JUDGMENT A.K. Awasthy, J. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 9-2-1990 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Umaria in Sessions Trial No. 94 of 1988 against the conviction and sentence of the appellant for imprisonment for life and for 7 years under sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code respectively and also for rigorous imprisonment for six months u/s 323 of the Indian Penal Code, the sentences to run concurrently. The prosecution case is that on 14-6-1988 at about 7.30 p.m. at village Bholgarh when Rampratap (P.W.2) and deceased Maru went to the house of appellant Thakurdeen to chat with his brother then suddenly the appellant started hitting deceased Maru with the stick. The wife of the appellant Thakurdeen made the cry that her husband was beating the deceased Maru. Phoolsingh (P.W.1) and others reached there and saw that Rampratap (P.W.2) was requesting the appellant not to beat Maru. That thereafter the appellant inflicted lathi blow on the head of Rampratap (P.W.2) that when Phoolsingh (P.W.1) intervened to save Rampratap (P.W.2), the appellant also gave a stick blow to Phoolsingh (P.W.1). That immediately after the incident Maru succumbed to the injuries. Phoolsingh (P.W.1) rushed to the police station where the Station House Officer Mangleshwar Singh (P.W.13) recorded the first information report (Ex.P.1). During the investigation on 15-6-1988 the spot map (Ex.P.2) was prepared and the dead body was sent for medical examination to the Primary Health Centre where Dr. R.S. Pandey (P.W.5) found two lacerated wound on the person of the deceased which were caused by hard and blunt object. On the same day Dr. N.D. Shukla (P.W.6) examined Rampratap (P.W.2) and Phoolsingh (P.W.1) and found on their person 12 and 2 injuries, respectively which were caused within 24 hours by hard and blunt object and Ex.P6 and Ex.P.7 are his reports respectively. Investigating Officer Mangleshwar Singh (P.W.13) took the recovery statement (Ex.P13) of the appellant on 15-6-1988 and one blood stained stick was recovered from the house of the appellant vide Ex.P.14. The Investigating Officer after preparing the spot map and after usual investigation filed the charge sheet against the appellant under sections 302, 307 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant abjured the guilt and has denied the prosecution allegation and pleaded false implication. The Investigating Officer after preparing the spot map and after usual investigation filed the charge sheet against the appellant under sections 302, 307 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant abjured the guilt and has denied the prosecution allegation and pleaded false implication. The appellant has examined Kalusingh (D.W.1) and Meerabai (D.W.2) to prove the defence that at the time of the incident the appellant was insane. The learned Additional Sessions Judge had examined 16 prosecution witnesses and held that the appellant has intentionally caused the death of the deceased Maru and that at the time of the incident the appellant/accused was in fit state of mind to understand the nature of the his act. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence to conclude that the appellant has caused the lethal injuries to the deceased and he has further argued that the appellant was mentally unsound and the learned trial Court has wrongly held that the appellant/accused is not entitled to the benefit of section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the learned Additional Session Judge and argued that the defence evidence was not sufficient to prove that the appellant at the time of committing the offence was not in fit mental state. The fact that the deceased Maru's death was homicidal in nature is not in dispute. Dr. R.S. Pandey (P.W.5) has stated that on 15-6-1988 he has conducted the autopsy of the body of Maru and aged 30 years and found one lacerated wound 2" x ? " x deep to skull on the left parietal region and second lacerated wound 4" x ? " x deep to skull on the right side of the occipital bone. Dr. R.S. Pandey (P.W.5) has further stated that the cause of death was shock due to haemorrhage. Consequently it is clear that the death of Maru was homicidal in nature. Now we will discuss the evidence of eye-witnesses Rampratap (P.W.2) and Phoolsingh (P.W.1). Rampratap (P.W.2) has stated that when he along with the deceased Maru went to the house of the appellant to meet his brother, the appellant asked them to sit on the stool. Consequently it is clear that the death of Maru was homicidal in nature. Now we will discuss the evidence of eye-witnesses Rampratap (P.W.2) and Phoolsingh (P.W.1). Rampratap (P.W.2) has stated that when he along with the deceased Maru went to the house of the appellant to meet his brother, the appellant asked them to sit on the stool. Rampratap (P.W.2) has further stated that as soon as he sat on the stool the appellant gave lathi blows on the head of Maru and thereafter the appellant started giving the blows to him (Rampratap). In a long and searching cross-examination of Rampratap (P.W.2) nothing has come out to create any doubt whatsoever in the credibility of his statement. Rampratap (P.W.2) has not any rancour or reasons to give false evidence against the appellant. In the first information report (Ex.P.1) which was promptly recorded it is disclosed that Rampratap (P.W.2) was the eye-witness of the incident and injuries were caused to him by the appellant/accused. Dr. N.D. Shukla (P.W.6) has stated that on 15-6-1988 Rampratap (P.W.2) aged about 40 years was examined by him and he found the following injuries, which were caused within 24 hours by hard and blunt object. (i) Contusion present on the right temporal part of the head 2" x 1". (ii) Lacerated wound present on the middle of the forehead 2" x ? " x ?" advised x-ray. (iii) Lacerated wound present on the left side of the forehead 1? " x ?" x ?". (iv) Lacerated wound present on left eyebrow 1" x 1/4" x ?". (v) Contusion 2" x 2" just above the left eye and left ear and on left side of head. (vi) Swelling present on the left side of cheek 3" x 3". (vii) Abrasion present on the right cheek 3" x 3". (viii) Abrasion ?" x ?" on the middle of right eyebrow, (ix) Contusion 2" x 1" on the left arm between wrist and elbow. (x) Swelling present 2" x 2" on left palm. (xi) Abrasion ?" x ?" on left side of chest, (xii) Abrasion ?" x?" present on the back of left scapula. Consequently it is clear that Rampratap (P.W.2) is the witness who has sustained the injuries during the incident and he is an independent witness and his statements are blameless. (x) Swelling present 2" x 2" on left palm. (xi) Abrasion ?" x ?" on left side of chest, (xii) Abrasion ?" x?" present on the back of left scapula. Consequently it is clear that Rampratap (P.W.2) is the witness who has sustained the injuries during the incident and he is an independent witness and his statements are blameless. Phoolsingh (P.W.1) has stated that at about 7.30 p.m. when he was tying the catties, he heard the cries of the wife of the appellant that her husband is beating somebody. Phoolsingh (P.W.1) in his statement lend support to what Rampratap, eye-witness (P.W.2) has stated. Phoolsingh (P.W.1) has deposed that the appellant has also beaten him (Phoolsingh). Phoolsingh (P.W.1) has testified that he went to the police station and lodged the report (Ex.P.1) against the appellant. From the cross-examination of Phoolsingh (P.W.1) it is clear that there is not an iota of evidence to discredit his statement. Phoolsingh (P.W.1) has stated that his house is 50 yards away from the place of incident. Phoolsingh (P.W.1) is an independent witness. From the statement of Dr. N.D. Shukla (P.W.6) it is clear that there were two simple injuries on the person of Phoolsingh (P.W.1) caused within 24 hours by hard and blunt object. Consequently we have no hesitation in concluding that the eye-witness Phoolsingh (P.W.1) is reliable witness of the incident. Investigating Officer Mangleshwar Singh (P.W.13) has stated that on 15-6-1988 in the night at about 12.30 Phoolsingh (P.W.1) lodged the first information report (Ex.P.1) in the police station. The distance of the police station from the place of incident is five kilometers. The first information report was lodged within five hours of the incident by the witness who is independent and who has received injuries during the incident. The prosecution story disclosed in the first information report and the statement given in Court by the eye-witness Phoolsingh (P.W.1) is consistent and coherent. Such prompt and blameless first information report lends formidable support to the veracity of eyewitness Phoolsingh (P.W.1) because it is normally not possible to concoct the false story in such short span of time. The prosecution story disclosed in the first information report and the statement given in Court by the eye-witness Phoolsingh (P.W.1) is consistent and coherent. Such prompt and blameless first information report lends formidable support to the veracity of eyewitness Phoolsingh (P.W.1) because it is normally not possible to concoct the false story in such short span of time. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the defence has examined Kalusingh (D.W.1) and Meerabai (D.W.2) to prove that the appellant was of unsound mind and incapable of knowing the nature of his act at the time of the offence and as such the appellant deserves the benefit of section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. Kalusingh (D.W.1) has stated that the appellant was insane and he used to make awkward action and sometimes was not able to recognize his neighbours. Kalusingh (D.W.1) has further stated that the appellant was in the habit of eating the mud and he used to ease himself in the room. Kalusingh (D.W. 1) has admitted that at the time of the incident, the appellant was teacher in the school. Kalusingh (D.W.1) has not stated about the mental condition of the appellant at the unfortunate time of causing the injuries to deceased, Rampratap (P.W.2) and Phoolsingh (P.W.1). Meerabai (D.W.2) has stated that the appellant was in the habit of throwing away his meals and he used to tear his shirt and sometimes eased while sitting in the room. Kalusingh (D.W.1) is the real brother of the appellant and Meerabai (D.W.2) is wife of the appellant. These witnesses have not stated about the mental condition of the appellant on the fateful day, prior to the incident or at the time or just after the commission of the crime. In order to ascertain the insanity contemplated u/s 84 of the Indian Penal Code we have to see the circumstances, which preceded, attended and followed the crime. The appellant did not examine any Doctor or an expert in the mental disease or village doctor who had given treatment to him. No witness is examined to the effect that at the time of committing the offence the appellant was behaving irrationally or showing any sign of insanity. The appellant did not examine any Doctor or an expert in the mental disease or village doctor who had given treatment to him. No witness is examined to the effect that at the time of committing the offence the appellant was behaving irrationally or showing any sign of insanity. u/s 105 of the Evidence Act the onus is on the accused to prove the legal insanity within the meaning of section 84 of the Indian Penal Code but plea of legal insanity is not properly set up and proved by the appellant. The behaviour of the appellant during the incident was not such that it can be said that he knew not what he was doing. The conclusion of the learned trial Judge that the appellant has failed to prove the plea of legal insanity is in accordance with the evidence on record. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries received by the appellant at the time of incident and as such the prosecution story becomes doubtful. Dr. A.P. Pathak (P.W.7) has stated that on 16-6-1988 he has examined the appellant and found the following injuries on his person, which were caused by hard and blunt object within 3 days. (i) Contusion 1" x ? on the backside of right knee. (ii) Contusion ?" x 1/4" below the right eye. From the unimpeachable statements of Phoolsingh (P.W.1) and Rampratap (P.W.2) who are independent and injured eye-witnesses, it is proved that the appellant has caused fatal injuries to the deceased Maru. No question was asked in cross-examination of Phoolsingh (P.W.1) and Rampratap (P.W.2) or investigating officer about the two injuries on the body of the appellant. In these circumstances the injuries on person of the appellant being insignificant, needs no explanation by the prosecution. Learned trial Court has rightly held that the appellant is guilty of murder of deceased, an offence punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and for attempt to cause murder of Rampratap (P.W.2) an offence punishable u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code and for causing simple hurt to Phoolsingh (P.W.1) an offence punishable u/s 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Consequently we hereby confirm the conviction and sentence of the appellant. The appeal is devoid of merit and as such it is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed