this FIR is nothing but an ante-timed document and the same cannot be admitted as first version of the incident to be used for the purpose of corroboration of the statement of RW. 8 Lakha Ram and as admitted by P.W. 7 Mangaia' Ram as well as RW. 8 Lakha Ram the time "6.45 A.M." as recorded in the aforesaid document has been falsely mentioned by RW. 14 Chhoga Ram and, anyhow, it appears that Lakha Ram reached the police station and orally informed about the incident on which Chhoga Ram immediately reached the place of occurrence and after carrying out investigation on the scene of occurrence, registered FIR. He also further submits that though Ex.R 23 FIR, based on Ex.R 8 report, is stated to have been received and registered at 6.45 A.M. on 6.6.91 itself but it was not before 9.50 of 7.6,91 that the same was received by the Judicial Magistrate, Sojat City and, while, as borne out of Ex.R 23 FIR, the distance between the Police Station Sheopura and the Sojat City is only 8 kms. and there was apparent delay of not less than 27 hours in despatching and delivering FIR in the court of competent Magistrate. These facts cannot be denied by the prosecution. Besides, RW. 7 Mangia Ram stated that the police had reached the placed of occurrence between 8 to 9 A.M. and that he had lodged a written report at the Police Station which was signed by him, at 10 A.M. However, RW. 8 Lakha Ram contrary to the aforesaid facts, as borne out of Ex.R 8 and Ex.R 23, in his cross-examination, stated that he had subscribed Ex.R 8 while sitting at the Police Station itself. He reached the Police Station at 7 or 7.15 A.M. and took about 10 to 15 minutes in completing the same. He submitted this report at about 7.45 A.M. at the Police Station and it was at about 9 A.M. that the police reached the place of occurrence. These inconsistent and contradictory versions as borne out of statements of RW. 7 Mangia Ram and RW. He submitted this report at about 7.45 A.M. at the Police Station and it was at about 9 A.M. that the police reached the place of occurrence. These inconsistent and contradictory versions as borne out of statements of RW. 7 Mangia Ram and RW. 8 Lakha Ram, howsoever bonafide may be, have not been explained either by the prosecution or RW. 14 Chhoga Ram himself who was examined subsequent to the statements of RW. 7 Mangia Ram and RW. 8 Lakha Ram. Resultantiy, this discrepancy cannot be reconciled and undue and unexplained delay in despatching "and delivering Ex.R 23 FIR in the court of Judicial Magistrate at Sojat City further arouse suspicion in regard to whether Ex.R 8 report was lodged at 6.45 A.M. as it purports to be or the same was ante-timed by RW. 14 Chhoga Ram. In absence of any plausible explanation or the circumstances to negate the contention of the learned Amicus Curiae, there is no escape from reaching at the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove that Ex.R 8 was lodged at the Police Station at 6.45 A.M. on 6.6.91 and not thereafter and so the same was not ante-timed inspite of inconsistencies found in the statements of the aforesaid two important witnesses of the prosecution. However, this admission on the part of RW. 7 Mangia Ram as well as RW. 8 Lakha Ram not belie nor does the same detract us from placing reliance on their testimony in other respects. 61. As a result, we find it difficult to accept Ex. R 8 report on which Ex.R 23 FIR was registered to be the first version of the FIR to take the same out of the purview of provisions of Section 162 Cr.p.C., and hence the other possibility cannot be excluded out right that Ex.P 8 report was not presented/procured after investigation was taken up and so Ex.R 8/Ex.R 23 are hit by the provisions of Section 162, Cr.RC. and that is taken out of consideration. However, on consideration of oral testimony of RW. 5 Smt. Mangi and RW. 6 Leela as well as RW. 7 Mangia Ram and RW. 8 Lakha Ram so also corroborated by other witnesses who had turned up on the place of occurrence just thereafter, as discussed hereinbefore, cannot be, on the same ground, held to be tainted or otherwise unreliable. However, on consideration of oral testimony of RW. 5 Smt. Mangi and RW. 6 Leela as well as RW. 7 Mangia Ram and RW. 8 Lakha Ram so also corroborated by other witnesses who had turned up on the place of occurrence just thereafter, as discussed hereinbefore, cannot be, on the same ground, held to be tainted or otherwise unreliable. Resultantly, our finding in regard to admissibility of Ex.R 8/Ex.P 23 has no adverse bearing on our conclusions arrived at hereinbefore. 62. Therefore, we are of the view that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable manner of doubt that the accused- appellant is liable for commission of murder simpliciter and his act is clearly covered by clauses firstly and thirdly of Section 300, I.RC. The Act of the accused- appellant was intentional one to kill Smt. Gairki to death and he went on inflicting number of injuries being not less than six with a lethal and deadly weapon like an axe on an innocent and helpless lady and he left her only after she had died and not before. So also these injuries are apparently found to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and the same did cause instantaneous death of the deceased and there was no intervening fact contributing or leading to death of Smt. Gairki and, therefore, from which ever angle it is viewed, we hold that the accused-appellant is liable for commission of murder of Smt. Gairki and this conclusion of the trial court also does not warrant any interference and so the questions No. 1 and 2 are answered against the accused-appellant and in favour of the prosecution.Re. 3 63. The learned Amicus Curiae, lastly, on the statement of the accused-appellant given under Section 313, Cr.RC., submitted that, as also admitted by RW. 5 Smt. Mangi and RW. 6 Leela, the appellant earlier suffered from mental dis-order/disease and since Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code provides that nothing in an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is in capable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law and, therefore, the accused-appellant cannot be held to be liable for commission of the offence with which he has been charged. 64. 64. Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that when a person is accused of any offence, the burden of proving the Exceptions in the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or within any special exception or proviso contained in any other part of the same Code, or in any law defining the offence, is upon him, and the court shall presume the absence of such circumstances. 65. However, the accused is not required to prove his defence beyond reasonable manner of doubt as is the case with the prosecution in order to bring home guilt beyond reasonable manner of doubt against the accused. The accused, while taking a shelter behind in any of the exceptions as are provided under Section 76 to 106, I.RC., can succeed on the basis of probability thereby creating a suspicion in the case of prosecution. 66. The burden, not being as onerous as on the prosecution, can be discharged by way of preponderance of evidence probabilizing the defence bringing out the circumstances which covered the alleged act of the accused either by leading evidence in defence or by cross- examination of the witnesses examined by the prosecution or from the evidence that has been adduced by the prosecution during the trial. 67. In the instant case, both P.W. 5 Smt. Mangi and PW. 6 Leela were suggested that the accused-appellant previously suffered from some mental disorder and they have very naturally and truthfully admitted that few years before the incident, the appellant suffered from some mental disorder for which it was RW. 7 Mangia Ram himself who had got him treated and cured of the ailment and, thereafter, specially at the time of the incident itself, the appellant did not suffer from any ailment and that he was mentally alright. RW. 7 Mangia Ram was also not cross-examined on this point. There are no other circumstances to show that the accused-appellant was was labouring under any disease of mind which contributed to the commission of murder of Smt. Gairki. At the time of arrest vide Ex.R 10 by RW. 14 Chhoga Ram and so also during the trial, it never appeared nor there was any plea from the side of the defence that the accused-appellant was suffering from any mental disorder or disease either at the time of trial or just preceding the same. At the time of arrest vide Ex.R 10 by RW. 14 Chhoga Ram and so also during the trial, it never appeared nor there was any plea from the side of the defence that the accused-appellant was suffering from any mental disorder or disease either at the time of trial or just preceding the same. Therefore, this plea of insanity is wholly without any foundation and is found to be false and frivolous. The defence ought to have clearly proved that at the time of committing the act, the accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind or insanity, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or, if he did know it that he did not know he was doing what was wrong. If he did know it, he is responsible. Accordingly, the appellant has failed to show that at the time of commission of the act, he by reason of unsoundness of mind, was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he was doing what is either wrong or contrary to law and in its absence the defence plea regarding insanity advanced by the learned Amicus Curiae cannot be entertained. 68. The conduct of the accused-appellant, calculatedly, at the time when usually RW. 7 Mangia Ram could be expected to be absent from his residence having gone to obey call of the nature, there being no other adult male member in the family except the two children of tender age and both the minor daughters of Mangia Ram, he armed himself with an axe and at the time of dawn when presence of no body could have been immediately attracted to intercept the appellant from doing the act, he surreptitiously entered the house of P.W. 7 Mangia Ram and immediately started giving repeated blows on Smt. Gairki in her state of helplessness and he did not spare here even after she had fallen to the ground and started bleeding profusely and breathed her last. It was only after being assured of her death that the appellant, as planned, fled away with the axe from the place of occurrence. He has riot adduced any oral or medical evidence to show that he suffered from any mental disorder during the trial or just preceding to or after the occurrence. It was only after being assured of her death that the appellant, as planned, fled away with the axe from the place of occurrence. He has riot adduced any oral or medical evidence to show that he suffered from any mental disorder during the trial or just preceding to or after the occurrence. Therefore, in absence of any evidence or material on record, the bald plea of insanity of the appellant at the time of the alleged occurrence is held to be without any merit. The prosecution has proved beyond reasonable manner of doubt that the appellant had a guilty mind having criminal intent or awareness of acting illegally and so he is equally liable for commission of murder of Smt. Gairki. 69. Resultantly, the conclusion arrived at by us is that this plea of insanity is nothing but an afterthought and false one and is brushed aside accordingly. 70. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in this appeal and hence there is no justification for interference with the impugned judgment and the order of the learned trial judge. 71. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, this appeal is dismissed and the impugned judgment and order are hereby affirmed.Appeal dismissed. *******