ORDER R.P. Gupta, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 12-6-1996 in Cri. Appeal No. 6/94 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner, against judgment of conviction passed by the C.J.M. Tikamgarh in Cr. Trial No. 357/93. He was found guilty of offence punishable under section 224, Indian Penal Code that is absconding from jail custody while he was a prisoner under trial in custody on charge of an offence punishable under section 302, Indian Penal Code in Session Trial No. 61/92 of district Tikamgarh. He was standing trial in the Court of First Addl. Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh. 2. While in custody, this accused was brought to Rajendra Hospital, Tikamgarh for certain medical investigation and treatment. It had been noticed that he had developed insanity of mind and may be some other ailment. He was examined in the hospital, on 29-1-1993, but, that very day when there were not sufficient guards on duty and when the guard on duty went for urination in the morning, this accused escaped after opening his hand-cuffs. He, however, surrendered himself on 1-2-1993 before the police. 3. On the basis of evidence produced by prosecution which consisted of the guarding constables who had kept watch over him in the hospital and the record under which he was brought to Rajendra Hospital for medical investigation and treatment and also on the basis of medical evidence and entry while he was in hospital, it was found that he committed the offence. His plea was that he was of unsound mind and did not know how he went away from the hospital and what he thought about it, he had gone to Gwalior and there he learnt after some treatment that in fact he had come from the Rajendra Hospital. These defence pleas were not accepted. The Appeal Court confirmed the finding of the C.J.M. on this aspect and so confirmed the judgment of conviction. The sentence imposed was of R.I. for 9 months. 4. In the present revision petition the main point urged is that PW 5 Dr. Choudha had admitted that this accused had been examined by him and was found to be of unsound mind for which he gave treatment, that was before 29-1-1993 and the accused was sent to Rajendra Hospital for treatment for his ailment of unsound mind. 4. In the present revision petition the main point urged is that PW 5 Dr. Choudha had admitted that this accused had been examined by him and was found to be of unsound mind for which he gave treatment, that was before 29-1-1993 and the accused was sent to Rajendra Hospital for treatment for his ailment of unsound mind. He was also referred to Gwalior Hospital according to that witness, even the Jailor was produced by the accused as DW-1 and he proved that the accused had developed unsoundness of mind those days and was treated for the same. The accused said in his statement that he did know about having run away in the hospital as his mind was not sound at that time. The plea taken is that these facts should have been accepted by the trial Court and the Appellate Court, but, have been rejected or ignored without sufficient reason. The accused has been able to bring on record sufficient material to show that he was of unsound mind on 29-1-1993. 5. This Court, with the assistance of counsel for the parties, has perused the record of the trial Court and the evidence of witnesses particularly the statement made by PW-5 Dr. Choudha and DW-1 the Jailor. Dr. Choudha had examined this patient on 29-1-1993 and found some throat glands enlarged and in order to find out what was the cause of those enlargement, he was sent to Rajendra Hospital. He was complaining of weakness and loss of appetite. The Doctor admitted in Cross-examination that this accused was under his treatment since before that day and had been suffering from mental illness since before that day. The Doctor had examined this accused twice or thrice earlier and found him mentally unbalanced and had referred him to Gwalior for his treatment for mental illness. The accused used to behave like an unsound person whenever he appeared for medical investigation or treatment. Even the Courts have ordered before 29-1-1993 that this accused be examined on different dates at Tikamgarh Hospital. The witness deposed that in examination he found this accused in mentally unsound condition. This evidence is to be considered along with the evidence of DW-1 Shri B.K. Bajpai, the Jailor. Even the Courts have ordered before 29-1-1993 that this accused be examined on different dates at Tikamgarh Hospital. The witness deposed that in examination he found this accused in mentally unsound condition. This evidence is to be considered along with the evidence of DW-1 Shri B.K. Bajpai, the Jailor. According to him from the medical report on 15-2-1992 the accused was found mentally ill and the Doctor had advised that he be sent to Gwalior Hospital for treatment of his mental illness. He used to behave like a mad person. He was treated at Gwalior for this illness. 6. A perusal of the judgment of C.J.M. as well as of the Appellate Court shows that no weight has been given to this evidence of the Doctor or of the Jailor. Why this evidence is ignorable is not mentioned in the judgments. So the judgments are in total neglect of this material evidence. 7. It is material to keep in mind that this accused allegedly escaped on 29-1-1993 and presented himself before the police on 1-2-1993, that is within three days. He was mentally ill and even few days earlier he was found mentally ill by Doctor Choudha. He has been behaving like an unsound minded person and he was treated for mental illness in Gwalior Hospital. So sufficient material has been brought on record that during that period he was mentally ill. An accused need not prove beyond doubt such defence. If he is able to show by weight of evidence reasonable probability that he did not understand what he was doing at the relevant time, he deserves benefit of exception under Section 84 of Indian Penal Code. The present petitioner is certainly entitled to protection of that provision in view of the evidence on record. 8. In view of the above discussion, the judgments of conviction and sentence of both the Courts-below are set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the charges. The revision petition is allowed. Petition allowed