JUDGMENT : B. Panigrahi, J. - This Criminal Appeal assails the order of conviction of the Appellant u/s 302 or the Indian Penal Code passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge. Berhampur in S.C. No. 12 of the 1992 (S.C. No. 176 of 1991 GDC) sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. The brevity of the prosecution story is as follows: The de facto informant's brother Tuku ' Santosh had gone to cut thorn bushes near the mango tope of their village on 23.12.1990 at 3.00 P.M. The Appellant impressed upon the deceased that there was more bushes on the other side of the tope. He also suggested to assist the deceased in cutting the bushes and requested him to go to the other side of the tope. While Tuku ' Santosh followed the Appellant, the later gave number of axe blows on his face, neck etc. as a result of which he sustained injuries and succumbed to the same instantaneously. The friends of the deceased who were at spot, raised shouts which attracted the attention of many other. The persons assembled at the spot apprehended the Appellant. An information was sent to the OIC Pattapur, who registered a case u/s 302, IPC and arrested the Appellant. The Investigating Officer sent the deadbody of Tuku ' Santosh for post mortem examination. The seized articles were also sent for chemical examination and serological test. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was laid against the Appellant. 3. The plea of the Appellant was one of the complete denial of the occurrence and he claimed to have been falsely implicated in the crime. A plea of insanity was however advanced at the time of trial. The defence examined the jail doctor who had treated the Appellant as a witness on its behalf. 4. The prosecution had examined six witnesses of whom P.Ws. 3 and 4 are said to be the occurrence witnesses. P.W.1 was the de facto complainant who lodged the report at the Police Station. P.W.2 was a post occurrence witness. P.W.5 was the doctor and P.W.6 was the Investigating Officer. 5. The fact situation has emerged that the Appellant had inflicted injuries on the person of Tuku ' Santosh by a Kati as a result of which he died. P.Ws. 3 and 4 are eye-witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.2 was a post occurrence witness. P.W.5 was the doctor and P.W.6 was the Investigating Officer. 5. The fact situation has emerged that the Appellant had inflicted injuries on the person of Tuku ' Santosh by a Kati as a result of which he died. P.Ws. 3 and 4 are eye-witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.3 has deposed that around 3.00 P.M. On 23.12.1990 the deceased went to cut thorn bushes with a kati. While he was engaged in cutting the bushes, the Appellant suggested him that more thorn bushes were available inside of the tope. Therefore, if the deceased accompanied him, he would assist him to cut more bushes. Accordingly, both of them went inside the tope. Hardly within 10 to 15 minutes, he heard an outcry "Marigali Marigali' and looked towards the side from which it was coming. He along with his friends found the Appellant giving Kati blows on the chin and throat of the deceased. They rushed towards the spot raising hullah, and after hearing such shout the Appellant entered into the kandulo field. P.W.3 has stated to have witnessed the occurrence from a distance of 40/50 cubits from the place of occurrence. The villagers caught hold of the accused and tied him near a culvert. P.W.3 thereafter came to the spot again and saw that the throat and the chin of Tuku ' Santosh were cut. He was lying dead with bleeding injuries. M.O.III, the weapon of offence, was lying near the deadbody. The police within an hour of occurrence reached the spot. P.W.4 has also deposed in the same manner which reveals the implication of the accused. A combined reading of the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 leaves no room for doubt that the Appellant inflicted Kati blows on Tuku ' Santosh, as a result of which, he immediately collapsed. The shirt, lungi and other clothes said to have been used by the Appellant were stained with blood and his hands were also stained with blood. P.W.2 identified the clothes of the Appellant as M.Os. I & II. From the evidence of P.W.5 it is revealed that the nail clippings of the Appellant stained with blood had also been collected by him on Police requisition. P.W.6 was the Investigating Officer of this case who made the inquest over the deadbody and seized the blood stained earth and sample earth, the Kati and the garments. I & II. From the evidence of P.W.5 it is revealed that the nail clippings of the Appellant stained with blood had also been collected by him on Police requisition. P.W.6 was the Investigating Officer of this case who made the inquest over the deadbody and seized the blood stained earth and sample earth, the Kati and the garments. The seized articles were sent through the J.M.F.C. Aska for chemical analysis and serological test. The blood stains appearing on the nail clippings of the Appellant, on his garments and on the Kati were opined to be human blood of 'B' origin and the same tallied with the blood group of the deceased. The blood stained earthly, half pant, napkin and other garments used by the deceased Tuku ' Santosh were also opined to be containing human blood of 'B' origin. 6. Though the Doctor who conducted the post mortem examination has not been examined in this case, yet the death of Tuku ' Santosh had not been denied. The ocular evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 has conclusively proved that he died of injuries. Thus, non-examination of the doctor is not fatal to the prosecution. Counsel appearing objection regards admissibility post mortem report. Therefore, careful prosecution witnesses, we unhesitatingly Appellant ghastly Tuku Santosh. who did raise consideration hold as learned committed not p was it The murder for also on any that evidence the of Ajaya Mahakud Vs. State of Orissa. We carefully went through the judgment in which a Division Bench of this Court held that it is the duty of the accused to prove his insanity. This Court is only concerned with the legal insanity. During investigation no plea was taken by the Appellant that he was insane. Therefore, the Investigating Agency could not have proceeded in that direction. 8. The defence has not put any suggestion to the prosecution witnesses that the Appellant was suffering from insanity at the time of commission of crime. Thus, we cannot find any fault with the prosecution that it failed to determine the alleged insanity during and at the time of occurrence, in this view of the matter, the judgment cited by the learned Counsel does not come to the rescue of the Appellant. 9. Reliance was also placed by the learned Counsel for the Appellant on the judgment reported in Butu ' Madhua Oram Vs. State of Orissa. 9. Reliance was also placed by the learned Counsel for the Appellant on the judgment reported in Butu ' Madhua Oram Vs. State of Orissa. On a careful reading of the judgment we however, felt that the rationale of the said judgment does not help the Appellant; rather it goes against him. Nothing has come out that the Appellant was insane during the occurrence. No material has been produced by the defence that he was of unsound mind at the time of commission of the offence. Therefore, this judgment too does not help the Appellant. 10. In a judgment reported in 1996 AIHC 189 Dibakar Palsi v. State a Division Bench of this Court presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. Pasayat (as His Lordship then was) held that: It would be dangerous to admit the defence of insanity upon arguments derived merely from the character of the crime. It is only unsoundness of mind which naturally impairs the cognitive faculties of the mind that can form a ground of exemption from criminal responsibility. Stephen in history of the criminal law of England, Vol. II, page 166 has observed that if a person cuts of the head of sleeping man because, it would be great fun to see him looking for it when he woke up it would obviously be a case where the perpetrator the physical effects of his act. The law recognises nothing but incapacity to realise the nature of the act and presumes that where a man's mind or his facilities of ratiocination are sufficiently clear to apprehend what he is doing, he must always be presumed to intend the consequences of the action he takes. Mere absence of motive for a crime, however atrocious it may be, cannot, in the absence of plea and proof of legal insanity, bring the case within this section. The Supreme Court in Sheralli Wali Mohammed Vs. The State of Maharashtra. held that the mere fact that no motive has been proved why the accused murdered his wife and child or the fact that he made no attempt to run away when the door was broken open would not indicate that he was insane or that he did not have the necessary mens rea for the offence. The State of Maharashtra. held that the mere fact that no motive has been proved why the accused murdered his wife and child or the fact that he made no attempt to run away when the door was broken open would not indicate that he was insane or that he did not have the necessary mens rea for the offence. XXX XXX XXX There was no material placed before the trial Court even on show that the offence was committed by the accused while he was of unsound mind. The witnesses have categorically stated about the brutal manner in which the crime was committed. On a consideration of the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4, who stated that the deceased met her death at the hands of the accused, we uphold the conviction and sentences. 11. Therefore, on a careful scrutiny of the evidence and the facts and circumstances of the case, the plea of insanity as advanced by the Appellant is not factually correct. Legally also it is bound to be spurned. 12. In the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Court below is hereby affirmed. P.K. Misra, J. 13. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed