Raman Nayar, J.-The accused in this case has been convicted of the murder of his wife and has been sentenced to death. The learned Sessions Judge has submitted the proceedings for confirmation of the sentence of death while the accused has appealed. The accused and the deceased and their children were living in Kothayur in the village of Vaniyamkulam near Ottapalam. The deceased’s brother P.W. 1 was living with his wife and children not far away. About 4 or 5 months before the occurrence (which took place at about 9 a.m. on the 26th February, 1957), the deceased and P.W. 1’s wife fell out, and they were on bad terms with each other thereafter. About 6 weeks before the occurrence, two members of the P.W. 1’s family fell ill and a few days later, one of the accused’s children took ill with fits. The accused and P.W. 1 consulted an astrologer, P.W. 8, who opined that the trouble was due to black magic practised as a result of the enmity between the two women. It was suggested by the accused that the black magic must have been practised by P.W. 1’s wife; but P.W. 1 did not agree and they decided to consult one more astrologer in the matter. This consultation was done on the eve of the occurrence. The accused himself was not present, but his brother P.W. 4, was, and the astrologer consulted, P.W. 9 confirmed the opinion of P.W. 8 and also appears to have suggested that it was the accused’s wife, namely, the deceased, that had practised the black art. This information was carried by P.W. 4 to the accused early next morning i.e., on the morning of the occurrence. At the time of the occurrence, the deceased was collecting dry leaves near P.W. 3’s house which is marked ‘E’ in the plan, Exhibit P-5. P.W. 1 was at that time engaged in tapping sweet toddy somewhere near the point ‘B’. The accused passed through the adjourning paramba where he used to tap toddy and went up to the deceased and took her to the point ‘A’, about 2 furlongs away, saying that her brother wanted her. This is spoken to by P.W. 3 who did not, however, see the actual occurrence. The accused passed through the adjourning paramba where he used to tap toddy and went up to the deceased and took her to the point ‘A’, about 2 furlongs away, saying that her brother wanted her. This is spoken to by P.W. 3 who did not, however, see the actual occurrence. Then, when he reached the point ‘A’ the accused suddenly whipped out his tapper’s knife M.O. 1, from its wooden sheath, M.O. 2 strung to his waist, and cut the deceased on the neck crying out at the same time to P.W. 1 that he was thereby putting an end to all the trouble which P.W. 1’s family had had from his wife. He delivered two more cuts and severed the head from the body. This was seen by P.W. 1 and by P.W. 1’s daughter, P.W. 2 who had gone there to take home the toddy tapped by her father. P.W. 1 sat down in fright while P.W. 2 ran home and broke news to the inmates of her house. The accused proceeded from the spot towards Ottapalam carrying the severed head by the tuft. On his way, he met among other persons, P.Ws. 5 and 6. To both of them he said that the head was the head of his wife whom he had killed. The reason he gave to P.W. 5 was that she had practised black magic against her brother’s family; but to P.W. 6 it was that his brother-in-law and the latter’s wife had practised black magic against his own family and made it difficult for him to live. When the accused reached Ottapalam, P.W. 15, the Inspector of Police, who was going that way saw him, and stopped and questioned him, and then arrested him. He seized the head which the accused was carrying as also the blood stained tapper’s knife, M.O. 1, and the sheath M.O. 2 which the accused had in his waist. He next recorded a statement from the accused on which the case was registered and investigated. No witnesses were examined for the defence; and throughout in his statement in the committing Magistrate’s Court, in his statement at the trial, and in his memorandum of appeal, the accused has affirmed the truth of the prosecution case and admitted that he cut and killed his wife in order to put an end to the trouble she had been giving. In the memorandum of appeal which has been submitted from jail, he has added that his wife was immoral and that he was egged on to the act by P.W. 1; but no serious attention need be paid to this allegation. What was argued on behalf of the accused at the trial, by the learned counsel engaged for him by the State, was that Exception 1 to section 300, Indian Penal Code would apply to reduce his offence from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This argument was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge and, in our opinion, rightly rejected. It might be that the information given to the accused by his brother that the astrologer had said that it was the deceased that had practised the black magic provoked him against the deceased; but the provocation that it caused, even if it is to be regarded as given by the deceased could not have been so grave as to bring Exception 1 into play. Moreover, there was no suddenness at all about his conduct following the provocation. He proceeded some distance to the place where the deceased was working and then took her a distance of about 2 furlongs before he proceeded to kill her. This shows a certain degree of deliber-ateness and premeditation which precludes the application of the Exception referred to What is now argued on behalf of the accused, by the learned counsel engaged for him by the State, is that the conduct of the accused betrays an unsound mind and brings him within section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. We do not agree. There is neither plea nor evidence in support of this argument. There is no evidence to show that the accused was of unsound mind either before or at the time of the offence or even after, and we cannot subscribe to the argument that it was for the prosecution to let in evidence on the point and prove affirmatively that the accused was throughout of sound mind. Soundness of mind is presumed and section 105 of the Evidence Act makes it clear that the burden of proving such insanity as would bring the case within section 84 of the Indian Penal Code lies on the defence. Soundness of mind is presumed and section 105 of the Evidence Act makes it clear that the burden of proving such insanity as would bring the case within section 84 of the Indian Penal Code lies on the defence. It is true; that the accused’s conduct was not that of a normal reasonable man, but that by itself, would be no ground for thinking that he acted under an insane impulse which so deprived him of his reason as to make him unaware of the nature of the act he was doing or that what he was doing was wrong or contrary to law. On the other hand, his conduct in fetching the deceased from the place where she was working on the pretext that her brother, P.W. 1, wanted her and then, after killing her, proceeding to Ottapalam for the purpose (as the evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 6 shows) of surrendering before the authorities proclaims that he knew exactly what he was about and that what he was doing was wrong. The fact that the accused had been living on loving terms with his wife and that, apart from his belief about the black magic he had no motive to do away with her, is again no reason for thinking that he acted while of unsound mind. It is true that such a motive would not impel an ordinary man to this kind of act. But perfectly sane men are often impelled to grave crimes like murder by the most irrational of motives; to a man of the accused’s education and belief the motive must have been pressing and real; and unless there were other circumstances indicative of unsoundness of mind (which there were not) we do not agree with the learned counsel for the defence that it was the duty of the investigating officer or of the Court to have sent the accused for medical observation. Every crime is, to some degree or other, the result of some abnormality of mind; but to argue from the abnormality or, to a dispassionate mind, the meaninglessness of an offence, that the man who comitted the offence must have acted while of unsound mind is, we think, most dangerous. Every crime is, to some degree or other, the result of some abnormality of mind; but to argue from the abnormality or, to a dispassionate mind, the meaninglessness of an offence, that the man who comitted the offence must have acted while of unsound mind is, we think, most dangerous. That the accused deliberately and intentionally killed his wife by cutting and severing her head from her body is amply established by the evidence and was, as we have said, admitted by him. We can find nothing in mitigation of the offence or even of the sentence to be awarded to him. It is a most unfortunate case, but the enormity of an offence cannot be its own mitigation. In the result, we confirm the conviction and the sentence recorded against accused and dismiss his appeal. M.C.M. ----- Conviction and sentence confirmed.