CH. P. K. MISRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal assails the order dated 9-4-1997 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack, passed in Sessions Trial No. 511 of 1995, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 302/324 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, IPC) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for two years respectively; the sentences to run concurrently. ( 2 ) THE brief narration of the prosecution case is as follows: In the afternoon of 6-5-1995, the appellant dealt a Bhujali blow on Diptikant Behera (P. W. 1) a boy aged 12 years, while the latter along with others was attending to tuition imparted by Chandra Sekhar Naik (P. W. 5) on the verandah of one Babaji Charan Swain. On seeing the attack on P. W. 1 the teacher (P. W. 5) caught hold of the appellant, whereupon the appellant bit his cheek and pushed him, as a result of which, apart from sustaining bleeding injury, P. W. 5 became unconscious and was shifted to Mahanga P. H. C. for treatment. Thereafter, the appellant attacked another boy named Trinath Behera and dealt Bhujali blows on him in presence of Ramesh Chandra Behera (P. W. 2), and Dillip Behera (P. W. 3 ). Though Trinath was taken to the S. C. B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack for treatment, he succumbed to the injuries. However, the appellant did not stop there and again attacked Indramani Behera (P. W. 8), the uncle of P. W. 7 and dealt a Bhujali blow on his head. Seeing this, when P. W. 7 went to the rescue of P. W. 8 the appellant bit her right index finger. At that time, Unpendranath Sahu (P. W. 9), the husband of P. W. 7, came and snatched away the Bhujali (M. O. I.) from the appellant, which was produced before the Investigating Officer during investigation. ( 3 ) P. W. 5 lodged F. I. R. at Mahanga P. S. on the same day at about 5. 30 P. M. , on the basis of which a case was registered and investigation taken up. In course of investigation, the injured persons were medically examined by the Medical Officer of Mahanga P. H. C. (P. W. 4) on police requisition. 30 P. M. , on the basis of which a case was registered and investigation taken up. In course of investigation, the injured persons were medically examined by the Medical Officer of Mahanga P. H. C. (P. W. 4) on police requisition. After the death of Trinath, inquest was held and the dead body was sent for post mortem examination, which was conducted by Dr. Nayan Kishore Mohanty (P. W. 10 ). The appellant was arrested and his wearing bloodstained Lungi (M. O. IV) and blood stained Ganju (M. O. III) were seized. The seized incriminating materials were sent for chemical examination. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was placed against the appellant. ( 4 ) THE appellant took the plea of complete denial. The defence took the further plea that the appellant was insane. In order to prove the same, seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the defence. ( 5 ) IN all, twelve witnesses were examined by the prosecution, of whom P. Ws. 1, 5, 7 and 8 were the victims. P. Ws. 2, 3, and 7 were also the eyewitnesses to the attack made on P. W. 8. P. W. 9 was the person who is said to have snatched away the weapon of offence from the appellant and produced the same before police. P. W. 4 was the doctor who examined the injured persons (P. Ws. 1, 5, 7 and 8) on police requisition. P. W. 6 was the A. S. I. of Police, Mangalabag P. S. who held inquest over the dead body, P. W. 10 was the doctor who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased Trinath. P. Ws. 11 and 12 were the Investigating Officers. ( 6 ) FROM the statement of P. W. 1, it is revealed that on the date of occurrence at about 3. 30 P. M. he along with other children was attending tutorial class held by P. W. 5 At that time, the appellant came along with his 3 year son and asked him to lookafter the baby, to which P. W. 1 refused. At this, the appellant dealt Bhujali blow on the left side of his neck causing bleeding injury. Thereafter, Chandra Sekhar, the tutor (P. W. 5) caught hold of the appellant, but the latter gave a tooth bite on his cheek. At this, the appellant dealt Bhujali blow on the left side of his neck causing bleeding injury. Thereafter, Chandra Sekhar, the tutor (P. W. 5) caught hold of the appellant, but the latter gave a tooth bite on his cheek. In cross-examination, P. W. 1 has clearly stated that he had no enmity with the appellant. To a suggestion that he teased the appellant by calling him as a Pagal (mad man), which infuriated the appellant P. W. 1 has stoutly denied. P. W. 5 has fully corroborated the statement of P. W. 1 He has stated that while he was holding tutorial class, all of a sudden P. W. 1 started crying. He looked at him and found the appellant scraping the Bhujali on his neck. P. W. 1 was bleeding from the neck. He caught hold of the hand of the appellant. However, the appellant gave a tooth bite on his right cheek causing bleeding injury and pushed him. As a result P. W. 5 fell down and lost consciousness and was shifted to the Mahanga P. H. C. for treatment. On combined reading of the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 5, it amply proves that the appellant had inflicted a Bhujali blow on the neck of P. W. 1 and given tooth bite on the right cheek of P. W. 5. ( 7 ) AFTER the aforesaid incident, the appellant is said to have dealt blows on the deceased Trinath. In this connection P. W. 2 has stated that on the date of occurrence, he was going to the house of one Digambar Swain to hold tutorial classes. When he reached near the house of the appellant, the latter dealt a Bhujali blow on his right upper arm. The appellant also dealt another Bhujali blow on his waist with the blunt side. Being panicked, P. W. 2 ran towards his house and hid under a bush near the backyard of his house, wherefrom he could see the appellant dealing Bhujali blows on the deceased. As the deceased raised alarm, his uncle Dillip (P. W. 3) came to the spot. On seeing P. W. 3, the appellant ran into the house of P. W. 2, who being frightened ran towards the upper street of the village. P. W. 3 was the uncle of the deceased. As the deceased raised alarm, his uncle Dillip (P. W. 3) came to the spot. On seeing P. W. 3, the appellant ran into the house of P. W. 2, who being frightened ran towards the upper street of the village. P. W. 3 was the uncle of the deceased. According to him he came out of the house on hearing a cry and found the appellant inflicting Bhujali blows on the deceased. He rushed to the spot to rescue the deceased. Seeing him, the appellant ran away and went towards the house of P. W. 8 He found bleeding cut wounds on the neck, abdomen and hands of the deceased. The stomach had protruded out of the abdominal wound. He is also a witness to the inquest. In cross-examination, P. W. 3 has stated that when he found Trinath being assaulted, he raised hullah and about 40-50 people of the village gathered. But they arrived after the appellant had fled away from the scene of occurrence. P. W. 7 has stated that while sitting on the verandah of her house, she heard the cry of the deceased Trinath coming from the backyard of his house. The spot was visible to her and she found the appellant assaulting Trinath by means of a Bhujali. The deceased has been assaulted on his head, hands and abdomen. His stomach had protruded out. ( 8 ) P. W. 10 is the Doctor who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of Trinath. He found the following injuries on the person of Trinath: (i) Stab wound, the entry wound of which was 3 cm x 1. 5 cm. x abdominal cavity deep obliquely placed on the left hypochondriac region having acute angle at its upper medial and the lower lateral and being irregular, 20 cm below the laid point of left clavicle and 6. 5 cm lateral to the midline, Omental fat present at the entry. (ii) Superficial cut wound of 1 cm x 0. 5 cm x part thickness of the skin with a tailing from its medial end for 1. 5 cm situated 0. 5 cm above the upper end of Inj. No. 1 (iii) Spindle shape superficial cut wound of size 1 cm x 0. 25 cm x part thickness of skin with a tailling for 0. 75 cm situated 0. 5 cm x part thickness of the skin with a tailing from its medial end for 1. 5 cm situated 0. 5 cm above the upper end of Inj. No. 1 (iii) Spindle shape superficial cut wound of size 1 cm x 0. 25 cm x part thickness of skin with a tailling for 0. 75 cm situated 0. 75 cm above the upper and medial end of Injury No. 1 (iv) Cut wound 3. 5 cm x 1 cm x bone deep situated on the dorsal aspect of the left hand 1 cm below the proximal interphalyngal joint of little, ring and middle finger where, it has cut through and through the skin, sub-cutaneus tissue, tendons and the underlying bones that are 5th, 4th and 3rd metacarpal bones, which are involved partly. (v) Cut wound of 3 cm x 1 cm x 1. 5 cm situated on the middle of ulnar border of left hand where it has cut through and through the muscles, vessels and nerves and the 5th metacarpal bone which has been involved almost completely. (iv) Linear superficial cut 3. 5 cm long involving part thickness of skin situated on the posterior aspect of left fore arm 8 cm below the lateral epicondyle of humerus. (vii) Cut wound 3 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep situated on the lateral aspect of left arm 10 cm above the lateral epicondyle. (viii) Cut wound 4 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep situated on the left deltoid region 8 cm above the Inj. No. 7. (ix) Stitched wound 12 cm long with 8 silk stitches situated in an anteroposterior direction 1. 5 cm lateral and 1 cm above left angle of mouth along the cheek cutting through and through the pina of left ear long with the skin S. C. tissue, parotid gland, muscle gland underlying maxilla bone, set side boney meatus and mastoid. The facial vessels have been involved in this wound. The wound margins looks regular and the underlying structures and cleanly cut. (x) Stitched wound 5 cm long with 5 silk stitches situated on the left side chin extending from left lower lip 0. 75 cm medial to angle downwards and backwards on the left side ramus of mandible where it has involved the boney ramus partly upto whole thickness of cortex. (x) Stitched wound 5 cm long with 5 silk stitches situated on the left side chin extending from left lower lip 0. 75 cm medial to angle downwards and backwards on the left side ramus of mandible where it has involved the boney ramus partly upto whole thickness of cortex. The wound margin looks cleanly cut and regular with cutting of its underlying structures. (xi) stitched wound 8 cm long with 6 silk stitches situated obliquely 2 cm behind the root of left ear extending from left side of occiput 4. 5 cm lateral to a point 1. 5 cm below the angle of left mandible. On removing the stitches, the wound margins are looking regular and clean cut. (xii) Another cut wound which crosses the cut wound No. 11 of 4 cm long extends 4 cm below and 1. 5 lateral to the occiput and merges to injury No. 11 to end at left side angle of mandible cutting the muscles underneath, shaved. (xiii) The scalp pairs at the wound site have been completely shaved. ( 9 ) ON dissection, P. W. 10 found that injury No. I had penetrated into the abdominal cavity after perforating the greater omentum where it has cut the left side mesocolon for 4 cm x 1 cm. and through mesocolon it has entered into the lesser sac where it has involved the pancreas leading to collection of extravassated clotted blood in the retropancreatic region and to the left side renal site. The abdominal cavity contained 100 ml of fluid blood which was mostly seen along the left side paracolic gutter and soiled the organs, mostly the intestine. According to P. W. 10, all the injuries were ante mortem in nature. The cut injury might have been caused by a moderately heavy sharp cutting weapon and the stab wound, by the pointed end of the same sharp cutting weapon. All the injuries considered together were fatal in ordinary course of nature. The death due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from the above injuries. ( 10 ) THUS, from the evidence of P. W. 10 it is clear that the deceased Trinath met a homicidal death. A combined reading of the evidence of P. Ws. 2, 3, 7, and 10 would establish beyond doubt that the deceased died out of the injuries inflicted on him by the appellant. ( 10 ) THUS, from the evidence of P. W. 10 it is clear that the deceased Trinath met a homicidal death. A combined reading of the evidence of P. Ws. 2, 3, 7, and 10 would establish beyond doubt that the deceased died out of the injuries inflicted on him by the appellant. ( 11 ) IT has been further alleged against the appellant that he gave a Bhujall blow on the head of P. W. 8 and tooth bite on the right index finger of P. W. 7. From the evidence of P. W. 8, it is revealed that when he was frying potato on h earri?h, the appdlant came njnning and gave a Phujai w on h had, a It andwhkh he Loame urrbls. P. W. 7 has ated that when she thed lo riie P. W. 8 wh w hauncle, the appant bit her rht index finger by his t. She rad am heang whdi her husband (P. W. 9) came and snatdied away the Phujai fivm the appanl The irjuri, alged Iiy thc vvib, have bn cxndoratd Iiy the medk:al ehiaxe andp. W. 4 wio had examinal the irjuri ins. ( 12 ) TURNING to the report of the Chemical Examiner, it is found that human blood was detected on the Bhujali, sari and sample earth. The lungi of the deceased also contained human blood of B group, whereas the sample blood of the appellant was of 0 group. ( 13 ) FROM the aforesaid discussion, it has been established beyond doubt that the appellant assaulted PW5. 1, 5, 7 and 8 causing grievous hurt on their person. He also inflicted Bhujali blows on the deceased Trinath, which caused his death. ( 14 ) THE defence has taken the plea that the appellant was of unsound mind. In this connection, D. W. 1 the psychiatrist attached to the Circle Jail, Choudwar, has deposed that on 12-5-1995 he examined the appellant who was suffering from depression and, therefore, was kept inside a cell. The depression he had was a major psychiatric illness. He was kept inside the hospital as an indoor patient and was discharged on 10-6-1995. During his stay as an indoor patient he was suffering from mental illness which could be called serious. The depression he had was a major psychiatric illness. He was kept inside the hospital as an indoor patient and was discharged on 10-6-1995. During his stay as an indoor patient he was suffering from mental illness which could be called serious. If such patient had to be produced in Court or removed from the hospital, permission of D. W. 1 was not necessary unless the patient was violent, D. W. 2 the Medical Officer of the Nischintakoili P. H. C. has stated that on 2-2-1995 five to six persons had brought the appellant, who was in an irritable state, to the P. H. C. He had prescribed antidepression drugs and had also given two injections immediately. Thereafter, he had referred the patient to the Psychiatric Department of S. C. B. Medical College, Cuttack. D. W. 3 is a child witness and therefore, she was not administered oath. She has stated that the appellant was inside his house being tied as he was mad. He escaped by untying himself. Came with a sickle and gave blows on a goat. Thereafter he charged children who ran out of fear. D. W. 4 is the wife of the appellant, who has deposed that their marriage had been solemnised 4 years and 10 months prior to the date of her examination. The appellant gradually became mad. Prior to the date of incident, he had been taken to Nischintakoili P. H. C. for treatment, where he had been given injection and some medicines. Because of poverty, the medicines could not be purchased and the condition of the appellant aggravated. On the date of occurrence, his mental condition was serious and therefore, he was kept tied inside the house. During day time when she was asleep he untied himself and came out. Later on she heard that the appellant had injured some persons and the villagers had taken him to the Mahanga P. H. C. She was further stated that because of his abnormal mental condition prior to the incident, the appellant used to beat her and the other inmates of the house. On one occasion, he took away gold ornaments from the house, gave the same to outsiders and returned home after crossing the river by swimming and collecting some stones. Her evidence further discloses that because of poverty the appellant could not be taken to the S. C. B. Medical College for treatment. On one occasion, he took away gold ornaments from the house, gave the same to outsiders and returned home after crossing the river by swimming and collecting some stones. Her evidence further discloses that because of poverty the appellant could not be taken to the S. C. B. Medical College for treatment. Her father-in-law was thinking of selling away bullocks in order to arrange money for treatment of the appellant, but in the meanwhile the present incident took place. Though she was cross-examined by the prosecution, nothing contrary could be elicited from her. D. W. 5, the father of the appellant, has stated in the same line as D. W. 4. He also corroborated the statement of D. W. 2 that the appellant had been taken to Nischintakoili Hospital with the help of 5-6 persons for his mental treatment. He was administered some medicines and advised for further treatment at Cuttack medical which could not be pursued due to financial stringency. D. W. 6 the brother-in-law (wifes brother) of the deceased, has also corroborated the statements of D. Ws. 4 and 5. He has stated that the appellant had been taken to Nischintakoili Hospital on two occasions, first on 2-2-1995 and secondly on 6-4-1995. He proved the cash memo issued by one Akhaya Babu, the owner of a medicine shop. He also stated on 5-5-1995 he had been to the house of his sister and found the appellant being tied inside the house because of his abnormal condition. On 6-5-1995, when he again went there, he was told that the appellant had already been taken to Mahanga P. H. C. by the villagers. D. W. 7 is a private medical practitioner. During the period from 1993 to 1995, he used to go to Nischintakoili for professional work once a week, He has stated that on 6-4-1995, the appellant who was having mental disorder, had been brought to him for treatment. ( 15 ) ON the basis of the evidence on record, as discussed above, the trial Court held the appellant guilty under Sections 302/324, IPC and convicted and sentenced him as stated hereinbefore. While doing so, it discarded the defence plea that the appellant was of unsound mind and was incapable of knowing the nature of the act he was committing. While doing so, it discarded the defence plea that the appellant was of unsound mind and was incapable of knowing the nature of the act he was committing. ( 16 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted before us that the trial Court committed an error in not accepting the plea of insanity of the appellant in view of overwhelming evidence adduced in that regard. He also submitted that in a case of the present nature, it is obligatory on the part of the prosecution to adduce clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence that the act was committed with a definite mens rea. The prosecution having failed to establishe the means rea, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Section 84, IPC. To buttress his submission he relied on the decision of this Court in Budu Hontal v. State of Orissa. In that case, it was held that while determining the plea of insanity the Court has to consider the following aspects: (1) Whether there was deliberation and preparation for the act. (2) Whether it was done in a manner which showed a desire for concealment. (3) Whether after the crime, the offender showed consciousness of guilt and made effort to avoid detection. (4) Whether, after his arrest, he offered false excuses or made false statements. ( 17 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant then drew our attention to a decision of the Apex Court in Vaddi Srinivas v. State of Andhra Pradesh, wherein it has been held that for bringing a case under Section 84, TPC the crucial point of time for ascertaining the state of mind of the accused is the time when the offence was committed. As regards the degree of burden of proving unsoundness of mind, it was observed that it is not necessary for the accused to prove beyond reasonable doubt that his unsoundness of mind was of such nature. From the evidence on record, inference could be drawn that the act was committed due to unsoundness of mind of the accused and his cognitive faculties were impaired to such an extent that he could not know the nature of the act done by him. From the evidence on record, inference could be drawn that the act was committed due to unsoundness of mind of the accused and his cognitive faculties were impaired to such an extent that he could not know the nature of the act done by him. Reliance was also placed on a decision of this Court in Raghu Pradhan v. State of Orissa, wherein it has been held that to establish the plea of insanity, it is to be proved that the accused was of unsound mind at the time of commission of the crime, as a result of which he was incapable of understanding the nature of the act committed or that he was doing a wrongful act in Ajaya Mahakud v. State, it has been held that the burden of proof is on the defence to prove that the accused was incapable of knowing the nature of the act i. e. , he did not know whether the act was wrong or contrary to law. The onus is not higher than that in case of a plaintiff in a civil suit. In order to find out whether the accused was of unsound mind, his conduct prior to the commission of offence, at the time and subsequent to the occurrence has to be taken into consideration. It has been further held that where the accused has a previous history of mental disease or lunacy and the same is revealed during the course of investigation, fairness of investigation does require probing into that aspect with an unbiased approach. It becomes obligatory on the part of the investigating agency to subject the accused to medical examination to ensure that the accused was in fact, a person of ordinary state of mind. If that is done, it necessarily rules out the possibility of the accused having committed the act attributed to him on account of mental disease or lunacy. Failure to subject the accused to medical examination and to place all evidence that would be available may have, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, a serious consequence on the prosecution case when such a plea of insanity is raised by the accused at the trial, as that may give rise to a doubt whether the act was committed with the requisite intention to commit the same. Failure on the part of the prosecution to collect evidence and place before the Court on the mental aspect of the accused may create serious infirmity in the prosecution case, as a consequence whereof, the benefit of doubt will have to be given to the accused. ( 18 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant also placed before us the decision in Khageswar Pujari v. State of Orissa, wherein it has been held that Section 84, IPC casts the burden on the accused to adduce evidence and prove that at the time of the occurrence his mental condition was such that he did not know what he was doing. In such a case, a duty is also cast on the Court itself to find out from the materials on record. viz. , the conduct of the accused, as to whether any doubt arises in the mind of the Court that at the time of the occurrence the accused was not in a fit mental condition to have the requisite mens rea for the commission of the offence. It has been further held that Section 6, IPC carves out or stands in the nature of a proviso to Section 106 of the Evidence Act and imposes an obligation on the Court as well to consider the case of exceptions on its own in so far as it relates to the burden of proving legal insanity. If the case of the accused comes within the purview of Section 84, IPC, which is one of the provisions in Chapter-TV of the general exceptions of the Indian Penal Code, the Court is to give due consideration and find out as to whether at the time of the occurrence, the accused had any mental disability so as not to know what he was doing. ( 19 ) TN the present case, it has been deposed by D. W. 2, the Medical Officer of Nischintakoili P. H. C. that on 2-2-1995 the appellant was brought to the P. H. C. by 5-6 persons in an irritable state. He prescribed antidepression drugs and referred the patient to the Psychiatric Department of S. C. B. Medical College. D. W. 7, a private medical practitioner, has also stated that on 6-4- 1995, he prescribed medicines for the appellant, who was having mental disorder. He prescribed antidepression drugs and referred the patient to the Psychiatric Department of S. C. B. Medical College. D. W. 7, a private medical practitioner, has also stated that on 6-4- 1995, he prescribed medicines for the appellant, who was having mental disorder. Though the prosecution has cross-examined these witnesses, nothing substantial has been brought out from them to discredit their version. Therefore, it has been amply proved by the defence that the appellant was of unsound mind prior to the occurrence. As to his mental condition at the time of commission of the offences, it has been stated by D. Ws. 4, 5 and 6 that on the date of occurrence the appellant was kept tied inside the house as he was abnormally made. Without the knowledge of the inmates, he untied himself, came out of the house and gave assault to the aforesaid persons. It has also been brought out by the defence from P. W. 7 in cross-examination that immediately after the occurrence, the villagers caught hold of the appellant and took him to Mahanga P. H. C. Thus. there is a strong presumption in favour of the appellant that his mental condition was not sound at the time of commission of the offence. The conduct of the appellant subsequent to the occurrence has been deposed by D. W. 1 who is none else than the Psychiatrist attached to the Circle Jail, Choudwar, where the appellant was kept as an undertrial prisoner. According to him, the appellant was admitted to the Jail Hospital on 12-5-1995 for having depression, which is a major psychiatric illness. He was kept inside the hospital as indoor patient. In view of the evidence placed on record by the defence, it can be said that the onus has been duly discharged by it. Rather, the prosecution has failed to take proper steps for examining the appellant medically to know his mental condition, irrespective of the fact that he was taken by the villagers to the P. H. C. even before he was arrested. ( 20 ) IN view of the clear evidence adduced by the defence, the conclusion of the trial Court that there is no evidence regarding the insanity of the appellant at the time of commission of the crime is not tenable. ( 20 ) IN view of the clear evidence adduced by the defence, the conclusion of the trial Court that there is no evidence regarding the insanity of the appellant at the time of commission of the crime is not tenable. The evidence clearly indicates that he was of unsound mind and unable to know the nature of the act committed by him i. e. whether it was wrong and contrary to law. Applying the ratio laid down by the decisions noted above, we are of the considered view that the present case comes within the purview of Section 84, IPC, the benefit of which has to be given to the appellant. ( 21 ) FOR the foregoing discussion, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant is hereby setaside. He be released from jail custody and set at liberty forthwith. B. Panigrahi, J. I agree. Appeal allowed.