JUDGMENT A. Hazarika, J. 1. Heard Mr. B. Cherry, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant. Also heard Mr. P.C. Gayan, Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the accused from Jail, challenging the legality and validity of the judgment and order dated 4.3.2002 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Sonitpur, Tezpur, convicting the accused appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 3. The appellant herein is alleged to have killed his own mother namely Homeswari Rajowar. The facts leading to prosecution of the appellant are that on 23.3.1997 one Sri Betharam Boro lodged an FIR with the Officer-in-Chatrge, Bebejia Police Outpost alleging inter alia that at about 6 p.m. on 22.3.1997 Sri Dhebua Rajowar, son of Sri Pirika Rajowar of Balisia Bahbari Tea Estate killed his mother by inflicting injuries on her person with sharp weapon as soon as she returned home after day long begging. It is further stated in the said FIR that he was informed about the said occurrence at about 7:30 p.m. and the villagers had managed to apprehend the accused and kept him tied. While explaining the delay in loading the FIR, it is stated that due to lack of conveyance the FIR could not be lodged in the night itself. 4. Upon receipt of the FIR, the In-Charge of Bebejia Police Outpost made a GD. Entry No. 386 dated 23.3.1997 and forwarded the FIR to the Officer-in-Charge (O/C for short) of Tezpur Police Station and on receipt of the same, Tezpur P.S. Case No. 157/97 was registered under Section 302 I.P.C. After completion of the investigation police submitted charge-sheet under Section 302 IPC vide Ext. 3. Since the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused appellant is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, it was committed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Tezpur to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Tezpur, Sonitpur, by an order dated 3.1.2000 passed in GR. Case No. 378/97 (corresponding Tezpur P.S. Case No. 157/97). 5. On commitment, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Tezpur framed charge against the accused appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. 6. The charge so framed being read over and explained to the accused he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence trial proceeded against the accused appellant. Case No. 378/97 (corresponding Tezpur P.S. Case No. 157/97). 5. On commitment, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Tezpur framed charge against the accused appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. 6. The charge so framed being read over and explained to the accused he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence trial proceeded against the accused appellant. During the course of trial prosecution examined as many as 10(ten) witnesses (P Ws for short) to prove its case while defence examined none. Defence plea is of complete denial. 7. PW-1, Betharam Boro is a reported witness who lodged the FIR at Bebejia Police Outpost. He stated that on being informed by the father of the accused appellant about the occurrence, he went to the place of occurrence and saw 4(four) injuries in the neck of Homeswari who had died already. The accused appellant was tied there for the whole night. Night had descended in the mean time. The village where they lived being an interior place, they could not inform the police in the night of occurrence itself. He had lodged the FIR next day. During cross-examination he stated that he had not seen the incident. 8. P.W. 2, Sri Dulal Rajowar is a child witness aged about 10 years. During his deposition he stated that the accused appellant is his elder brother. On the day of occurrence the accused appellant came charging the P.W. 2 and pressed his neck. However, his father separated him mom the accused appellant and then he ran away towards the village. Later on coming back, P.W. 2 saw that the accused appellant took his mother out of the road, assaulted her with a dao and killed her. Although the P.W. 2 asked the accused appellant to leave her, the accused appellant did not do so and killed his mother Homeswari. Thereafter three or four villagers including Deben (P.W. 6) caught the accused appellant. P.W. 2 further stated that his father (P.W. 3) also came with Deben Bhengra. The weapon i.e. the dao was thrown into Ghagra river by the accused appellant. During cross-examination he stated that his father was not present at home when the occurrence took place and he was alone at home at that time. Some insignificant suggestions put to him have been denied. 9. P.W. 3, Pirika Rajowar is the father of the accused appellant and P.W. 2. During cross-examination he stated that his father was not present at home when the occurrence took place and he was alone at home at that time. Some insignificant suggestions put to him have been denied. 9. P.W. 3, Pirika Rajowar is the father of the accused appellant and P.W. 2. He deposed that when the accused appellant tried to cut him, he took to his heels. Again when the accused appellant pressed his son Dulal (P.W. 2) with his hands, P.W. 3 separated them. When the accused wanted to cut P.W. 3 also, he ran away. Later, when Dulal (P.W. 6), Thanua, Hiralal and P.W. 3 came they found that the accused had cut his mother to death. Thereafter all the people kept the accused appellant tied on the bank of Ghagra river. During cross-examination, P.W. 3 stated that he fled away taking his son Dulal (P.W. 2) with him and at that time there was nobody in their house. At around 10 p.m., Dulal came home with him and coming home he saw his wife lying on the ground. Dulal (P.W. 2), Deben (P.W. 6) and Hiralal also came with the P.W. 3 and saw the deceased lying on the ground. P.W. 3 stated that he did not see who had killed his wife and how. He also stated that he did not see that the accused had thrown the dao into the river as he had fled away crossing the river and returned home at about 10 p.m. with his son Dulal, P.W. 2. The witness further deposed that Dulal, P.W. 2 was not present at home when the occurrence took place as he had gone with P.W. 3 crossing the river. 10. P.W. 4, Bogai Bhumiz deposed that on hearing hue and cry raised by the father of accused person, Pirika, he went there and on his arrival, Pirika (P.W. 3) informed that the accused appellant had cut his mother i.e. the wife of P.W. 3 and the accused appellant had also gone charging the P.W. 3. Then P.W. 4 being accompanied by Bhaben, Deben and other persons of the village went to the place of occurrence. They saw the accused standing in front of the house taking a dao in his hand. The mother of the accused appellant was lying in the courtyard. P.W. 4 saw injuries at the neck of the deceased. Then P.W. 4 being accompanied by Bhaben, Deben and other persons of the village went to the place of occurrence. They saw the accused standing in front of the house taking a dao in his hand. The mother of the accused appellant was lying in the courtyard. P.W. 4 saw injuries at the neck of the deceased. Having seen the P.W. 4 and others, the accused appellant threw the dao into the nearby river and tried to run away. They caught the accused appellant and kept him tied. On being lodged the FIR by the Gaonburah, Betharam (P.W. 1), police came. He however deposed that he was not present at the time of police coming to the place of occurrence. During cross-examination this witness stated that the people used to call the accused appellant 'pagla' (insane). He has also stated that the P.W. 3 told about the occurrence first to Deben (P.W. 6), then to Naren and thereafter to him (P.W. 4). The suggestion that the P.W. 4 did not tell the police that there was a dao in the hand of the accused is denied by the witness. 11. P.W. 5, Ruben Bhingra deposed that on being informed by P.W. 3 about the occurrence, he alongwith P.W. 4, P.W. 6 and other people of the village went to the place of occurrence and saw the deceased lying dead. Having seen them, the accused appellant tried to run away but they caught him. The accused appellant threw the dao into the river and he was kept tied by them. He saw cut injury in the neck of the deceased. He, however does not know the cause of the incident. During cross-examination this witness stated that the accused had once became insane. P.W. 5 further stated that, going to the place of occurrence, they found the accused person standing near the dead-body. This witness has categorically denied the suggestion made by the defence that the accused was insane at the time of occurrence. 12. P.W. 6, Deben Bhengra claims to be another eye-witness. He deposed that P.W. 3 told him that the accused was creating some trouble for which he should go there'. Accordingly, P.W. 6 went and consoled the accused appellant and thereafter left the place. The accused and his mother were going together. 12. P.W. 6, Deben Bhengra claims to be another eye-witness. He deposed that P.W. 3 told him that the accused was creating some trouble for which he should go there'. Accordingly, P.W. 6 went and consoled the accused appellant and thereafter left the place. The accused and his mother were going together. A little later, the P.W. 3 came and told him that the accused was searching P.W. 3 in order to cut him. Then P.W. 6 being accompanied by Karen and Bogai (P.W. 4) went to the house of P.W. 3 and saw the accused appellant striking his mother with a dao. Seeing P.W. 6 and others, the accused appellant threw away the dao and jumped into the river. However, they caught the accused appellant and kept him tied. P.W. 6 saw bleeding injury in his neck and face. At the night Gaonburah (P.W. 1) was informed. However in the meantime the injured lady died. The following day police came on being informed by the Gaonburah. During cross-examination, this deponent stated that he heard from the deceased that the accused appellant was mentally unsound. He further stated that at the time of occurrence he alongwith P.W. 3, P.W. 4, P.W. 5 and others were present at the place of occurrence. The defence made some suggestion to the witness during cross-examination which has been categorically denied by him. As a result, nothing significant could be brought on record during his cross-examination by the defence. 13. P.W. 7, Kamal Bagti was a witness to the inquest report prepared vide Ext. 2, wherein Ext. 2(2) was his signature. 14. P.W. 8, Dr. A. K. Dutta conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. He found the following injuries: 1) Over the chin cutting through the mendible bone lower four teeth and muscles of the neck size 3" × ½" × 4". 2) Over the upper lip size 3 cm. × ½" × ½" blood clot are seen over the both wounds. In the opinion of the doctor, the injuries were anti-mortem and the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury sustained. The injury was sufficient to cause the death of a person. 15. P.W. 9, joined Bebejia Police Outpost on transfer of the Investigating Police Officer, Sri Padma Gogoi (P.W. 10). In the opinion of the doctor, the injuries were anti-mortem and the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury sustained. The injury was sufficient to cause the death of a person. 15. P.W. 9, joined Bebejia Police Outpost on transfer of the Investigating Police Officer, Sri Padma Gogoi (P.W. 10). At the time of receiving the case diary from the Officer-in-Charge, Tezpur Police Station, the investigation of the case was almost completed and hence he submitted charge-sheet against the accused person under Section 302 I.P.C. vide Ext. 3. 16. P.W. 10 was the Officer-in-Charge of Bebejia Police Outpost under Tezpur Police Station on the day of occurrence. After receipt of the FIR, he made a GD. Entry and sent the main copy of the FIR to the Tezpur Police Station. Thereafter accompanied by Officer-in-Charge, Tezpur P.S., he started investigation of the case. He visited the place of occurrence arid held inquest vide Ext. 2 in presence of witnesses, sent the dead body to Tezpur Civil Hospital for autopsy, recorded the statement of the witnesses and arrested the accused appellant who was kept tied to a tree near his house. During cross-examination this witness stated that he had found the dead body lying on the road and the witnesses told him that the accused was an insane. 17. On the closure of prosecution witnesses, the statements of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C., wherein he has clearly admitted that he had cut his mother out of anger. 18. It has been strenuously urged by Mr. B. Chetry, learned Amicus Curiae that there are material contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He argued that although the P.W. 2 claims to be an eye witness of the occurrence, P.W. 3 in his deposition stated that Dulal (P.W. 2) was not present at home when the occurrence took place and he had gone with P.W. 3 crossing the river and returned home at about 10 p.m. with P.W. 3. The learned Amicus Curiae has also contended that the deposition of another eye-witness, P.W. 6 is also not believable as his deposition is contradicted by P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 on various material points. The learned Amicus Curiae has also contended that the deposition of another eye-witness, P.W. 6 is also not believable as his deposition is contradicted by P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 on various material points. Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted that the accused was insane at the time of commission of the crime, which fact finds support from the deposition of P.W. 4, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 and therefore he is entitled to get the benefit available under Section 84 of the IPC. Considering the statements made by P.W. 4, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 regarding insanity of the accused appellant the learned trial Court ought not to have rejected the plea of insanity of the accused appellant, while holding him guilty of the offence. Thus submitted learned Amicus Curiae that prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt and hence the accused appellant is entitled to acquittal. 19. While making rival contentions, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam submitted that P. W. 2 is a child witness and his deposition cannot be brushed aside on the plea of some minor contradiction in his deposition. The learned Addl. PP submits that in a trial of murder case, some contradictions here and there are bound to occur. However such minor and insignificant contradictions cannot be a ground for acquittal of an accused person who is charged for committing heinous crime like murder, that too of his own mother. The learned Addl. PP has also submitted that at the time of examination of the accused person under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he had clearly admitted that on the day of occurrence he had cut his mother out of anger. 20. We have meticulously examined the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, vis-a-vis the postmortem report and the statements made by the accused appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. On perusal of the evidence on record and after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties we found that P.W. 6 viz. Deben Bhengra is the material witness in the case. He has clearly stated in his deposition that he saw the accused striking his mother with a dao and having seen P.W. 6 and others, the accused appellant threw the dao away and jumped into the river. Deben Bhengra is the material witness in the case. He has clearly stated in his deposition that he saw the accused striking his mother with a dao and having seen P.W. 6 and others, the accused appellant threw the dao away and jumped into the river. His deposition in respect of attacking the P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 by the accused appellant before killing his mother has been duly corroborated by P.W. 2 and P.W. 3. Apart from that P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 also found the accused appellant standing with a dao in his hand nearby the dead body. Such circumstantial evidence clearly points the finger of accusation towards the accused appellant, more so, the accused appellant has clearly admitted that he had cut his mother out of anger. It is true that some contradictions occurred in the deposition of prosecution witnesses but in our considered view these contradictions are minor and immaterial. The Court can always separate the grains from chaffs. The post crime conduct of the accused is also relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. 21. Regarding insanity of the accused appellant at the time of commission of offence, as argued by the Amicus Curiae, on close scrutiny of the evidence on record we found that P.W. 4, during cross-examination has stated that "people used to call the accused appellant 'pagla' (insane) P.W. 5 on the other hand during cross-examination has deposed that "the accused had once became insane". But he has categorically denied the suggestion made by the defence that the accused was insane at the time of occurrence. P.W. 6 has stated that he heard from the deceased that the accused was mentally unsound. But nobody has said that the accused was insane at the time of commission of offence. The law relating to exception under Section 84 IPC has been elaborately dealt with by this Court in the case of State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Tadon Tatik reported in 2004 (1) GLT 360. It has been held in the said case that the court shall presume absence of insanity and the burden of proof of insanity is on the accused though it is not that heavy as that of the prosecution to prove an offence. Every minor aberration is not insanity and the accused must suffer from legal insanity and not merely medical insanity. Every minor aberration is not insanity and the accused must suffer from legal insanity and not merely medical insanity. It has further been held in the said case that most crucial point on which the unsoundness of mind has to be proved is the time when the crime is actually committed. Relevant portion of Tadon Tatik (supra) is quoted hereinbelow: ...so far the plea of insanity, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has the occasion to consider the provisions of Section 84 IPC in the case of Ratanlal v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1971 CriLJ 654; Sher Ali Wali Md. v. State of Maharashtra 1972 CriLJ 1523, Oyami Ayatul v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1974 CriLJ 305. In the above decisions the Apex Court has laid down the following guiding principles: 1. The Court shall presume absence of insanity. 2. Burden of proof of insanity is on the accused thought is not that heavy as that of the prosecution to prove an offence. 3. Every minor mental aberration is not insanity and unless the conguitive faculty of mind is destroyed as a result of unsoundness to such an extent as to render one incapable of knowing the nature of his act. 4. The accused must suffer from legal insanity and not merely medical insanity. 5. The crucial point on which the unsoundness of mind has to be proved is the time when the crime is actually committed. There is a clear difference between the medical insanity and legal insanity. In Mayajul Ali v. State of Assam (1987) 2 GLR (NOC) fit was held- Prevalence of unsoundness of mind at the time of commission of crime is the measure in scale to extent the privilege of the Exception of Section 84 IPC. It must be independently made out that the accused was actually in a state of unsoundness of mind. No doubt previous record and subsequent development may play parts as circumstances to the nearness of the people, but that should not be made ground by Court to presume that prevalence of unsoundness of mind at the time of commission of the crime. Satisfactory evidence must be in regard to establish the plea and liberal consideration will prove dangerous for criminal trial. 22. Satisfactory evidence must be in regard to establish the plea and liberal consideration will prove dangerous for criminal trial. 22. In the instant case, we have found that the defence has failed to discharge its burden in proving insanity of the accused to reap the benefit under Section 84 of the IPC. There is no medical evidence to show that at the relevant time, the accused was suffering from any insanity. As stated above, none of the witnesses have deposed that on the day of occurrence, particularly at the time of committing the crime, the accused appellant was insane or mad. Moreover, the defence has also not brought anything on record, except the suggestions as stated above. Hence, we cannot but to presume absence of insanity of the accused appellant at the time of committing the offence under Section 302 PC. The burden was on the defence, but they have failed to establish the same and we hold that the trial Court has rightly rejected the plea of insanity. In our considered opinion, the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case against the accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 23. In view of discussions and observations 'made above, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment and order under challenge. Consequently the same is affirmed. 24. In the result this appeal fails and dismissed. 25. Send down the Lower Court record. 26. Before parting with the case at hand, this Court would like to put on record the Court's appreciation to Mr. B. Cherry, learned Amicus Curiae for his valuable assistance rendered to the Court. The learned Amicus Curiae be paid a fee of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only. Appeal dismissed.