V.S. Sirpurkar, J.: The accused, who is convicted of matricide, challenges his conviction recorded by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai, by way of this appeal. 2. The accused was charged with offences under Secs.302 and 323,I.P.C., on the allegation that on 20.6.1993, at about 11.30 p.m., he hacked his mother Petchi Ammal with an axe, in the house where she resided and also injured his sister Vellai Ammal in that process. 3. The prosecution case was that the accused was doing nothing. On the relevant day, he asked for two rupees from his mother Petchi Ammal. She did not give him the money, but promised to give only after her salary was received. Thereafter, the accused left the house. At about 11.30 p.m. on the same day, when Petchi Ammal and her daughter P.W.1 Vellai Ammal were sleeping, the accused came there armed with an axe and hacked his mother Petchi Ammal on her neck indiscriminately. P.W. 1 Vellai Ammal, woke up and tried to save Petchi Ammal, who was being hacked by the accused. But, she was also assaulted by the accused and, in that process, she was injured. She raised alarm. On hearing the alarm, P.W.4, who is a neighbour of the deceased Petchi Ammal and his wife came out of their house and witnessed the occurrence. The accused then left the scene taking the weapon. Thereafter, P.W.1 Vellai Ammal, along with P.W.4 Alagarsamy, went to Subramanyapuram Police Station and gave a report Ex.P-1, which was recorded by P.W. 10 Murugesan, Sub Inspector of Police. In her report, P.W.1 specifically implicated the accused as the perpetrator of the crime. Based on that, the investigation was taken up by P.W. 11, the Inspector of Police, Subramanyapuram Police Station. He visited the place of occurrence, prepared Observation Mahazar Ex.P-5 and also Rough Sketch Ex.P-13. He conducted inquest vide Ex.P-14 and seized blood stained articles, which he found on the spot. The accused who surrendered in the Police Station on the next morning at 5.30 a.m., was arrested. From the accused P.W. 11 recovered the axe M.O.3, blood stained dhothi M.O.8 and blood stained shirt M.O.9, in the presence of the Village Administrative Officer P.W.6 and one Kannan. P.W. 11 then sent the blood stained articles for chemical analysis and received the serologist’s report Ex.P-11. He also sent the body for postmortem. From the accused P.W. 11 recovered the axe M.O.3, blood stained dhothi M.O.8 and blood stained shirt M.O.9, in the presence of the Village Administrative Officer P.W.6 and one Kannan. P.W. 11 then sent the blood stained articles for chemical analysis and received the serologist’s report Ex.P-11. He also sent the body for postmortem. In the opinion given by the doctor it was clear that Petchi Ammal had received serious injuries around her neck, which could be attributed to the accused. After the completion of the investigation P.W. 11 filed charge sheet against the accused. 4. The accused was committed to the Court of Session. The evidence in the case was started and the first witness seems to have been examined on 4.4.1996. The prosecution relied upon the evidence of two eyewitnesses viz., Vellai Ammal, the daughter of the deceased and one Alagarsamy, the neighbour of the deceased, who have been examined as P.Ws.1 and 2, respectively. At the relevant point of time, Alagarsamy had purchased a portion of the house belonging to the deceased Petchi Ammal from her for Rs. 6,000 and was residing on the western side of the house. He has claimed to have heard the shouts raised by P.W.1 Vellai Ammal and witnessed the occurrence, wherein the accused was hacking his mother Petchi Ammal. It was this witness who had taken P.W.1 Vellai Ammal to the Police Station. The whole prosecution case thus depends on the testimony of these two eyewitnesses. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused, however, did not concentrate on the killing part of the story, as deposed by these two witnesses. We have seen the evidence of both these witnesses very closely. The evidence of P.W. 1 Vellai Ammal shows that on the fateful day she had come to her mother’s house and was staying there. She has stated that her elder brother, the accused, demanded two rupees from the deceased and that the deceased refused to give the money, but assured to give only after her salary was received. She then refers to the fateful assault at 11.30 p.m. on the same day. She then refers to the presence of Alagarsamy and his wife at the time and place of occurrence and also asserts that both of them witnessed the occurrence. She then refers to the fateful assault at 11.30 p.m. on the same day. She then refers to the presence of Alagarsamy and his wife at the time and place of occurrence and also asserts that both of them witnessed the occurrence. She also refers to the fact that she tried to catch hold of the accused and to save her mother, but, in that process, the accused had assaulted her also causing injuries. There is absolutely nothing in her cross-examination which raises any suspection in so far as the assault is concerned. The only cross-examination worth the name is regarding the mental condition of the accused. She was made to admit that the accused was a mentally depressed person and was taken to Madurai Rajaji Hospital for treatment therefor. He has in her cross-examination said that the accused would be often mentally depressed and that on the fateful night he was mentally upset. She went to the extent of saying in the cross-examination that the accused did not have any intention to cut his mother and that he was insane and mentally upset. 6. P.W.4 has also supported the version of P.W. 1 regarding the first part of the story, suggesting that it was on hearing the shout made by P.W.1 at about 11.00 p.m. that her mother was being hacked, that he opened the door and witnessed the occurrence. He also refers to the assault by the accused on his mother and then he asserts that he also shouted, hearing which the other villagers rushed in. This witness is also a relation of the accused, the accused being the son of his paternal uncle. Insofar as the health condition of the accused is concerned, in the cross-examination, P.W.4 says that the accused was often visiting the hospital and did not go to work as he was not keeping good health. He claimed that the accused often used to create trouble in his house, during which people used to separate him. He has been asked about one Karuppiah, who was the uncle of the accused, working in the Agricultural Department. But the witness stoutly denied the suggestion that Karuppiah used to take the accused to the hospital. He has, in categorical terms, denied the suggestion that the accused was insane and, therefore, the accused used to visit the hospital. He has been asked about one Karuppiah, who was the uncle of the accused, working in the Agricultural Department. But the witness stoutly denied the suggestion that Karuppiah used to take the accused to the hospital. He has, in categorical terms, denied the suggestion that the accused was insane and, therefore, the accused used to visit the hospital. He has again specifically denied the suggestion that the accused had attacked the mother, only in the fit of insanity. He, on the other hand, asserted in the cross-examination that the accused used to demand money from his mother. He has specifically denied the suggestion that the accused was an insane person. 7. Insofar as the assault portion is concerned, it is clear that on the fateful day, the accused had actually hacked the deceased. There is no cross-examination worth the name of this witnesses insofar as that aspect is concerned. The evidence of P.W.1 Vellai Ammal gets corroboration from the evidence of the doctor P.W.2, who treated P.W.1 immediately after the occurrence, for the injuries she had suffered. P.W.2 has found the following three injuries on the person of P.W. 1. “1. A lacerated wound left forearm at lower third 3 x 1 x 1 cm. 2. Lacerated wound back of right elbow 2 x 1 x 1 cm. 3. Abrasion left thumb 0.5 x 0.5 cm.” The doctor has also opined that there was chance for the said injuries having been caused by a sharp weapon like M.O.3. In the absence of any cross-examination worth the name of the doctor P.W.2, the presence of Vellai Ammal at the time and place of occurrence only appears to be most natural and believable since it was after all her mother’s house and there was every reason for her to have come and stayed there on the fateful day. We are, therefore, of the clear opinion that her version is cogent, convincing and fully supported by the evidence of P.W.4 Alagarsamy, who has also established not only the presence of this witness, but also asserted that he also had seen the accused hacking the deceased. We are, therefore, convinced that it is the accused who alone is responsible for the death of Petchi Ammal and also for the injuries found on Vellai Ammal. 8. We are, therefore, convinced that it is the accused who alone is responsible for the death of Petchi Ammal and also for the injuries found on Vellai Ammal. 8. Our conclusion is supported also by the medical evidence of the doctor P.W.3 Thiyagarajan, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. P.W.3 has found as many as three cut injuries on the neck portion of the deceased. The description of the injuries is as under: “(1) A gaping cut injury on upper part of right side neck 3 cms below base of the right mandible measuring 10 cms x 6 cms x bone deep. There is evidence of 4 cut injuries entering the same portion of the neck by cutting the muscles and the vessels in 4 places. On dissection, 4 cut injuries seen on the right side vertebral column C-4, C-5, C-6 and C-7 level separated by .75 to 1.5 cm each upto bone deep; underlying structures found cut off in pieces. External carotid vessel, jugular vein, wind pipe and food pipe found cut off in 3 places; surrounding area contains full of extravasated blood clots. Evidence of 4 cuts seen in the external skin surface also. (2) An oblique cut injury seen on the lower portion of root of right ear and grown up ear lobule found cut off 4x4cm through and through (ear lobule) and on the root it was cut off 1 cm x linear x bone deep; underlying bone found cut off obliquely for 1.5 cms. (3) an oblique cut injury vertical, above downwards on the back of left dorsum of hand 4 cms x linear x bone deep.” P.W.3 has also asserted that these injuries could have been caused with a weapon like M.O.3, which was seized by the investigating officer from the accused and which has also been connected with the crime because of the presence of human blood thereupon. It is significant to note that in this behalf there is absolutely no cross-examination either to P.W.1 Vellai Ammal or P.W.4 Alagarsamy, who have identified the weapon as having been handled by the accused or, for that matter, even the investigating officer P.W.11, who had claimed to have seized the weapon from the custody of the accused. It is significant to note that in this behalf there is absolutely no cross-examination either to P.W.1 Vellai Ammal or P.W.4 Alagarsamy, who have identified the weapon as having been handled by the accused or, for that matter, even the investigating officer P.W.11, who had claimed to have seized the weapon from the custody of the accused. All this suggests that it was only the accused who had assaulted the deceased in a fatal manner with M.O.3, which, according to the serologist’s report was found to be stained with human blood. But that is not the end of the matter. 9. Learned counsel very assertively invited our attention to the cross-examination of the investigating officer who had claimed ignorance about a petition dated 13.9.1995, which was given by the defence counsel for the examination of the mental condition of the accused. On seeing the records, we see that there are two such petitions filed by the accused. The first petition seems to have been filed on 13.9.1995 and the second one has been filed on behalf of the accused in April, 1996, i.e., after the examination of the accused under Sec. 313, Crl.P.C. It is true that the accused was described to be of unstable mind by none else than his own and only sister Vellai Ammal. It is also true that even before the recording of the evidence began or, for that matter, even before the date on which the charge was framed, i.e., on 5.3.1996, the petition was before the learned trial Judge. It seems that the learned trial Judge did not pass any orders on that petition initially and the application was probably kept in reserve for being decided during trial. It is obvious that on the day when the charge was framed on 5.3.1996, the accused has specifically pleaded not guilty to the charge. On this backdrop, when we see the First Information Report Ex.P-1, we do not find anything to suggest that the accused was of unstable mind. Again, on this backdrop, we would have normally expected some re-examination by the prosecutor, of the witness P.W. 1 Vellai Ammal, who had tried to paint a picture in the cross-examination by the defence, that the accused was of unstable mind for which he was treated in Rajaji Hospital at Madurai. In our opinion, the concerned Public Prosecutor was not vigilant to these admissions made by P.W.1. In our opinion, the concerned Public Prosecutor was not vigilant to these admissions made by P.W.1. However, in our opinion, these cannot be said to be admissions by P.W.1, who should be naturally expected to be interested in the accused, being his only sister. 10. The plea of insanity under Sec. 84 of the Indian Penal Code comes within the general exceptions, enumerated in Chapter IV, and it is for the accused to prove that he was not in a position to understand the implications of his act, on the day when he committed the act, or, that he was not in a fit mental condition even to stand the trial. In this case, no such attempt seems to have been made. 11. We have already referred to the admissions made by P.W.1 Vellai Ammal in her cross-examination and, even if we take into account the so called admissions given by P.W. 1, there was clear assertion on the part of P.W.4, the cousin of the accused, that the accused was not suffering from any mental instability or insanity. P.W.4 is very clear to assert that the accused was in possession of his wits on the day when he committed the offence and even when he was standing the trial. The witness was simply not prepared to call the accused an insane person. Under such circumstances, it could not be said that the accused had discharged his burden of proving his insanity. 12. Counsel for the defence, however, asserts that the question of insanity should have been decided only based on medical evidence. According to him, even before the accused was sent for medical examination, which was necessary, the Court should not have treated him to be capable of standing the trial. Scanning the whole records we do not find any circumstance, which would have driven the Court to the apprehension that the accused was not of sound mind or that he was in any manner suffering from insanity. 13. Sec. 328(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure speaks about the procedure to be followed by a Magistrate who holds an enquiry against a person who appears to be of unsound mind and consequently incapable of making his defence. 13. Sec. 328(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure speaks about the procedure to be followed by a Magistrate who holds an enquiry against a person who appears to be of unsound mind and consequently incapable of making his defence. Sec. 329(1) specifically suggests that, “if at the trial of any person before a Magistrate or Court of Session, it appears to the Magistrate or Court that such person is of unsound mind and consequently incapable of making his defence, the Magistrate or Court shall, in the first instance, try the fact of such unsoundness and incapacity, and if the Magistrate or Court, after considering such medical and other evidence as may be produced before him or it, is satisfied of the fact, he or it shall record a finding to that effect and shall postpone further proceedings in the case”. Sub-sec.(2) of Sec. 329 suggests that “the trial of the fact of the unsoundness of mind and incapacity of the accused shall be deemed to be part of his trial before the Magistrate or Court”. 14. In this case, when the accused was produced before the Magistrate after he was arrested, or, even when he was committed to the Court of Session, there was no question of examining the mental condition of the accused, because no such plea was raised at that point of time, nor do we see from the records that the accused ever appeared to be a lunatic. Even before the Sessions Court, it seems that the accused has pleaded properly to the charge and had asserted that he was not guilty. We are able to appreciate that only on the day when the charge was framed, for the first time, the accused had made an application for he being medically examined for insanity. However, the mere making of application does not discharge the duty of the accused to prove his insanity or would not entail the Sessions Court to start an enquiry into the unsoundness of mind of the accused. There would be required some more material for the Sessions Court to take steps under Sec. 329, Crl.P.C. It must appear to the Court that the accused is of unsound mind and consequently incapable of making his defence. There would be required some more material for the Sessions Court to take steps under Sec. 329, Crl.P.C. It must appear to the Court that the accused is of unsound mind and consequently incapable of making his defence. Though the application filed is of September, 1995, on the date when the charge was framed, it is obvious that it did not appear to the Court that the accused was of unsound mind. Hence, the evidence has been recorded and when the accused was examined under Sec. 313, Crl.P.C. all the questions that were put to the accused have been correctly answered by him. He has understood the difference between false evidence as also the evidence about which he could not say anything. We find from the examination of the accused that the accused has answered sometimes that he did not know about some evidence while about others he has specifically stated that the evidence was false. 15. It is, no doubt, true that the application filed by the accused should have been decided by the learned Sessions Judge immediately. But, we cannot find fault with the trial Court in this case because, till then, nobody had raised the question of lunacy of the accused, including the accused himself, and the accused also did not appear either to the committing Magistrate or to the trial Court to be a lunatic or of unsound mind. However, the learned Sessions Judge has taken up the application for decision, after the examination of the accused and has observed that he did not find the accused to be of unsound mind as the accused had given proper answers to the questions put to him and there was nothing to suggest that the accused was mentally unstable. Under such circumstances, it certainly cannot be said that the accused had discharged his initial burden of proving his lunacy, or, that there was a duty cast upon the Court to send him for medical examination to enquire into his mental soundness, on the backdrop of the specific assertion by P.W.4, who is none else than the cousin of the accused and also a neighbour, who had day in and day out opportunity to observe the accused, that the accused was not of unsound mind and that he was never taken to the hospital for treatment thereof. Under such circumstances, we are of the clear opinion that the learned trial Judge was right in disposing of the application holding it to be merely a device to protract the trial. 16. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the plea of insanity raised by the accused was only a belated plea and without any substance. All this goes to suggest that the accused was rightly convicted by the Sessions Judge, not only for committing the murder of his mother, but also for causing injuries on his sister P.W.1 Vellai Ammal with a sharp cutting weapon. 17. We do not find any error in the judgment of the learned trial Judge. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.