Judgment:- A.P. Bhangale, J. 1. This appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 28.3.2003 passed by 2nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha in Sessions Trial No. 99 of 2002 by which the appellant (original accused) was convicted for an offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is as under: Mahadeo Thamke had adopted appellant Balak after he lost his natural son. Appellant Balak is married with wife Kantabai and he has two sons and a daughter. All were residing together. On 22.2.2002 at about evening while Kantabai (PW 1) had gone to fetch water, her husband (appellant) and her father-in-law Mahadeo (deceased) were inside the house. Her sons were playing outside the house. When she took water pitcher inside the house, she saw her father-in-law Mahadeo lying in a pool of blood. She raised alarm. Her son Pradeep had rushed to the house; caught hold of appellant and brought him outside the house with the help of Kanta. The victim was seen with injury on his neck. Neighbourers and Police Patil had also rushed to the spot. Allipur Police Station was informed on telephone. The Police Station Officer Naidu who rushed to the spot, took appellant into custody. Inquest was held over dead body as also spot panchanama was drawn. Plain as well as blood stained sample of soil from the spot were collected. On the basis of report from Kantabai (PW 1) offence was registered at Crime No. 18/2002. In the course of investigation, “Satur”, a blood-stained weapon was recovered pursuant to disclosure statement made by appellant under panchanama. The dead body of Mahadeo was referred for postmortem examination. Dr Swati Sarode (PW 6) had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Mahadeo (deceased) on 23.2.2002. The articles seized during the investigation were referred for chemical analyzer’s opinion. The opinion from C.A. was received (exhibit 59). 3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 3rd Court at Hinganghat, District Wardha who committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Wardha for trial. 4. In support of the prosecution case, the prosecution has examined six witnesses. The opinion from C.A. was received (exhibit 59). 3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 3rd Court at Hinganghat, District Wardha who committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Wardha for trial. 4. In support of the prosecution case, the prosecution has examined six witnesses. There are no eye witnesses to the incident. The prosecution relied upon circumstantial evidence to prove the offence of murder. 5. Accused denied his liability in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. contending that he is falsely implicated by his wife Kanta and that he is mentally ill person. 6. Learned 2nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha found appellant-accused guilty of offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, as aforesaid. 7. Prosecution examined Dr Swati Sarode (PW 6) who carried out post-mortem on the dead body of Mahadeo Thamke. She noticed following injuries: “1) Vehicle injury ½. x ½. x 1. deep. 2) In the middle over trachea 3. x 3. x 3. in deep. 3) Incised wound over interior aspect of neck 2. x 2. deep up to caroted artery. 4) Incised wound on right side of neck 2 x 1 x 1.” She deposed that the above injuries were ante-mortem and were caused by hard and sharp instrument. She stated that Article 1- Chopper shown to her could cause the said injuries and all the above injuries were sufficient to cause death in normal course of nature. It is, therefore, established on record that the death of Mahadeo was homicidal. 8. We have scrutinized evidence of main prosecution witnesses viz. Kantabai (PW 1) and Pradeep (PW 2) apart from other circumstantial evidence on record. It appears from the evidence of PW 1 Kantabai that she had returned from the field on the date of incident i.e. on 22nd February 2002. Then she went to fetch water. while her husband and her father-in-law were at the house. When she brought water on her third trip, she saw her father-in-law lying down in the kitchen and his neck was cut. She made an alarm. Her son Pradeep had also reached to the house. Then they took appellant-accused outside the house. 9. According to PW 2 Pradeep, he was playing with his brother outside the house at about 06.00 p.m. His mother had gone to fetch water. She made an alarm. Her son Pradeep had also reached to the house. Then they took appellant-accused outside the house. 9. According to PW 2 Pradeep, he was playing with his brother outside the house at about 06.00 p.m. His mother had gone to fetch water. At that time, he heard alarm “ARE BAPARE KAI KELE RE”. He went to the house and he saw appellant (his father) coming out of the house. He went inside the house and saw dead body of his grand-father Mahadeo lying on the floor with injury on the neck of his grand-father. He then caught hold of appellant by neck and drove him in the court-yard of the house. 10. The evidence of PW 1 Kantabai and PW 2 Pradeep coupled with their cross-examination establishes presence of appellant-accused inside the house at the time of incident. Both witnesses had seen deceased Mahadeo with injury on his neck and lying on the floor. It is true that both these witnesses were not eye witnesses to incident, but they deposed about presence of appellant-accused at the relevant time soon after the incident. It is also in evidence that Kantabai had reported the incident to police vide oral report (exhibit 18) (FIR at exhibit 19) corroborating the fact that her father-in-law was at home on 22nd February 2002 at about 06.00 p.m. and her husband was standing in the verandah while her father-in-law was seen lying in a pool of blood with injury on his throat. 11. The prosecution also placed reliance upon disclosure statement of appellant-accused recorded under panchanama. PW 3 Baba Bhagat deposed that he acted as pancha. Spot panchanama was drawn in respect of spot of incident as per exhibit 26. It indicated that dead body of deceased Mahadeo was lying on the spot with neck found cut with long cutting injury on his neck with blood scattered around was seen. The inquest on the dead body of Mahadeo was held as per panchanama (exhibit 27). The evidence of PW 3 Baba further establishes that memorandum statement made in his presence by the appellant-accused was recorded under panchanama (exhibit 28) pursuant to which the appellant led panchas and police to his residential house to recovery of Satur (chopper), weapon of offence which was found stained with blood. The evidence of PW 3 Baba further establishes that memorandum statement made in his presence by the appellant-accused was recorded under panchanama (exhibit 28) pursuant to which the appellant led panchas and police to his residential house to recovery of Satur (chopper), weapon of offence which was found stained with blood. It appears from the evidence that under panchanama (exhibit 30), plain sample of earth as well as blood mixed sample from the spot of occurrence was collected. The investigating agency has also collected clothes of the deceased under panchanama (exhibit 35) and sample of blood belonging to deceased Mahadeo under panchanama (exhibit 35); clothes of the accused under panchanama (exhibit 37) and blood sample of the appellant-accused was also collected under panchanama (exhibit 36). All these articles were referred for chemical analyzer’s report which was received as per exhibit 41. C.A. Report (exhibit 41) indicates that the weapon of offence (Article 9) recovered at the instance of accused was found stained with human blood; clothes of accused (articles 7 and 8) were also found stained with human blood; Article 8 was stained with blood of group .O. (belonging to deceased Mahadeo). The clothes of the deceased which were seized in the course of investigation (Articles 1 to 4) out of which Articles 1,3 and 4 were found stained with blood of group .O. belonging to deceased Mahadeo. Thus, a strong circumstantial evidence has been led to complete a chain so strong to indicate that author of the crime was none other than the accused-appellant. 12. The medical evidence of Dr Swati Sarode indicates that the injuries noticed by her were antemortem caused by hard and sharp instrument. She opined that deceased died due to injury to trachea and shock due to injury to major vessels of neck and all the injuries noticed were sufficient to cause death in normal course. She further opined that injuries mentioned in post-mortem report (exhibit 48) could be possible by weapon (Article No. 9) shown to her. Thus,she gave her opinion as per exhibit 49. 13. Learned counsel for the defence who took us through the evidence on record, submitted that appellant-accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. averred that he became mentally ill person and was admitted in Sevagram Hospital and P.W. 1 Kantabai had disliking for him. Thus,she gave her opinion as per exhibit 49. 13. Learned counsel for the defence who took us through the evidence on record, submitted that appellant-accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. averred that he became mentally ill person and was admitted in Sevagram Hospital and P.W. 1 Kantabai had disliking for him. She had also taken the accused from Nagaji Maharaj Math, Pardi back to the house, though he had requested her that he will come back after few days and that she had threatened him to involve in a case. Learned counsel for defence Mr R.M. Daga submitted that the appellant must have, on account of his mental illness, committed the crime and since it was committed by reason of unsoundness of mind, he may be acquitted in view of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. 14. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, supported findings and reasonings recorded by the Trial Court and contended that plea of insanity has to be rejected in view of strong circumstantial evidence led in the case. The appellant-accused had no excuse whatsoever to cause injury on vital part of body of deceased by means of dangerous and formidable weapon like Satur (chopper). 15. Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code reads thus – “84. Act of a person of unsound mind. - 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 he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.” 16. We have given our careful consideration to the evidence led in the case in view of rival contentions. Considering the evidence of P.W. 1 Kantabai, in the course of her cross-examination, it was elicited from her that the accused had come to village for casting his vote in the Gram Panchayat election. Considering this fact, the presumption of law against the appellant is strong. The law presumes every person of the age of discretion to be sane until the contrary is proved. The defence of insanity as contemplated under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be admitted upon arguments derived merely from the character of the crime. Considering this fact, the presumption of law against the appellant is strong. The law presumes every person of the age of discretion to be sane until the contrary is proved. The defence of insanity as contemplated under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be admitted upon arguments derived merely from the character of the crime. The mere fact that prosecution did not prove motive as to why the accused murdered his father cannot indicate that the appellant suffered from unsoundness of mind or that he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act, which he committed as either illegal or wrong. 17. It would be useful to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in Bapu alias Gujraj Singh v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2007) 8 SCC 66 ). It is held by the Apex Court that every person mentally diseased is not ipso facto exempted from criminal responsibility. Distinction has to be drawn between legal insanity and medical insanity. The court is concerned with legal insanity and not with medical insanity. In the present case, no evidence is led on behalf of the defence about alleged insanity or mental illness of appellant. Hence, we need not delve deeper into the question as to whether defence of an insanity is available to the appellant. We do not find any ground to believe that appellant was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he did not know that the act which he was doing was wrong or that it was contrary to law. The person who came to village to cast vote in Gram Panchayat elections, by no stretch of imagination, can be called insane and cannot be allowed to take shelter under Section 84 IPC on the alleged ground of unsoundness of mind at the time of incident. Hence, we find from the evidence led and legal position on the subject that prosecution had succeeded to prove that deceased Mahadeo met with homicidal death and the real culprit was none other than the appellant-accused. 18. Hence, we find from the evidence led and legal position on the subject that prosecution had succeeded to prove that deceased Mahadeo met with homicidal death and the real culprit was none other than the appellant-accused. 18. Learned counsel for the defence submitted that penal liability of the appellant-accused may be reduced to Section 304 Part-I of the Indian Penal Code, because report (exhibit 19) from Kantabai that appellant had quarreled with her father-in-law over the issue as to why he carried rubbish in a griddle and he had asked her father-in-law to get out of house. We are not impressed by this submission, because the medico-legal evidence in this case as also the evidence of P.W. 1 Kantabai and P.W. 2 Pradeep, there was no reason for grave and sudden provocation for the appellant so as to kill his father by means of chopper, that too, by assaulting forcibly causing serious injuries to his father on neck causing instant death of his father. No offender can claim reduction in the degree of penal liability when he had caused such bodily injury on vital part of the body, which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The case was clearly covered by clause “thirdly” of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, we must conclude that no interference is called for in the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court. 19. In the result, appeal stands dismissed.