Ramaswami, J.- This appeal is preferred against the conviction andsentence by the learned Sessions Judge of Coimbatore Division in Session CaseNo. 91 of 1959. The accused aged about 22 at the time of the trial, married P.W. 2 Suppayalin 1956 or 1957. P.W. 2 continued to live with her father in Perunthalayur onaccount of the fact that the accused was a peripatetic cook. The accused wasemployed in Gopichettipalayam as a cook under D.W. 1 and used to visit his wifeoff and on. On Monday (30th March, 1959) the accused visited his wife and remained in hisfather-in-law’s house in the night. On the morning of Tuesday (31st March,1959) his father-in-law went out for work. The accused P.W. 2, her youngersister Kannal (P.W. 11) and the deceased female child aged about seven monthswere in the house. The accused asked P.W. 2 to go with him and P.W. 2 repliedthat she would do so after her father returned. Then the accused asked P.W. 2 toprepare hot water. P.W. 2 therefore went out to fetch water from the river, twomiles away , and P.W. 11 went out to play with her playmates. On P.W. 2returning home she found the accused and the child missing. P.W. 2 searched for her husband and the child high and low. They were not tobe seen. On Wednesday (1st April, 1959) Marimuthu (P.W. 3), Ponnayal (P.W. 4)and P.W. 2 went to the accused’s native place, Kanjikoil. The accused wasthere. On being questioned, the accused kept quiet for a time and then told themthat he handed over the child to some one in Kavundanpatti but he would neithergive the name nor even the description of person, viz., whether thatperson was a male or a female even. P.W.s 2 to 4 then went to Kavundanpatti. Ontheir way they were informed that a dead child was floating in a well inChettikattu Thottam. P.Ws. 2 to 4 went to the well and found the child lyingdead, covered with straw, on the steps of the well. How this came to light was in this wise. On 31st March, 1959, in the eveningP. W. 7, Elaya Goundan, had seen a female child floating in the well in hisChettikattu Thottam. He did not know whose child it was. How this came to light was in this wise. On 31st March, 1959, in the eveningP. W. 7, Elaya Goundan, had seen a female child floating in the well in hisChettikattu Thottam. He did not know whose child it was. Therefore, he took thechild and laid it on the steps, covered her with straw and went and reported thematter to the Village Munsif of Pallapalayam, P.W. 8: vide Exhibit P-2.The Village Munsif sent the usual reports to the Police and Magistracy. TheSub-Inspector of Police (P.W. 13) who had received the report at 9-40 a.m. on1st April, 1959, visited the scene at 12 noon and saw the child on the stepscovered with straw, held the inquest and handed over the body for post mortemexamination. He arrested the accused at 5-30 p.m. on the same day and tracedKuppayammal (P.W. 6) on the information given by the accused. P.W. 6 tells usthat the accused went to her house on the date of occurrence (31st March, 1959) and fed the child with the milk given by P.W. 6. The Police also traced P.W. 5 who, on Tuesday (date of occurrence) at 10 am. while returning from Kavundapatti Hospital, saw the accused going with the child, carrying her on her shoulder. On 1st April, 1959 at 9 a.m. the accused had gone to Muthuswami Goundan (P.W. 9) a respectible agriculturist and in the presence of P.W. 10 confessed to him (P.W. 9) that he had thrown the child in the well and when questioned by P.W. 9 why he did so, the accused replied that he used to be deranged in his mind twice or thrice in a week and did not know what he did. But there is no doubt when P.W. 13 arrested the accused on 1st April, 1959, he was perfectly normal and gave information leading to the discovery of P.W. 6. This is all the prosecution case and the accused has admitted that he was in his father-in-law’s house on the night of 30th March, 1959 and, that he fed the child with the milk given by P.W. 6. He stated that he does not know what took place on the morning of Tuesday in his father-in-law’s house or what he told P.W. 9 and does not remember what he told P.Ws. 2 , 3 and 4. He stated that he does not know what took place on the morning of Tuesday in his father-in-law’s house or what he told P.W. 9 and does not remember what he told P.Ws. 2 , 3 and 4. He denies having pointed out P.W. 6 to P.W. 13 and added that he does not know if he was normal when he was questioned by P.W. 13. The accused also examined his former master as D.W. 1 who stated that about one year back the accused was found not to sleep or take food and sold his wife’s jewels and kept the money without spending the same and would not answer questions or would monotonously repeat that he does not know anything. Then the accused is said to have become normal after Doctor Sengottayan treated him. But naturally this witness cannot say anything regarding the mental condition of this accused after he left his service in November, 1958. This occurrence had taken place at the end of March, 1959. The prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the murder of his own child by throwing it into the well in Chettikattu Thottam and it is unnecessary to repeat the evidence which has been set out above and which conclusively brings home the guilt to the accused. The only point for determination is whether the accused is entitled to the benefit of section 84, Indian Penal Code. There can be no doubt that the accused was prefectly sane when he was arrested and secondly, when he was kept under medical observation in the Central Jail after the committal and before trial in the Sessions Court and during the trial in the Sessions Court. But this does not solve our problem, because we must find out whether the accused was sane or insane at the time of the commission of the offence. There is no rule that once insane always insane or that now sane, he must have been sane before. But unfortunately there are no materials in this case whatsoever for making out the plea of insanity so as to attract the provisions of section 84, Indian Penal Code. The burden of proof under section 84, Indian Penal Code, is clearly on the accused. No doubt this plea can be made out not only by independent evidence but also by circumstantial evidence and admissions elicited from prosecution witnesses. The burden of proof under section 84, Indian Penal Code, is clearly on the accused. No doubt this plea can be made out not only by independent evidence but also by circumstantial evidence and admissions elicited from prosecution witnesses. It is necessary for the application of section 84, Indian Penal Code, to show that (a) the accused was insane; (b) he was insane at the time when he did the act and not merely before or after the act; and (c) as a result of the unsoundness of the mind he was incapable of knowing the nature of the set or that he was doing what was really wrong or contrary to law. In this case the evidence of D.W. 1 shows that he does not know the mental condition of the accused after November, 1958. It is true that the wife of the accused says that when she and others questioned the accused regarding the child he appeared not to be in his senses. But this was after the commission of the offence. The wife no doubt obligingly adds that the accused was not in a normol condition when he asked her to prepare hot water and that the accused on the previous night had not taken food. But this is clearly a development because if that were so, she would not have left the child solely in the custody of the accused and left for the river, two miles away. On the other hand, she would have made arrangements for an elderly person to do what is called baby-sitting. In regard to the accused not taking food on the previous night, there has been no mention of it earlier. On the other hand, the suggestion of the wife is that some sort of love-potion deranging the mind might have been administered in the food given by her cousin Lakshmi to this accused, who is said to have been taking food in her house and with whom, the wife says, she was not on talking terms. The sum-total of the evidence of the wife is that the accused was behaving queerly. But this queer behaviour will not amount to insanity contemplated under section 84, Indian Penal Code. In fact, it is to meet such contingencies that the English Homicide Act, 1957, has introduced the principle of diminished responsibility and conviction for manslaughter and lesser penalties. The sum-total of the evidence of the wife is that the accused was behaving queerly. But this queer behaviour will not amount to insanity contemplated under section 84, Indian Penal Code. In fact, it is to meet such contingencies that the English Homicide Act, 1957, has introduced the principle of diminished responsibility and conviction for manslaughter and lesser penalties. The learned Sessions Judge is undoubtedly correct in holding that he cannot say that in the circumstances the accused has brought himself within the ambit of section 84, Indian Penal Code. The. point is concluded by authority. Inadequacy of motive no doubt standing by itself is no proof of insanity. In Ram Sundar Das v. Emperor1 and Dewa Ram v. Emperor2, it was held that where an accused murdered his wife and child and it was proved that he was of somewhat unbalanced mind on different occasions and showed characteristics, many of which were not normal, these facts coupled with a lack of motive were not sufficient to bring the case of the accused under section 84, Indian Penal Code. In Inayat v. Emperor3, where the accused was not insane before or after the crime but the murder was motiveless, it was held that this by itself was not sufficient to bring the case under section 84, Indian Penal Code and that the accused is guilty of murder. In Local Government v. Sitrya4, where the accused killed three of his children and there was no apparent motive for the crime, it was held that some mental derangement must be inferred but that by itself would not be sufficient to bring his case within section 84, Indian Penal Code. In Mitha v. Emperor5, and Emperor v. Bahadur6, where an accused, an affectionate father, killed his two children for no apparent motive and it was in evidence that shortly before the occurrence the accused was mad and used to talk incoherently and abusively to all, it was held that the accused was guilty of murder. Therefore, we confirm the conviction and sentence. The learned Sessions Judge has recommended to the Government in the exercise of their prerogative under section 401, Criminal Procedure Code, to reduce the sentence. Therefore, we confirm the conviction and sentence. The learned Sessions Judge has recommended to the Government in the exercise of their prerogative under section 401, Criminal Procedure Code, to reduce the sentence. We support the recommendation and also suggest that the accused may be kept in the Mental Hospital for a period in order to find out whether it would be safe to release him on such terms as the Government may think fit so that we may be assured that further lives may not be endangered by such homicidal fits. On the basis of the medical report the sentence may be reduced. V.S. ----- Order accordingly.