JUDGMENT Ms. R. BANUMATHI, J. This appeal is directed against the verdict of conviction in S.C. No. 107 of 2007 dated 6.2.2008 on the file of Principal Sessions 2 Judge, Virudhunagar District @ Srivilliputhur convicting the Appellant-Accused under Section 302 IPC (2 counts) and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and also imposing fine. 2. Accused-Pitchaikali @ Pitchaikali Raj is the son of deceased Madasamy Nadar and Neelavathy. PW 1-Jayaraj, PW2-Kadarkarai Nadar and PW5-Mookkammal are related to the deceased and accused as under:- Durgaiammal = Kadarkarai Nadar (PW2) Neelavathy (Deceased No. 2) = Madasamy Nadar (Deceased No. 1) Jayaraj (PW1) = Mookammal (PW5) Pitchaikali @ Pitchaikali Raj (Accused) 3. Deceased Madasamy Nadar was working in a hotel and Neelavathy was rolling beedies. Accused was working in the tailor shop of PW3-Ramachandran and not having permanent work. 4. About one month prior to the occurrence, deceased Madasamy Nadar and Neelavathy arranged for marriage of accused 3 with the second daughter of PW4- Jeevajothi. Sridhana cash of Rs. 20,000/- and 15 sovereign jewels were agreed to be given for the marriage. Out of the Sridhana amount of Rs. 20,000/-, Rs. 10,000/- was paid to the deceased. Demanding for the amount of Rs. 10,000/-, the accused was frequently quarrelling with his parents. 5. On 19.7.2007, PWs. 1 and 5 were sleeping in their house. PW1 running a tea shop got up early morning at 4'0 clock on 20.7.2007 and he was washing his face. At that time, PW1 heard noise . When PWs.l and 5 rushed to the house of the deceased and accused, accused was found coming out with Aruval and went away. Deceased Madasamy Nadar and Neelavathy sustained cut injuries and found dead. 6. PW 1-Jeyaraj went to Thalavaipuram Police Station at 5.30 a.m. on 20.7.2007 and lodged Exhibit P-l-Complaint, in which PW2-Kadarkarai Nadar signed as in Exhibit P- l. On receipt of Exhibit P-1-Complaint, PW14-S.I. of Police registered the case in Cr.No.240/2007 under Section 302 IPC. Exhibit P-14 is the printed FIR 7. PW16-Inspector of Police has taken up investigation and inspected the scene of occurrence at 7.30 a.m. on 20.7.2007 in the presence of PW6-VAO and witness Velusamy (Village Assistant) and prepared Exhibit P-3-Observation Mahazar and Exhibit P-19-Rough Plan. He had also arranged to take photographs of scene of occurrence through PW8- Muniasamy. PW8-Photographer took video (M09) and photographs (MO10-series). 8. PW16-Inspector of Police has taken up investigation and inspected the scene of occurrence at 7.30 a.m. on 20.7.2007 in the presence of PW6-VAO and witness Velusamy (Village Assistant) and prepared Exhibit P-3-Observation Mahazar and Exhibit P-19-Rough Plan. He had also arranged to take photographs of scene of occurrence through PW8- Muniasamy. PW8-Photographer took video (M09) and photographs (MO10-series). 8. Witnesses were examined in the presence of panchayatdars and inquest was held on the bodies of deceased Madasamy Nadar and Neelavathy. Exhibit P-20 is the Inquest report of deceased Madasamy Nadar and Exhibit P-21 is the Inquest report of deceased Neelavathy. After inquest the bodies were sent through PWs.10 and 11-Head Constables respectively for autopsy. On 20.7.2007 at 12.00 noon, PW16-10 seized M03 (series)-bloodstained tiles with hair from the place where body of deceased Neelavathy was lying; M04 (series)-bloodstained tiles with hair from the place where body of deceased Madasamy was lying; M05 (series)-sample tiles; M06 (series)-bloodstained mats; M07 (series)-bloodstained pillows under Exhibit P-4-Seizure Mahazar. 9. Based on the requisition from IO, PW15-Dr.Karkuzhali conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased Neelavathy at 8.30 a.m. on 20.7.2007. PW15 noted the following injuries: - Irregular lacerated wound in the back of the neck involving lower scalp and neck 18 x 3 x 3cm extending from one side ear to other side. Incised wound 7 x 2 x 4cm on the right side back of the shoulder. Incised wound 10 x 3 x 3cm on the back right side. Incised wound 4 x 1 x 1cm on the left shoulder back. Irregular lacerated wound 11 x 4 x 3cm on the front of the neck. Incised wound 4 x 3 x 3 on the left side of mandible. Incised wound l x l 3cm below the previous wound. Incised wound one below the other 1 x 3 x 2cm on the left side of front of the chest cavity. Incised wound 7 x 3 x 3 cm on the left hand shoulder. PW15 opined that death was due to hypovolaemic shock due to multiple cut injury involving major blood vessel. Exhibit P-16 is the post-mortem certificate issued in respect of deceased Neelavathy. 10. PW15-Dr.Karkuzhali had also conducted autopsy on the body of deceased Madasamy Nadar at 2.30 p.m. on 20.7.2007. PW15 noted the following injuries:- Left hand cut from the wrist and kept separately. Exhibit P-16 is the post-mortem certificate issued in respect of deceased Neelavathy. 10. PW15-Dr.Karkuzhali had also conducted autopsy on the body of deceased Madasamy Nadar at 2.30 p.m. on 20.7.2007. PW15 noted the following injuries:- Left hand cut from the wrist and kept separately. Irregular lacerated wounds three in numbers 11 x 3 x 4cm, 8 x 3 x 1cm and 6 x 3 x 1cm respectively on the back of neck. Incised wound 7 x 2 x 2cm on the back of right shoulder. Incised wound 12 x 1 x 1cm on the back of left shoulder. Irregular lacerated wound 11 x 7 x 3cm on the right shoulder. Incised wound 5 x 1 x 2cm on the left arm. Incised wound lxl.3cm on the left ear lobule. Incised wound 1 x.3 x.3cm on the left side cheek. Incised wound 3 x 1 x 1cm on the lateral aspect of right wrist. Incised wound 3 x 1 x 1cm on the right forearm. Incised wound 4 x 2 x 2cm on the medial aspect of right fossa. Incised wound below the left ear lobule. PW15 opined that death was due to hypovolaemic shock haemorrhage due to multiple cut injury to many vessels. Exhibit P-18 is the post-mortem certificate issued in respect of deceased Madasamy Nadar. After postmortem, bloodstained saree (MO 11) and bloodstained lungi MO 12) were seized from the bodies of the deceased Madasamy and Neelvathi respectively. 11. On 20.7.2007 at 3. p.m. accused himself appeared before PW6-VAO and gave extra-judicial confession (Exhibit P-5) and the same was reduced into writing. Thereafter, PW6-VAO handed over the accused and Exhibit P-5 to PW16-10. On being examined, accused had voluntarily given confession statement before PW16-10. Exhibit P-7 is the admissible portion of confession statement which led to recovery of M08-bloodstained Aruval. PW16-IO also seized bloodstained clothes (MO 1-Shirt and MO2-Pant) of the accused under Exhibit P-8-Mahazar. PW16-IO had sent the seized objects for chemical analysis. Upon receipt of chemical analysis report and after completion of due investigation, PW16 filed final report on 24.7.2007 against the accused under Section 302 IPC. 12. To substantiate the Charges against the accused in the trial Court, prosecution examined PWs.l to 16. Exhibits Pl to 21 and MOs. 1 to 12 were marked. Accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating evidence and circumstance. 12. To substantiate the Charges against the accused in the trial Court, prosecution examined PWs.l to 16. Exhibits Pl to 21 and MOs. 1 to 12 were marked. Accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating evidence and circumstance. Denying all of them, accused has stated that a false case is foisted against him. He has also stated that he is suffering from mental disease and mental faculties are affected. 13. Upon analysis of evidence, learned Sessions Judge held that evidence of PW2 amply corroborates the evidence of PW5 and accused being the inmate of the house of deceased caused death of his parents. Learned Sessions Judge further held that no document has been produced to show that accused was suffering from mental illness. Finding that the act of the accused after the occurrence would clearly show that accused was not suffering from any mental illness and he is not entitled to the benefit under Section 84 IPC, learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC (2 counts) for committing murder of his parents and sentenced him to undergo two life imprisonment, ordered to run concurrently. 14. Mr. E. Somasundaram, learned counsel for the appellant contended that evidence of PWs. 1,2 and 5 is not sufficient to hold that accused is responsible for the death of deceased Madasamy and Neelavathy. It was argued that when PW1 was treated hostile, no reliance could be placed upon the evidence of PWs.1,2 and 5. It was further argued that the answers elicited from PW1 during cross examination would clearly show that accused was suffering from mental disease. Placing reliance upon Ravi @ (2007) 1 LW (Crl) 550, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the alleged extra-judicial confession statement to PW6-VAO does not inspire confidence. 15. Taking us through the evidence, Mr. Daniel Manohar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submitted that evidence of PWs.2 and 5 coupled with the fact that accused was the inmate of the house would satisfactorily establish the complicity of the accused for commission of the offence. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor would submit that PW1 being an infirm witness, his hostility would not materially affect the prosecution case. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor fairly conceded that extra-judicial confession recorded after commencement of investigation may not be of much evidentiary value. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor would submit that PW1 being an infirm witness, his hostility would not materially affect the prosecution case. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor fairly conceded that extra-judicial confession recorded after commencement of investigation may not be of much evidentiary value. It was further argued that upon analysis of facts and evidence, trial Court rightly negatived the plea of insanity and convicted the appellant/accused under Section 302 IPC (2 counts). 16. Ill-will of accused towards deceased Madasamy Nadar and Neelavathy:- No eye-witness for the occurrence and prosecution case rests upon circumstantial evidence. Prosecution relies upon the following circumstances:- Accused had grudge against his parents as they were not giving him money. PWs.l and 5 saw the accused coming out of the house with Aruval and that deceased Madasamy Nadar and Neelavathy found dead with cut injuries. Accused was residing in the same house and there was no explanation from him as to the homicidal death of his parents. Confession statement of accused led to recovery of M08-Aruval and 'B' group blood of the deceased was found detected in M08-Aruval. 17. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence. Vide (2007) 4 SCC 713 and AIR 1996 SC 3390 : (1996) 10 SCC 193 : (1996) SCC (Cr) 1205 : (1997) 1 MLJ (Crl) 396. 18. Whether prosecution has established the circumstances and whether the established circumstances are of conclusive nature pointing to the guilt of the accused is the point falling for our consideration. 19. At the time of occurrence, accused was aged about 28-29 years. Accused was working as tailor in the shop of PW3. Deceased arranged for marriage of the accused with the second daughter of PW4. In their evidence, PW2-Kadarkarai Nadar, PW4- Jeevajothi (mother of the bride) and PW5-Mookkammal (wife of PW1) have consistently stated that in the marriage talks, it was agreed to give 15 sovereign jewels and cash of Rs. 20,000/-. Out of the agreed Sridhana amount of Rs. 20,000/-, Rs. Deceased arranged for marriage of the accused with the second daughter of PW4. In their evidence, PW2-Kadarkarai Nadar, PW4- Jeevajothi (mother of the bride) and PW5-Mookkammal (wife of PW1) have consistently stated that in the marriage talks, it was agreed to give 15 sovereign jewels and cash of Rs. 20,000/-. Out of the agreed Sridhana amount of Rs. 20,000/-, Rs. 10,000/- cash was given to the deceased as initial amount. PW1 has clearly stated about the payment of amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the parents of the accused. Accused was demanding for the said money and accused was frequently picking up quarrel with the deceased. In his evidence, PW2 has stated that on the night of 19.7.2007, accused was quarrelling with his mother. Consistent version of PWs.2 and 5 clearly shows that demanding for money accused was picking up quarrel with his parents and that he developed grudge towards his parents. 20. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that payment of Rs. 10,000/- Sridhana amount was not stated in Exhibit P-1-Complaint and in Exhibit P-14-FIR and that it is an improvement to attribute the motive. Though payment of Sridhana amount of Rs. 10,000/- and that demanding the same accused was picking up quarrel with his parents has not been mentioned in Exhibit P-l-Complaint and in Exhibit P-14-FIR, in their statement before the Police under Section 161 (3) Cr.P.C, witnesses have clearly stated about the same. Therefore, it cannot be said that for the purpose of attributing motive, prosecution has improved its version. 21. Learned counsel for the appellant nextly contended that demand for payment of Sridhana amount of Rs. 10,000/- and picking up quarrel is very flimsy and on that flimsy ground it would be quite improbable that accused would have committed murder of his parents. One cannot normally see into the mind of another. Ill-will towards his parents impelled the accused to commit the offence. The circumstance, accused had grudge towards his parents which swelled up heightens the probability of prosecution version. 22. Occurrence: Vital piece of evidence against the accused is that deceased and accused were living in the same house. From Exhibit P-19-Rough Plan, it is seen that houses of deceased and PWs.l and 2 are adjacent to each other. House of PW2 is shown as Sl. No. 21 and PW 1's house as Sl.No.22 which are just adjacent to the scene of occurrence. From Exhibit P-19-Rough Plan, it is seen that houses of deceased and PWs.l and 2 are adjacent to each other. House of PW2 is shown as Sl. No. 21 and PW 1's house as Sl.No.22 which are just adjacent to the scene of occurrence. On the early morning of 20.7.2007, 4. - 4.30 a.m. while he was washing the face, PW1 heard noise from the house of the deceased and he has woken his father-PW2 and wife-PW5. All of them went and saw the accused coming out from the house with Aruval and going away. Both deceased found dead with cut injuries. In his evidence, PW1 has stated that he saw the accused; but made no mention about the accused being armed with Aruval. In their evidence, PWs.2 and 5 have clearly stated that they saw the accused with Aruval and coming out of the house. Consistent version of PWs.2 and 5 that they saw the accused coming out of the house with Aruval is a strong piece of evidence militating against the accused. 23. Prosecution case came under heavy attack on the ground that de facto complainant (PW1) was treated hostile. To appreciate this contention that circumstance under which PW1 was treated hostile may be noticed. In his chief examination, PW1 has supported the prosecution case saying that he heard the noise from the house of the deceased and saw the accused coming out from the house. He has also spoken about lodging of Exhibit P-l -Complaint where his father-PW2 has signed. During cross examination, PW 1 has exhibited hostile animus and given answers against the prosecution case. In the cross examination, PW 1 exhibited hostile animus as noted below:- Having given the complaint (Exhibit P-1) which he has also admitted in the chief examination whereas in the cross examination, PW 1 has stated that he signed in a blank paper and feigned ignorance about the contents. that he was compelled by the Police to depose in favour of prosecution. accused was suffering from serious mental illness and that accused was having strange behaviour. Because of exhibition of hostile animus, during cross-examination prosecution was constrained to treat PW 1 hostile and Court has granted permission to treat him hostile. 24. that he was compelled by the Police to depose in favour of prosecution. accused was suffering from serious mental illness and that accused was having strange behaviour. Because of exhibition of hostile animus, during cross-examination prosecution was constrained to treat PW 1 hostile and Court has granted permission to treat him hostile. 24. If in the opinion of the Court a witness bears hostile animus and when a witness makes adverse statement in the cross examination, permission could be granted to treat the witness hostile even after completion of cross examination. In our considered view having regard to the adverse statement made by PW 1, learned Sessions Judge rightly exercised the discretion in granting permission to treat FW1 hostile after completion of cross examination. 25. Mere fact that witness was declared hostile does not make him unreliable witness so as to exclude his evidence from consideration altogether. While considering the evidence of hostile witness, if the Judge considers that his evidence not wholly shaken, after considering the evidence of a witness, Court can accept that part of his testimony which Court finds credit worthy and act upon it. In the present case, PW 1 has exhibited hostile animus during cross examination, his deposition in chief examination that he heard the noise and that he saw the accused coming out of the house and that deceased were found dead with cut injuries remains unshaken. Learned Sessions Judge rightly taken the evidence of PW 1 as corroborative piece of evidence to the evidence of PWs.2 and 5. 26. While considering the evidence of PW 1 notwithstanding his hostile animus, evidence of PW 1 is to be accepted insofar as:- PW 1 heard the noise and went to the house of the deceased and saw accused coming out from the house. Madasamy Nadar and Neelavathy were found dead with cut injuries in a pool of blood. In Exhibit P-I-Complaint, PW2 who has signed as. The above aspects in the evidence of PW 1 are trustworthy and acceptable and would amply corroborate the evidence of PWs.2 and 5 that they saw the accused with Aruval coming out from the house of the deceased. 27. Yet another vital piece of evidence is that accused was the resident of the same house. In Exhibits P-20 and P-21 - Inquest Reports in Col.4 name of the accused is stated. 27. Yet another vital piece of evidence is that accused was the resident of the same house. In Exhibits P-20 and P-21 - Inquest Reports in Col.4 name of the accused is stated. Col.4 of Exhibit P-20 and Exhibit P-21 reads as under:- Exhibit P-20 and Exhibit P-21 reads 28. Accused residing in the same house and as an inmate of the house, it is for the accused to explain homicidal death of his parents. Such incriminating facts are within the exclusive knowledge of the accused and it is for him to explain how his parents were found murdered. During 313 Cr.P.C. questioning, the trend of answers is blunt and outright denial of circumstance and accused had no explanation to offer. 29. Observing that when incriminating facts are well within the exclusive knowledge of the accused and that it is for him to offer an explanation, in (2007) 2 MLJ (Crl) 861 (SC), the Supreme Court held as under at pp. 869 & 870 of MLJ (Crl): 22. It is not necessary to multiply with authorities. The principle is well settled, the provisions of Sections 106 of the Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and categoric in laying down that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Thus, if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how and when he parted company. He must furnish an explanation which appears to the Court to be probable and satisfactory. If he does so he must be held to have discharged his burden. If he fails to offer an explanation on the basis of facts within his special knowledge, he fails to discharge the burden cast upon him by Sections 106 of the Evidence Act. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him, that itself provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him. Section 106 does not shift the burden of proof in a criminal trial, which is always upon the prosecution. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him, that itself provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him. Section 106 does not shift the burden of proof in a criminal trial, which is always upon the prosecution. It lays down the rule that when the accused does not throw any light upon the facts which could not support any theory or hypothesis compatiable with his innocence, the Court can consider his failure to adduce any explanation, as an additional link which completes the chain. The principle has been succinctly stated in Re. Naina Mohd. AIR 1960 Madras 218" (emphasis supplied) Applying the ratio of the above decision, in the case on hand, failure to adduce any explanation provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against the accused. 30. Extra-judicial confession to PW6-VAO Case of prosecution is that on 20.7.2007 at 2.00 p.m., PW13-Ganesan went near Kanmai and accused asked him to get some food for him and PW13 advised the accused to surrender before VAO. Further, case of prosecution is that on being advised by PW13, accused went to PW6-VAO at 3. p.m. and had given extra-judicial confession (Exhibit P-5) which was reduced to writing. Thereafter, PW6 produced the accused before the Police and Police arrested him on 20.7.2007 - 5.00 p.m. 31. Evidentiary value of extra-judicial confession was assailed inter alia raising the following points: no evidence to show that PW6-VAO was already known to the accused and there is nothing to show that accused trusted PW6-VAO. investigation already commenced and while so, alleged extra-judicial confession made to PW6-VAO has hardly any evidentiary value. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon Ravi @ Ravichandran v. State rep. by Inspector of Police, Steel Plant Police Station, Salem (supra) wherein Division Bench of this Court has held that when there is no evidence to show that VAO was known to first accused, no value could be attached to extra-judicial confession made to VAO. 32. We have carefully examined the contentious points raised attacking the credibility of extra-judicial confession. Exhibit P-1-Complaint was lodged at 5.30 a.m., on the basis of which case in Cr.No.240/2007 was registered under Section 302 IPC. 32. We have carefully examined the contentious points raised attacking the credibility of extra-judicial confession. Exhibit P-1-Complaint was lodged at 5.30 a.m., on the basis of which case in Cr.No.240/2007 was registered under Section 302 IPC. Observation Mahazar (Exhibit P-3) and Rough Plan (Exhibit P-19) were prepared at 7.30 a.m. Inquest on the body of the deceased Madasamy Nadar was conducted between 8.30 - 10.00 a.m. (Exhibit P-20) and deceased Neelavathy between 10.00 - 11.30 A.M. (Exhibit P-21). Throughout the day on 20.7.2007 investigation was in full swing, and in such circumstances, evidentiary value of extrajudicial confession to be examined. 33. In (2002) 2 LW (Crl) 746, Division Bench of this Court held that though it is not possible to state that the confession statement recorded by the Village Administrative Officer is illegal or inadmissible, the probative value would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus making it clear a confession statement even could be recorded after the investigation has begun, despite the prohibition contained in Rule 72 and its probative value has to be tested, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. 34. Since investigation was in full swing, in our considered view Exhibit P-5-extra judicial confession is very weak piece of evidence. There is no evidence to show that VAO was already known to the accused and that accused trusted him. Taking into consideration that investigation was in full swing, we are not inclined to place reliance upon Exhibit P-5-extra judicial confession to PW6-VAO. Though, learned Sessions Judge has taken the extra-judicial confession as one piece of evidence, in our considered view, Exhibit P-5 - extra-judicial confession cannot be taken as piece of evidence against the accused. 35. Arrest and Recovery of MQ8-Aruval Our disinclination to place reliance upon Exhibit P-5 - extra­judicial confession would not in any way weaken the arrest of the accused at 5.00 p.m. Drawing our attention to the answers elicited from PW1 and evidence of PW8-photographer, it was mainly contended that accused could not have been arrested in the time and manner alleged by the prosecution. In his cross examination, PW1 has stated that he saw the accused at 7.00 a.m. in the Police Station hand cuffed and kept in the Police Station. PW8-photographer has stated that he has taken 11 photos including two photos of the accused between 6.00 - 7.00 a.m. on 20.7.2007. In his cross examination, PW1 has stated that he saw the accused at 7.00 a.m. in the Police Station hand cuffed and kept in the Police Station. PW8-photographer has stated that he has taken 11 photos including two photos of the accused between 6.00 - 7.00 a.m. on 20.7.2007. It was therefore, contended that when the accused was very much available in the morning, accused could not have been arrested at 5.00 p.m. as alleged by the prosecution. 36. As we have pointed out earlier, though we are not inclined to place reliance upon extrajudicial confession, we have no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW6-VAO that he has produced the accused before the Police at 5.00 p.m. on 20.7.2007. Since, PW1 has exhibited hostile animus during cross examination much credence cannot be attached to the answers elicited from him that he saw the accused at 7.00 a.m. in the Police Station. PW8-photographer has stated that he has taken all 11 photos at 7'0 clock, it is difficult to comprehend that how PW8 could have taken photographs of both scene of occurrence as well as accused who was allegedly in the Police Station at 7.00 a.m. The answers elicited from PWs.l and 8 would not in any way materially affect the evidence of PW6-VAO and PW16-IO as to the time and manner of arrest of the accused. 37. After arrest of the accused, MO 1-bloodstained shirt and MO2-bloodstained pant were seized from the accused. Based on his confession statement, MO8-Aruval was recovered from Odai situated near Subramaniaswamy Kovil under Exhibit P-9-Mahazar. From the scene of occurrence, MOs.4 and 5 (bloodstained tiles) and M06-bloodstained mats were recovered in which 'B' group human blood was detected. In MO 11-bloodstained saree and MO 12-bloodstained lungi, 'B' group blood was detected. 'B' group blood was also detected in MO1-shirt, MO2-pant and MO8-Aruval. Detection of same group of blood in the clothes of the accused and MO8-Aruval is a strong incriminating circumstance against the accused indicating complicity of the accused in the commission of offence. 38. Contention regarding variation between ocular evidence and medical evidence: On the body of the deceased Neelavathy, lacerated wounds on the back of the neck involving lower scalp and neck were noted. Like wise, on the body of the deceased Madasamy Nadar, lacerated wounds on the back of the neck and right shoulder were noted. 38. Contention regarding variation between ocular evidence and medical evidence: On the body of the deceased Neelavathy, lacerated wounds on the back of the neck involving lower scalp and neck were noted. Like wise, on the body of the deceased Madasamy Nadar, lacerated wounds on the back of the neck and right shoulder were noted. On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that sharp edged weapon like MO8-Aruval could not have caused lacerated injuries and therefore, there are inconsistencies between the ocular evidence and the nature of injuries sustained by deceased. MO8-Aruval was seized under Exhibit P-9-Mahazar. M08-Aruval measures 42 cm. length and length of the blade is 29 cm. and handle is 13 cm. Lacerated injuries could have been caused by blunt edged weapon. As such we do not find any inconsistencies or variation in the evidence between ocular evidence and medical evidence. 39. It is a pathetic case of sibling committing brutal murder of his parents. The nature of weapon wielded by the accused and injuries inflicted on the neck is a clear manifestation of ferocity with which accused committed murder of his parents. We have no difficulty in confirming the finding of the learned Sessions Judge that accused had intentionally caused murder of his parents. 40. Plea of insanity To escape the clutches of conviction, a feeble attempt was made raising the plea of insanity. During questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C, accused has stated that he was suffering from mental illness. Hostility of PW 1 and the answers elicited from PW 1 during cross examination was tried to take advantage to substantiate the plea of insanity. In his cross examination, PW 1 has stated that at times accused was exhibiting a strange behaviour. PW 1 has further stated that accused used to dance without underwear and raising objection as to the behaviour of the accused, one Marimuthu had given a complaint and the Police let off the accused finding that mental faculties of accused were affected. 41. Section 84 IPC provides an exception to the general rule contained in the Penal Code where the plea of the accused is unsoundness of mind which incapacitated his faculties to know the nature of his acts or what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law. 41. Section 84 IPC provides an exception to the general rule contained in the Penal Code where the plea of the accused is unsoundness of mind which incapacitated his faculties to know the nature of his acts or what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law. This being an exception attracts Section 105 of Evidence Act, which lays down the burden of proving the existence of the circumstances to bring the case within the said presumption and continue to presume the absence of the exceptional circumstances. 42. When the plea of insanity is raised, Court has to consider whether accused was incapable of noting the nature of the act or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law. Crucial point of time for ascertaining the state of mind of the accused is the time, when the offence was committed. For deciding whether accused was suffering from insanity, the factors like (i) motive; (ii) deliberation and preparation; (iii) desire for concealment; (iv) conduct at the time and after the commission of the offence are relevant for consideration. 43. The burden is upon the accused to prove that he was of unsound mind at the time of commission of offence and as such, incapable of knowing what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law. The accused may discharge the burden by establishing a mere preponderance of probability by producing all the relevant evidence oral, documentary or circumstantial before the Court. 44. In this case excepting the stray answers elicited from PW1, absolutely no evidence was adduced to show that mental faculties of the accused was affected and at the time of occurrence, he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act. Plea of insanity was not established by acceptable evidence. In fact, prosecution has adduced convincing evidence to show that accused was a normal person. PW3-Ramachandran, employer of the accused has stated that accused was working under him as a tailor and that he paid wages to the accused. PWs.3 and 4 categorically denied that accused was suffering from mental illness. PW4-Jeevajothi, mother of the bride had also spoken about the sound mental disposition of the accused. As discussed earlier, even on the previous day night i.e. 19.7.2007, accused quarrelled with his mother. Throughout night, grudge swelled up in the mind of the accused to commit an offence in the morning. PW4-Jeevajothi, mother of the bride had also spoken about the sound mental disposition of the accused. As discussed earlier, even on the previous day night i.e. 19.7.2007, accused quarrelled with his mother. Throughout night, grudge swelled up in the mind of the accused to commit an offence in the morning. Inspite of resistance, accused perpetrated the offence. Conduct of the accused before, at the time and after the commission of the offence clearly shows that he was not incapacitated. Learned Sessions Judge rightly negatived ingenious plea of insanity and convicted the appellant/accused. 45. Due to ill-will, accused hacked his parents to death in a merciless manner. Accused inflicted blows on the vital organs like head, neck and chest with lethal weapon MO8- Aruval. The force with which the weapon was wielded and that injuries were caused to the vital organs and that the death was instantaneous is a clear manifestation of intention of the accused to commit murder and the accused cannot escape from the clutches of conviction. 46. Upon analysis of facts and evidence and having gone through the Judgment of the Trial Court, we are of the considered view that learned Sessions Judge rightly held that appellant/accused is not an insane person and appellant/accused caused brutal murder of his parents. The conviction of the appellant/accused and sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him warrants no interference. 47. In the result, the conviction of the appellant/accused in S.C. No. 107 of 2007 dated 6.2.2008 on the file of Principal District Judge, Srivilliputhur and the sentence imposed upon him is confirmed and this appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.