JUDGMENT Dhirendra Mishra, J. 1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order or sentence dated 6th September, 2002 passed in S.T. No. 294/01, whereby the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Janjgir, after holding the Appellant guilty of committing murder of Amrikabai, has convicted him under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Rajkumar gave merg intimation (Exh. P-15) on 23rd May, 2001 at 11.30 hours against the Appellant mentioning therein that today while he was working in the Patwari Office, Daras Kotwar and Radhelal Kalar came around 9 a.m. and informed that Veerendra Kumar, son of Radhelal, has committed murder of Amrikabai in the house of Radhelal Kalar. He went with them and found the naked body of Amrikabai lying upside down. Her back to waist was covered with a sack. There were number of big papules on her body and it was stinking. There were cut injuries on both her arms and dried blood was present. One broken bottle of liquor was lying there. After registering the crime vide Exh. P-14, police proceeded for the scene of occurrence and prepared inquest over the person of the deceased vide Exh. P-2. Thereafter, dead body was sent for autopsy to Community Health Center, Bamhnideeh, where Dr. M.L. Sahare (P.W. 13) and Dr. Seema Mahant (P.W. 12) conducted post-mortem and gave their report vide Exh. P-11. The SHO prepared spot map vide Exh. P-18 in the presence of complainant. In reply to the query dated 2-6-2001, Dr. Sahare opined that the injury present over the person of the deceased could be caused by broken glass vide Exh. P-13. The articles seized during investigation, i.e. a pair of sponge slippers seized from the accused and broken glass pieces seized from the spot, were sent for chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar and report of the FSL is Exhs. P-25 and P-28. 3. After completing investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Janjgir, who, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge and the same was received on transfer for trial by learned Additional Sessions Judge. 4. Learned Trial Court framed charge under Section 302 of the IPC against the Appellant, who abjured his guilt. After completing investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Janjgir, who, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge and the same was received on transfer for trial by learned Additional Sessions Judge. 4. Learned Trial Court framed charge under Section 302 of the IPC against the Appellant, who abjured his guilt. The prosecution, in order to establish its case, examined 16 witnesses in all. Thereafter, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case and pleaded innocence and false implication. 5. Learned Trial Court, after hearing Counsel for the respective parties, convicted and sentence the Appellant as mentioned in Para 1 of this judgment. 6. Homicidal death of Amrikabai has not been disputed. Dr. Seeman Mahant (P.W. 12) and Dr. M.L. Sahare (P.W. 13), who jointly conducted post-mortem over the person of the deceased, observed that the dead body was in a decomposed condition, foul smell was emanating, whole body was swollen, eyes closed, eye ball and tongue protruded, frothy blood coming from mouth, glass piece present in the mouth, nasal bone broken, clotted blood present in both nostrils, nose was deviated towards left side, face cyanosed, fracture of right maxilla bone, skin peeled off, linear injury over backside, hand open, rigor mortis present, fickle matter passed from anus, post-mortem lividity present over middle aspect of thigh, arm (right side), papules over whole body present. On internal examination, brain material within the skull was putrefied, lungs, diaphragm, larynx and trachea, congested, heart was congested and empty, and main artery congested. They further opined the cause of death as a result of asphyxia, death was homicidal in nature and occurred between 13-16 hours before the time of post-mortem. On the basis of above medical evidence, the Trial Court held that the death of Amrikabai was homicidal. Since the above findings of the doctors performing autopsy in the post-mortem of Exh. P-11 have not been disputed in their cross-examination by the defence, we find no illegality in the finding of the Trial Court that the deceased died homicidal death. 7. Since the above findings of the doctors performing autopsy in the post-mortem of Exh. P-11 have not been disputed in their cross-examination by the defence, we find no illegality in the finding of the Trial Court that the deceased died homicidal death. 7. Learned Counsel for the Appellant vehemently argued that from the unrebutted oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses available on record, it is manifestly clear that the Appellant was suffering from unsoundness of mind at the time of incident and therefore, he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that what he was doing is wrong and contrary to Jaw. The Trial Court ought to have accepted the defence plea that the act committed by the Appellant is covered with the general exception contained in Section 84 of the IPC. 8. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State has supported the impugned judgment. 9. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties, perused the record of the Trial Court as also the impugned judgment. 10. Madhav Prasad (P.W. 1) is a witness of inquest report. He has proved the contents of inquest report of Exh. P-2 and described the condition of the dead body recorded in the inquest report. He has further deposed that on 23-5-2001, he was present in his house at 8 a.m. when his cousin Radhelal called him and informed that in the house of Veerendra Pagal, Amrikabai Pagli is sleeping, and asked him to call Kotwar. The Additional Public Prosecutor has cross-examined this witness, however, he has denied that Radhelal told him that Veerendra Kumar is saying that he has murdered insane Amrikabai. He accompanied Radhelal and Rajkumar to police station where Kotwar Rajkumar lodged the report. However, in Para 6 of his cross-examination, he has deposed that on enquiry by the villagers, Veerendra stated that he murdered Amrikabai on 22-5-2001 at 10 a.m. by tying a stone in his lungi. He also stated that he committed murder to learn magic knowledge and also told that he broke a bottle and pushed the dead body of Amrikabai and also pressed glass on her face. Veerendra confessed that he murdered Amrikabai. He has also deposed that Amrikabai used to wander here and there on account of insanity in the village and Veerendra Kumar admitted that he committed murder of Amrikabai by throttling. Veerendra confessed that he murdered Amrikabai. He has also deposed that Amrikabai used to wander here and there on account of insanity in the village and Veerendra Kumar admitted that he committed murder of Amrikabai by throttling. In Para 12 of his cross-examination by the defence, he has admitted that Veerendra had broken the idol of Mahamaya Devi and he was in jail for many days in that case. He had broken the idol on account of his insanity and he was known in the village as Pagal (mad). It is true to say that his parents, brother, sister and neighbourers used to be sad, worried and scared on account of his insanity. It is also correct to say that Veerendra used to eat wherever he was offered and slept wherever he desired. He was arrested on 23-5-2001 by three police personnel. His both hands were tied from his backside. At the time of inquest, villagers had informed the police that Veerendra is mad. 11. Radhelal (P.W. 2) is father of the Appellant. He has deposed that on the date of incident in the morning, Veerendra shouted that somebody has murdered Amrikabai and kept her in his house. He called Darasram and Rajkumar, who saw Amrikabai and told that she is dead. He also saw injuries on the person of the deceased. This witness has also been declared hostile. In his cross-examination by the prosecution, he denied the suggestion that Veerendra informed him that he has committed murder of Amrikabai. However, in Para 11, he has deposed that Veerendra confessed before the villagers that he has committed murder of Amrikabai on 22-5-2001 by strangulating her with his lungi. In the cross-examination by the accused, he has deposed that Veerendra is mentally sick since 1994; he made every effort to treat him but he could not be cured. Because of mental sickness, he often muttered and used to be overactive. At the time of arrest also, he was muttering senselessly, jumping and dancing. However, even under the fit of insanity, he never harmed any other person. 12. Darasram (P.W. 3) has also not made any allegation against the Appellant, except stating that the dead body of Amrikabai was in the house of Veerendra. 13. Vijay Kumar (P.W. 4) is younger brother of Veerendra. He has deposed that Amrikabai was wife of Ramsharan. However, even under the fit of insanity, he never harmed any other person. 12. Darasram (P.W. 3) has also not made any allegation against the Appellant, except stating that the dead body of Amrikabai was in the house of Veerendra. 13. Vijay Kumar (P.W. 4) is younger brother of Veerendra. He has deposed that Amrikabai was wife of Ramsharan. The Appellant had kept her as his wife for 10 days in his house. Veerendra Kumar came to him on the date of incident at about 8 a.m. and told that he has murdered Amrikabai. He communicated this information to his father and uncle Madhav. After the incident, the Appellant went to take his bath. In the meanwhile, the room, where dead body of Amrikabai was lying, was closed by his father. The dead body was lying in the house of Appellant. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that the Appellant in insane for the last 8-10 years and because of insanity, he cannot work. Amrikabai was wife of Ramsharan and her last rites were performed by Ramsharan. 14. Shashikumar (P. W. 5) is elder brother of the Appellant. He has also deposed that Veerendra confessed before him that he has committed murder of Amrikabai by pressing her mouth and her dead body found in the house of Veerendra. In the cross-examination also, he has deposed that after the incident, Madhav and Radhelal shouted that Veerendra has committed murder of Amrikabai. 15. Ramsharan (P.W. 7) is husband of the deceased. He has also deposed that she resided with him for 15 years till 7th May, 2001. She became insane in the year 1994 and thereafter, he contracted second marriage. She left her house on 7th May, 2001 and later on, he came to know that she is residing in the house of Appellant. 16. Ajit Kunwar (P.W. 8) is mother of Ramsharan. She has also deposed that her daughter-in-law Amrikabai was residing with Veerendra in his house for the last 15 days and later on, she came to know that Veerendra has committed her murder. 17. Rajkumar Sagar (P.W. 15) is the complainant. He has lodged the report of Exh. P-14 and merg intimation of Exh. P-15. He has deposed that Madhavlal Kalar and Darasram came to him and informed that Veerendra has committed murder of Amrikabai. 17. Rajkumar Sagar (P.W. 15) is the complainant. He has lodged the report of Exh. P-14 and merg intimation of Exh. P-15. He has deposed that Madhavlal Kalar and Darasram came to him and informed that Veerendra has committed murder of Amrikabai. This witness has also deposed that the Appellant Veerendra is known as Pagal in the village. In the past also, he had committed one-two incidents on account of his insanity. He had broken the idol of goddess Mahamaya. When police came to the village, the Appellant was pelting stones at them, whereupon the villagers and Sarpanch asked the police to immediately arrest him, so that he could not commit any other incident. His father had made efforts to treat him and taken him to various places, however, he could not be cured. The police apprehended him and tied his both hands from backside. 18. Dr. M.K. Sahu (P.W. 16), is a Psychiatrist and Assistant Professor in Medical College, Raipur. The Appellant was referred from jail to his witness for his opinion regarding his mental condition. He examined him on 26-2-2002 and gave his opinion vide Exh. P-31 that the Appellant is not suffering from any mental sickness. He was called upon to examine the Appellant in the Court and after his examination for 20 minutes, he reiterated his opinion that even at present, he is not suffering from any mental sickness. However, in his cross-examination, he has admitted that mental condition of a patient before four months could not be ascertained. 19. The Trial Court, on the basis of circumstantial evidence available against the Appellant that he kept the deceased in his house for the last 15 days and did not allow her to go out; that her dead body was found in his house by his father and other witnesses; that he confessed before the villagers, his father and real brothers that he committed murder of Amrikabai by pressing her neck; has held that the prosecution has proved involvement of the Appellant in crime in question beyond reasonable doubt. On careful scrutiny of the entire oral evidence available on record and the fact that her dead body was found in the room, where the Appellant resided with her for the last 15 days, by his close relatives and that he did not offer any explanation for the death of Amrikabai in his house and made an extra-judicial confession before the witnesses, we are of the opinion that finding of the Trial Court that the Appellant was responsible for the death of Amrikabai, is based on proper appreciation of the evidence available on record. 20. The question for our consideration is-whether the Appellant was suffering from unsoundness of mind at the time of incidence to such an extent that he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law and the act committed by the Appellant falls within the general exception as mentioned under Section 84 of the IPC ? 21. The Trial Court, while dealing with this issue, from Para 26 onwards, relying upon the evidence of Dr. M.K. Sahu (P.W. 16), who has proved his opinion of Exh. P-31 given after examination of the Appellant on 26-2-2002, wherein he mentioned that the Appellant is not suffering from any mental sickness, and further on the basis of his opinion given after examining the Appellant on 26-8-2002 when this witness came to the Court to give his evidence and opined that at present also, the Appellant is not suffering from any mental sickness, held that the Appellant is not suffering from unsoundness of mind. 22. Before dealing with the above defence of the Appellant, we propose to deal with the legal provisions in this regard. Chapter IV of the Indian Penal Code deals with general exceptions of certain acts which do not constitute offence. Section 84 of the IPC deals with act of a person of unsound mind which reads as under: 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. Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as under: 105. Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as under: 105. Burden of proving that case of accused conies within exceptions.- When a person is accused of any offence, the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the General Exceptions in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) or within any special exception or proviso contained in any other part of the same Code, or in any few defining the offence, is upon him, and the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances. Illustrations (a) A, accused of murder, alleges that, by reason of unsoundness of mind, he did not know the nature of the Act. The burden of proof is on A. 23. In Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat AIR 1964 SC 1563 , while considering the burden of proof in a case of homicide where plea of insanity was taken by the accused, it has been held thus: The doctrine of burden of proof in the context of the plea of insanity may be stated in the following propositions : (1) the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed the offence with the requisite mens rea; and the burden of proving that always rests on the prosecution from the beginning to the end of the trial. (2) There is a rebuttable presumption that the accused was not insane, when he committed the crime, in the sense laid down by Section 84 of the Penal Code : the accused may rebut it by placing before the Court all the relevant evidence- oral, documentary or circumstantial, but the burden of proof upon him is no higher than that rests upon a party to civil proceedings; (3) Even if the accused was not able to establish conclusively that he was insane at the time he committed the offence, the evidence placed before the Court by the accused or by the prosecution may raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court as regards, one or more of the ingredients of the offence, including mens rea of the accused and in that case the Court would be entitled to acquit the accused on the ground that the general burden of proof resting on the prosecution was not discharged. 24. In Mst. 24. In Mst. Shanti Devi v. The State AIR 1968 Delhi 177, the mother was prosecuted under Section 302 of the IPC for committing murder of her own child by cutting his neck by a razor. Accepting the plea of insanity raised by the defence within general exceptions under Section 84 of the IPC, it was observed that it is difficult to prove the precise state of the offender's mind at the time of the commission of the offence. Generally, a case in which the sanity of the accused is called in question, motivation for the crime with which he is charged assumes unusual importance because if a serious crime like murder is committed by a man, who had absolutely no rational motive to commit it, the plea of unsoundness of mind can be more easily established than in other cases. The absence of motive assumes not only unusual importance, but also almost conclusive and crucial importance in a case where a mother had murdered her own child of a tender age. As a matter of fact, in such cases, the act speaks for itself as the act of a mad woman; the act itself is intrinsically the chief evidence of insanity. 25. In Ratan Lal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1971 SC 778 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court following its earlier decision in the matter of Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar (supra), held that where plea of unsoundness of mind is raised by the accused, the burden of proving the same is on him. The crucial point of time at which unsoundness of mind has to be proved is the time when the crime is actually committed. The burden of proving this can be discharged by the accused from the circumstances which preceded, attended and followed the crime. Considering the testimony of the defence witnesses, behaviour of the accused on the day of occurrence, failure of the police to lead evidence as to his condition when the accused was in custody and the medical evidence, that the accused was insane within the meaning of Section 84, defence plea was accepted. 26. Considering the testimony of the defence witnesses, behaviour of the accused on the day of occurrence, failure of the police to lead evidence as to his condition when the accused was in custody and the medical evidence, that the accused was insane within the meaning of Section 84, defence plea was accepted. 26. In T.N. Lakshmaiah v. State of Karnataka (2002) 1 SCC 219 , following the decision of the Supreme Court in Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar (supra), it has been observed that in a case where the exception under Section 84, IPC is claimed, the Court has to consider whether, at the time of commission of the offence, the accused, by reason of unsoundness of mind, was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. The entire conduct of the accused, from the time of the commission of the offence up to the time the sessions proceedings commenced, is relevant for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether plea raised was genuine, bona fide or an afterthought. 27. In Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 7 SCC 748 , the Supreme Court, while considering the unsoundness of mind for the purposes of Section 84 of the Penal Code, has dealt with the characteristic and dangers flowing from paranoid schizophrenia. While extensively referring to Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, relying upon the decision in the matter of Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar (supra), it has been held that the state of mind of the accused at the time of commission of offence is to be proved so as to get the benefit of exception. Further the nature of burden of proof on the accused to prove insanity is not higher than that which rests upon a party to civil proceedings. 28. Further the nature of burden of proof on the accused to prove insanity is not higher than that which rests upon a party to civil proceedings. 28. If we examine the oral evidence available in the present case in the light of principles of law laid down in the above judgments, we find that there is unrebutted evidence available on record of the prosecution witnesses, namely, Madhav Prasad (P.W. 1), Radhelal (P.W. 2) - father of the Appellant, Darasram (P.W. 3), Vijay Kumar (P.W. 4) - younger brother of the Appellant, Bhimsen (P.W. 6) - Sarpanch of the village, Ramcharan (P.W. 7) - husband of the deceased, and Rajkumar (P.W. 15) - complainant, that the Appellant was suffering from mental sickness since last 8-10 years; his father took him to various places to get him treated but he could not be cured; he was not able to work on account of his sickness and used to wander aimlessly and ate whatever was given to him by anyone and slept anywhere. In the past also, he had broken the idol of Goddess Mahamaya and was prosecuted for the same and sent to jail. He confined Amrikabai, who was herself suffering from mental sickness, in his house for 15 days and did not allow her to go out and committed her murder in a most brutal and ghastly manner without any apparent motive and himself confessed before the villagers about the same. Even after the incident, when police came to arrest him, he started pelting stones at them, however, he was somehow overpowered and his hands were tied, so that he could not harm any other person. 29. Thus, from the unrebutted evidence available on record, it can be safely inferred that the Appellant was suffering from fit of insanity 10-15 days prior to the date of incident when he forcefully confined a mad lady in this house and committed her murder in a most brutal manner without any apparent motive. His conduct preceding the incident, at the time of incident and subsequent thereto, is suggestive of the fact that he was suffering from unsoundness of mind at the time of commission of crime, without requisite mens rea on account of unsoundness of mind and he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that what he was doing was wrong or contrary to law. 30. 30. The Trial Court, without considering the above unrebutted oral evidence available on record, relying upon the evidence of Dr. M.K. Sahu, who had examined the Appellant on 26-2-2002, i.e., after seven months of the incident and again on 26-8-2002, has held that the defence has failed to prove that the Appellant was suffering from unsoundness of mind at the time of commission of crime, as a result, he was not able to know the nature of the act he was doing, ignoring the opinion given in Para 8 of his evidence regarding mental condition of the Appellant that no opinion could be given regarding mental condition of a patient before four months of his examination. 31. On close scrutiny of the evidence available on record and the circumstances, detailed in the paragraphs, we are of the opinion that the Appellant has proved existence of circumstances as required by Section 105 of the Evidence Act so as to get the benefit of Section 84 of the IPC and we find that the prosecution has failed to establish the element of mens rea and the Appellant had acted on account of unsoundness of mind because of which he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that what he was doing was wrong or contrary to law. 32. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence imposed upon the Appellant under Section 302 of the IPC are set aside and he is acquitted of the said charge. The Appellant be set at liberty forthwith unless required to be detained in any other case.