JUDGMENT 1. The appellant was tried under Sections 302 and 307, IPC before the 4th Addl. Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi. On being found guilty, he was sentenced to imprisonment for life, both under Sections 302 and 307, IPC. The present appeal is against the said conviction and sentence. 2. The appellant was a tenant under PW-6. Om Prakash Sah and the said Om Prakash Sah is the husband of the deceased, Chandrawati Devi. The appellants son was spoiling the son of PW6. Om Prakash Sah by not allowing him to study but by engaging him in playful activities. The son of the appellant was also not behaving well with the other persons in the house. Therefore, PW 6 asked the appellant to vacate the house. This was two days prior to the date of incident. On 7.4.1995, PW-6 was sitting in his shop. The appellant was coming in front of his shop with a sword covered with a sheath. On seeing the appellant, PW-6 asked him as to why he is having a sword. The appellant telling him see inflicted and cut PW-6. PW-6 raised alarm and the occurrence was witnessed by PW-14, Ranjan Kumar. On hearing the cries of her husband, (PW-6). Chandrawati Devi, the deceased in the case, came out of her house and took the appellant to task for assaulting her husband. The appellant, thereafter, inflicted injuries on the deceased. Chandrawati Devi. She fell down in front of the shop with bleeding injuries. The information was received by the police officer, in the meantime, who rushed to the spot and caught the appellant at the place. Chandrawati devi was taken to Ranchi Medical College and Hospital for treatment where she was pronounced dead. PW-6 was treated by Dr. M. Allam. who found the following injuries: 1. One Incised wound measuring 4" " bone deep over I he parietal region. 2. Three incised wounds over the right forearm measuring 1" " muscle deep. 3. Incised wound over the upper lip measuring " ". The doctor issued Ext. 6, the injury report with his opinion that injury No. (i) is grievous and other injuries are simple. 3. PW-13. Dr. Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, on taking up investigation of the crime, conducted inquest and thereafter, issued a requisition requesting Dr. Tulsi Mahto to conduct autopsy. 4. On receipt of the requisition, PW-15, Dr. The doctor issued Ext. 6, the injury report with his opinion that injury No. (i) is grievous and other injuries are simple. 3. PW-13. Dr. Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, on taking up investigation of the crime, conducted inquest and thereafter, issued a requisition requesting Dr. Tulsi Mahto to conduct autopsy. 4. On receipt of the requisition, PW-15, Dr. Tulsi Mahto conducted autopsy on the body of Chandrawati Devi and found two incised wounds measuring 5 cm. cm. and another measuring 7 cm. 2 cm. on the forehead. The doctor also found a stab wound in front of the neck and chest. The stab wound was measuring 3 cm. 1 cm. 3- cm. and the other stab wound was on the chest measuring 3- cm. 1 cm. The doctor issued Ext. 7, the post-mortem certificate with his opinion that death is on account of shock and haemorrhage. 5. After the completion of investigation final report was filed against the appellant. 6. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that when the appellant was produced before the trial Court he was sent for medical check up to find out whether the appellant was mentally ill. Learned counsel, relying upon the report dated 26.12.95 of the Chief Medical Officer, contends that since the report indicates that the appellant was not mentally stable on 26.12.95. the date on which the appellant was examined, he could not have been stable on the date of the occurrence, namely, on 7.4.1995 and that he is entitled for the benefit under Section 84, IPC. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the state on the above contention. 7. There is no dispute that Chandrawati Devi died on account of the injuries suffered by her and that those injuries are homicidal in nature. PW-6, her husband and PW-14, Ranjan Kumar were examined to speak about the occurrence apart from PW-3, Sandeep Kumar, who is the son of the deceased and PW-4, the daughter of the deceased. Their evidence disclose that the deceased was cut to death when she questioned as to why PW-6 is attacked by the appellant. On going through the evidence of PW-6, which is supported not only by PW-14 but by the medical evidence, we are satisfied that the deceased was inflicted with fatal injuries by the appellant. 8. Their evidence disclose that the deceased was cut to death when she questioned as to why PW-6 is attacked by the appellant. On going through the evidence of PW-6, which is supported not only by PW-14 but by the medical evidence, we are satisfied that the deceased was inflicted with fatal injuries by the appellant. 8. The only question that is to be decided by us is as to whether the appellant is entitled for the benefit of Section 84, IPC. The appellant did not take any such plea when he was examined under Section 313, Cr PC. The appellant did not examine any doctor before the trial Court to establish that on 7.4.1995 he was of unsound mind. Section 84 states that for a person to get the benefit of Section 84, the act which constitutes an offence must be done by a person who, at the time of constituting it by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. It is therefore, clear that for the appellant to get the benefit of Section 84, IPC he should establish that he was not only unsound of mind but was also incapable of knowing of the act in that it is either wrong or contrary to law. As we have stated earlier, though a submission is being made at the appellant stage that the appellant was mentally ill on 7.4.1995, no material was produced before the trial Court. It is no doubt true that the appellant was examined by the Chief Medical Officer, on 26.12.1995 and this examination by the doctor was on account of the order passed by the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi. The report dated 26.12.1995 given by the Chief Medical Officer though not marked as a document and brought on record, we, in the interest of justice, looked at it. On going. through the report we find nothing in the said report for us to hold that the appellant was of unsound mond on 7.4.1995. In fact. the report indicates that he was treated by one Dr. A.K. Gupta, a psychiatryof Ranchi Manshik Arogyashala. In the above back ground, we are unable to understand as to why the defence did not examine Dr. A.K. Gupta, who is said to have treated the appellant on an earlier occasion. In fact. the report indicates that he was treated by one Dr. A.K. Gupta, a psychiatryof Ranchi Manshik Arogyashala. In the above back ground, we are unable to understand as to why the defence did not examine Dr. A.K. Gupta, who is said to have treated the appellant on an earlier occasion. There is no explanation for the non-examination of the said doctor. Though the doctor had given his opinion that the appellant is suffering from mental illness, the Court cannot presume that the mental illness, which the appellant was found suffering on 26.12.1995. was also present in the appellant on 7.4.1995 and that on account of the said mental illness he was incapable of understanding the nature and consequence of his act or and that it is either wrong or contrary to law. In the absence of any document that the appellant was of unsound mind on 7.4.1995, we are unable to accept the contention of the counsel. As we have already noted that the evidence let in by the prosecution is cogent and convincing and we find no reason to reject their evidence. 9. In the result, we find no reason to interfere with the finding of the learned trial Court. The appeal is dismissed.