M. C. JAIN, J. The appellant is one Satya Prasad Misra who has filed this appeal from jail against the judgment and order dated 28-1-1998 passed by Sri Brahma Singh, the then Sessions Judge, Sonebhadra in S. T. No. 66 of 1993. He has been convicted under Section 302 I. P. C. and sentenced to life imprisonment for murdering his own brother Laxman Prasad and further under Section 324 I. P. C. with sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment for voluntarily causing hurt by a cutting weapon to his nephew Pradeep Kumar. 2. Sri Ramesh Sinha was appointed as amicus curiae to argue out the appeal on behalf of the appellant. We have heard him for the appellant as also Sri G. S. Bisaria, learned A. G. A. from the side of the State. 3. The incident occurred on 29-3-1993 at about 8 p. m. in village Majhgawan Misir, Police Station Ghorawal, District Sonebhadra at the house of the victim and the accused appellant. The report was lodged the same day at 10. 10 p. m. by Ambika Prasad Misra (brother of the deceased and the accused appellant), an eye-witness. The deceased was the eldest of the three brothers and the accused appellant the youngest, Ambika Prasad PW 1 being in between. The accused appellant had fallen out of the other members of the family about two years before the incident and used to roam about hither and thither. At intervals, he used to come and live with the family, asking the eldest brother to separate his share in the property. About a week before the incident also he had come to be house and was living there. Once or twice earlier, he was even scolded and pulled up by his eldest brother and had then left the house, threatening to kill him (eldest brother) if he did not partition his share. On the fateful day, he had borrowed an axe from the house of Jhulai Lohar and after axing fuel wood placed it beside the Tulsi plant vegetating in the courtyard. In the evening all the three brothers were sitting in the verandah of the house. Earthen lamp was glowing on the alcove of the wall. At about 8 p. m. their younger sister came to call them for meals. In the evening all the three brothers were sitting in the verandah of the house. Earthen lamp was glowing on the alcove of the wall. At about 8 p. m. their younger sister came to call them for meals. The eldest brother Laxman Prasad lay on a cot along with the informants son Pradeep and started taking his test of tables. The informant Ambika Prasad accompanied by the accused appellant went to the kitchen to take meals where his nephew Santosh was also called. All the three were taking meals. After eating two Chapatis the accused appellant Satya Prasad got up all of a sudden, hurried to Tulsi plant and picking up the axe went out. The informant and others heard shrieks of informants son Pradeep. He and his nephew Santosh rushed outside without washing their hands and spotted that the accused appellant was assaulting Laxman Prasad with the axe. On alarm being raised, Ram Pyare, Sri Kant Dubey and Ram Baran were attracted to the scene of crime. The accused appellant fled away leaving the axe. Blood was oozing out of the neck of Laxman Prasad. The child Pradeep was also injured and crying. He was bleeding from the right side of the forehead. Laxman Prasad had become unconscious and was laden in trolley tractor with bedding for being taken to the hospital, but in the meanwhile he died. Leaving the dead body laden on trolley, Ambika Prasad P. W. 1 went to the police station with written FIR and lodged it there. The case was registered and investigation started by the Investigating Officer Shiv Murti Dwivedi P. W. 4 who came to the spot, prepared the inquest report and completed the other formalities. The dead body was sent for post- mortem which was conducted by Dr. V. Singh P. W. 3 on 30-3-1993 at 3. 15 p. m. About 3/4 day had passed since he died. He was of about 35 years. The following ante-mortem injuries were found on his person: (1) Incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep on left side of face just lateral to angle of mouth. The left maxilla bone was fractured and molar and premolar teeth of upper and lower jaw (left side) stood fractured. (2) Incised wound 2. 5 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on left side of face, 3 cm below injury No. 1. The left maxilla bone was fractured and molar and premolar teeth of upper and lower jaw (left side) stood fractured. (2) Incised wound 2. 5 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on left side of face, 3 cm below injury No. 1. There was fracture of mandible bone on left side. (3) Incised wound 9 cm x 1. 5 cm x bone deep on left side of neck. (4) Incised wound 3. 5 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on back of right writs. 4. The death had occurred due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from ante-mortem injuries. 5. The child Pradeep was medically examined at P. H. C. Ghorawal, District Sonebhadra by Dr. L. L. Patel, P. W. 6 on 2-4-1993 at 10. 25 a. m. The following injury was found on his person: (1) Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm x bone deep just above right eyebrow on the right side of forehead. Pus discharge present, edge of the wound sharp and regular, oval in shape. 6. It was grievous in nature and was caused by some sharp edged object. It was about 4 days old. 7. The investigation resulted in the submission of the charge- sheet and accused appellant was put to trial. 8. The prosecution in all examined seven witnesses out of whom eye-witnesses were Ambika Prasad P. W. 1 and Santosh Kumar Misra P. W. 2. The rest were two Doctors, Investigating Officer and other formal witnesses. One Dr. A. K. Garg, was examined as C. W. 1, who had observed the accused appellant in jail from 26-11-1994 to 7-12-1994. According to him, he found him to be mentally sick during this period. 9. In his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. , the accused appellant stated that he and his two brothers were joint. However, according to him, his two brothers used to be annoyed of him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed false implication. 10. The evidence adduced by the prosecution commended itself to the trial Court, which recorded the impugned judgment. The matter is now in appeal before us. 11. It has first been argued by the learned amicus curiae that medical examination of Pradeep Kumar was conducted as late as on 2-4-1993 at 10. 25 a. m. , viz. , after four days. The evidence adduced by the prosecution commended itself to the trial Court, which recorded the impugned judgment. The matter is now in appeal before us. 11. It has first been argued by the learned amicus curiae that medical examination of Pradeep Kumar was conducted as late as on 2-4-1993 at 10. 25 a. m. , viz. , after four days. We do not think that the accused appellant gains any point by complaining delay in medical examination of this injured child. It is to be pointed out that the factum of his having suffered injury in the same incident was mentioned in the promptly lodged F. I. R. When Ambika Prasad P. W. 1 and Santosh Kumar Misra P. W. 2 had come out from the kitchen where they were taking their meals, on hearing shrieks of this child Pradeep, they had seen the accused appellant striking axe blows on Laxman Prasad and the child Pradeep was weeping with blood oozing out from his forehead. This fact has clearly been deposed by both the eye- witnesses Ambika Prasad P. W. 1 and Santosh Kumar Misra P. W. 2. It is pertinent to observe that actually Satya Prakash had also started taking meals with these two witnesses in the kitchen, but had got up after eating two Chapatis, had come out of the kitchen picking up the axe from near the Tulsi plant. It was immediately thereafter that the shrieks of Pradeep were heard and these two witnesses had come out to see that he was striking axe blows on Laxman Prasad and the child Pradeep with bleeding wound on his forehead was weeping. Incised wound on his person was found just above right eyebrow as per the injury report. The injury sustained by the child Pradeep was dwarfed by the pachydermic tragedy in the family, i. e. , brutal murder of the eldest brother Laxman Prasad by the youngest accused appellant. Therefore, the tragedy itself explains the delay in the medical examination of the child Pradeep. The factum of his injury, as said above, was mentioned in the earliest version- F. I. R. 12. The second argument of the learned amicus curiae is that both the eye-witnesses are interested persons, Ambika Prasad P. W. 1 being the younger brother of the deceased and Santosh Kumar Misra P. W. 2 being the son of the deceased himself. The factum of his injury, as said above, was mentioned in the earliest version- F. I. R. 12. The second argument of the learned amicus curiae is that both the eye-witnesses are interested persons, Ambika Prasad P. W. 1 being the younger brother of the deceased and Santosh Kumar Misra P. W. 2 being the son of the deceased himself. We should point that they are the natural witnesses of the incident which occurred at the house at about 8 p. m. Their presence at the scene of the incident cannot at all be doubted. Moreover, they are equally related to the accused appellant. He is the own brother of Ambika Prasad P. W. 1 and uncle of Santosh Kumar Misra P. W. 2. It does not stand to reason at all that they would falsely implicate him. 13. The third argument of the learned amicus curiae is that the accused appellant being unmarried, Ambika Prasad P. W. 1 lodged false report against him so that he could be disinherited from the property of the father and he with Santosh Kumar Misra P. W. 2 (son of the deceased Laxman Prasad) could be the immediate beneficiary. It has been pointed out that as admitted by Ambika Prasad P. W. 1, his father was alive at that time and owned 80-90 Bighas of land in his name. The motive of false implication imputed against Ambika Prasad P. W. 1 does not appeal to reason at all. It is a case of single accused who is the own brother of the deceased as well as Ambika Prasad P. W. 1. The incident took place at their house at about 8 p. m. It is illogical that a clean chit would be given to the real culprit and the accused appellant would be substituted for him. The truth seems to be the other way that the accused appellant was living a wayward style of life and wanted his share to be partitioned. He considered the eldest brother to be the blockade in achieving his goal and he used to build pressure on him for partition. Rather, he had motive to commit the murder of his eldest brother whom he considered to be the hurdle in enjoying the share of property which could fall to his lot if partition was effected. He considered the eldest brother to be the blockade in achieving his goal and he used to build pressure on him for partition. Rather, he had motive to commit the murder of his eldest brother whom he considered to be the hurdle in enjoying the share of property which could fall to his lot if partition was effected. We, therefore, reject the argument that Ambika Prasad P. W. 1 with the aid of the deceaseds son Santosh Kumar Misra P. W. 2 falsely implicated the accused appellant to grab his share. 14. We also note from the cross-examination of Ambika Prasad P. W. 1 that an outlandish suggestion was made to him that the accused appellant was carrying on illicit affair with his wife and to save the family prestige, he was falsely implicated. It is not at all understandable as to how family prestige could be saved by the false implication of the accused appellant. It is also beyond stretch of imagination that for so saving the prestige of the family, the incident of the murder of the eldest brother, who was virtually Karta of the family, would be enacted. It is obvious that such an outrageous suggestion was made in the cross- examination of Ambika Prasad P. W. 1 so that he could lose his balance and cool during his cross- examination which could ultimately turn out to be beneficial to the accused appellant. It, however, did not happen and Ambika Prasad P. W. 1 withstood the test of cross-examination firmly. The central core of the testimony of Ambika Prasad P. W. 1 and Santosh Kumar Misra P. W. 2 has remained intact that they had seen the accused appellant striking axe blows on Laxman Prasad and Pradeep Kumar with bleeding wound on his forehead weeping nearby Laxman Prasad. It stood established that the incised wound to him too had been caused by the accused appellant. We may also state that nothing of the kind of illicit affair with the wife of Ambika Prasad P. W. 1 was stated by the accused appellant himself in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. 15. Learned amicus curiae then argued that the accused appellant was of unsound mind and insane. We may also state that nothing of the kind of illicit affair with the wife of Ambika Prasad P. W. 1 was stated by the accused appellant himself in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. 15. Learned amicus curiae then argued that the accused appellant was of unsound mind and insane. He urged that the case is covered by Section 84 of the I. P. C. which says that nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that what he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law. There is no evidence on record to sustain this bald argument. When examined under Section 313 Cr. P. C. on 25-6- 1997, he gave coherent answers to the questions put to him. The evidence of Ambika Prasad P. W. 1 is there that he had passed Xth Standard and at the time of the incident he was studying in Chunar Sanskrit Pathshala. It was only 8-10 days before the incident that he had come to the house. The learned amicus curiae laid stress on this statement of Ambika Prasad P. W. 1 that every member of the family was fed up of the behaviour of the accused appellant and that for some time he was treated in Varanasi Mental Hospital. The simple fact that for sometime in the past he had been treated in Varanasi Mental Hospital, does not mean that he was insane or of sound mind. There is no evidence as to for what particular ailment he was treated. It could be depression or some other like disorder. No evidence in the form of documents has been produced as to what was his specific problem and what was the treatment given to him. Needless to say, it is for the accused to prove that his case is covered by general exceptions comprising Section 84 I. P. C. Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act makes it very clear. 16. So far as the statement of C. W. 1 Dr. A. K. Garg is concerned that he observed him in jail from 26-11- 1994 to 7-12-1994 and found him mentally sick, it should be pointed out that the incident took place much before on 29-3-1993. 16. So far as the statement of C. W. 1 Dr. A. K. Garg is concerned that he observed him in jail from 26-11- 1994 to 7-12-1994 and found him mentally sick, it should be pointed out that the incident took place much before on 29-3-1993. If he was mentally sick thereafter from 26-11-1994 to 7-12-1994 while lodged in jail, it does not mean that he was either mentally sick at the time of the incident or continued to be so even after 7-12-1994. We would point out that his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. was recorded as late as on 25-6-1997 when he gave rational and coherent answers to the questions put to him. Moreover, there is a report of the Chief Medical Officer Mirzapur dated 1-10-1997 on record that in consequence of Courts order dated 3-9-1997 the accused appellant Satya Prasad was kept under observation from 12-9-1997 to 21-9-1997 and was found to be mentally fit and healthy. It is obvious that he was not suffering from any mental disorder. It is apparent that while in jail, the accused appellant attempted to feign and pretend mental illness to save him from legal consequences of the heinous crime committed by him, but the truth ultimately surfaced as is evident from the report dated 1-10-1997 of the CMO Mirzapur on record. 17. Judged from all the angles, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The conviction and sentences passed by the learned trial Court are perfectly sustainable and justified. 18. The appeal is hereby dismissed. The appellant is in jail. He shall serve out the sentences passed against him. 19. The office shall send the copy of this judgment along with the record to the lower Court for making necessary entry in the relevant register under intimation to this Court within two months. 20. Sri Ramesh Sinha, learned amicus curiae who argued the appeal on behalf of the appellant shall get Rs. 1,000/- as fee. Appeal dismissed.