JUDGMENT : Deepak Gupta, J. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 11.06.2002, delivered by the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, in Sessions Case No. 15-J/VII/2001, Sessions Trial No. 33 of 2001, whereby he held that the defence has proved that the accused was under a fit of insanity and is, therefore, entitled to benefit of doubt and accordingly acquitted the accused of having committed the offence punishable under Sections 324, 326 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 13.09.2000, the accused, Rajinder Kumar, went to the shop of Sanjeev Kumar (PW2). They both used to live in the same village Panalath in Tehsil Jawali. Sanjeev Kumar runs a karyana shop. At about 11.30 a.m. on 13.09.2000, the accused came to his shop holding a darat in his hand. The accused demanded a cigarette from Sanjeev Kumar. Thereafter, the accused asked Sanjeev Kumar whether he could identify the owner of that darat. Sanjeev Kumar replied in the negative. He, thereafter, bent down to take out a cigarette and immediately the accused gave a blow of the darat on the head of Sanjeev Kumar. Accused then gave a second blow of darat on the hand of Sanjeev Kumar. The accused, thereafter, tried to give a third blow, but Sanjeev Kumar lifted his left hand to protect himself and the darat hit his index finger, Sanjeev Kumar ran out of the shop and started crying and at that stage, the accused gave a forth blow on the right leg of Sanjeev Kumar, who fell down on the verandah of his shop and at this stage, the accused gave a fifth blow on the stomach of Sanjeev Kumar, but since Sanjeev Kumar tried to protect himself, the darat hit his right hand. In the meantime, PW-3, Vijay Kumar, who was a peon in the Anganwari Center, which adjoins the shop of Sanjeev Kumar, came on hearing cries of Sanjeev Kumar. He saw the accused giving a blow of the darat to Sanjeev Kumar. When PW-3, Vijay Kumar, asked the accused why he was hitting Sanjeev Kumar, the accused came menacingly towards Vijay Kumar and gave a darat blow to him which he fended of with his right hand. Consequently, Vijay Kumar suffered injury on his right palm. He ran away and his clothes i.e. shirt and pants got blood stained. When PW-3, Vijay Kumar, asked the accused why he was hitting Sanjeev Kumar, the accused came menacingly towards Vijay Kumar and gave a darat blow to him which he fended of with his right hand. Consequently, Vijay Kumar suffered injury on his right palm. He ran away and his clothes i.e. shirt and pants got blood stained. 2. The third witness to the incident is PW-4, Manohar Lal. According to him, at about 11.30 a.m., when he was on a scooter and had just reached Village Panalath, accused, Rajinder Kumar, came in front of the scooter holding a darat in his hand. The clothes, which the accused was wearing, were stained with blood. Accused gave a darat blow on the head of Manohar Lal, who fell down and became unconscious. He was taken to the hospital at Jawali where he was medically examined. 3. PW-1, Dr. K.S. Mehta, conducted the examination of all the three injured persons. He found the following injuries on the person of Sanjeev Kumar (PW2): 1. Incised wound 6x3x3 cms epigastrium, freshly bleeding. Referred to surgical specialist for further management, at Z.H. Dharamshala. 2. Incised wound forehead 4x2x1 cm freshly bleeding. 3. Incised wound 8x2 cm left parietal region near mid line, freshly bleeding. 4. Incised wound, comma shaped left parietal region of size 5x2 cm bone exposed. Injury No. 2 to 4-advised x-ray and C.T. Scan skull, referred to District Hospital Dharamshala for further management. 5. Incised wound of size 4x2x1 cm left index finger, freshly bleeding, tandon exposed. 6. Incised wound 3x2x1 cm left leg below knee joint interiorly, freshly bleeding. According to him, injury No. 5 and 6 were simple and he reserved his opinion qua the other injuries, but the fact is that the x-ray was never produced before him to give his final opinion qua the other injuries. 4. PW-1 found the following injury on the person of Vijay Kumar (PW-3) and his opinion was that the injury was grievous caused with a sharp edged weapon: 1. Incised wound, cutting across thenar eminence, hanging through a tag of skin (right hand) of size 3"x1.5x1" tandons exposed. Freshly bleeding. Referred to Orthosurgeon for expert management C.H. Dharamshala. Advised x-ray right hand AP lateral. 5. Incised wound, cutting across thenar eminence, hanging through a tag of skin (right hand) of size 3"x1.5x1" tandons exposed. Freshly bleeding. Referred to Orthosurgeon for expert management C.H. Dharamshala. Advised x-ray right hand AP lateral. 5. As far as PW-4, Manohar Lal is concerned, he found the following injury on his person which was found to be grievous and dangerous to life and caused with a sharp edged weapon: 1. Incised wound extending from right temporal to right parietal region semi circular around 15 cmx1 cmx1" cutting through bone partially. Wound freshly bleeding with clots at some places. Bone exposed. Advised x-ray skull and C.T. Scan Z.H. Dharamshala for further management. 6. It would be pertinent to mention that if we go through the entire evidence, there is virtually no cross-examination to the witnesses about the fact that the accused inflicted injuries to PWs 2, 3 and 4 or even with regard to the nature of injuries. In any event, it stands proved that PWs 2, 3 and 4 suffered the injuries and their statements are corroborated by PW-1, Dr. K.S. Mehta, who examined them on the same day. 7. The only suggestion put to the witnesses is that the accused was insane. As far as PW-2, Sanjeev Kumar, is concerned, he states that he knew the accused from childhood and that the accused used to behave properly and had good relations with him. He admits that there was no enmity between them. He, however, denies that the accused was under a fit of insanity and was not recognizing anyone. As far as PW-3, Vijay Kumar, is concerned, his statement is also virtually identical. As far as PW-4, Manohar Lal, is concerned, according to him, he did not think that the accused was a mad man. 8. The learned trial Court held that the accused was under a fit of insanity, but there is no evidence, worth the name, on record to show that the accused was actually insane. It would be pertinent to mention that Dr. K.S. Mehta also examined accused on that very day and his statement with regard to the accused reads as follows: On the same day police produced Rajinder Kumar son of Rania Ram, aged 24 years, resident of village Panalath, Tehsil Jawali, and on medical examination following injuries were found on his person: 1. K.S. Mehta also examined accused on that very day and his statement with regard to the accused reads as follows: On the same day police produced Rajinder Kumar son of Rania Ram, aged 24 years, resident of village Panalath, Tehsil Jawali, and on medical examination following injuries were found on his person: 1. Abrasion of the size of 2x1 cm reddish right parietal region. 2. Abrasion of the size of 2x1 cm bridge of nose reddish in colour. 3. Abrasion of size of 1.5x.5 cm two in number dorsum of left hand on knuckles. 4. Swelling of size of 1.5x1 cm upper lip. 5. Complain of pain right calf muscle. On examination-NAD. He was brought with alleged history of assault and he appeared to be malingerer. He was advised psychiatric opinion and referred to civil hospital Dharamshala for expert opinion. The terms 'malingerer' means that he was posing as unconscious. 9. The learned trial Court held that since Dr. K.S. Mehta had referred the accused to the Civil Hospital Dharamshala for psychiatric opinion and no record had been produced to show that the accused was actually taken to the Civil Hospital, an adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution and, therefore, presumed that the accused must have been insane. 10. No doubt, PW-6, Prem Lal, has stated that the accused was behaving like a mad man, but this is not insanity which is required to be proved in terms of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, which reads as follows: 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. 11. The Apex Court in Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 1563 , dealing with Section 84 laid down the following principles: (9). When a plea of legal insanity is set up, 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 was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law. When a plea of legal insanity is set up, 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 was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law. The crucial point of time for ascertaining the state of mind of the accused is the time when the offence was committed. Whether the accused was in such a state of mind as to be entitled to be benefit of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code can only be established from the circumstances which preceded, attended and followed the crime. 12. It is a well settled law that when any accused sets up the plea of insanity, it is for him to prove this plea. In Vijayee Singh and others Vs. State of U.P., (1990) 3 SCC 190 , the Apex Court clearly laid down that when an exception is sought to be pleaded as a defence to a crime, then the burden lies upon the defence to prove the exception. Therefore, when the accused takes the plea of exception u/s 84 of the Indian Penal code, the burden lies upon the accused to prove the insanity. 13. Thereafter, the Apex Court again dealt with this issue in Dharmendrasinh alias Mansing Ratansinh v. State of Gujarat, 2002 SCC (Cri) 859 and held that the burden is on the defence to prove the plea of insanity at the relevant time. The Apex Court held as follows: 15. We may next consider the argument made on behalf of the appellant that he was suffering from mental ailment and had received medical treatment for the same, first of all, a reference has been made to the statement of PW 7 Dalpatsinh who is neighbour of the appellant. He has stated that the appellant had been suffering from mental disease and had been admitted in the hospital of Dr. Navin Modi. He further stated that the appellant was like a mad person and did not have any sense. It was also stated by him that the husband and wife were not on good terms and quarrel used to take place between them. Whenever he got ill, his father used to take him to the hospital. Navin Modi. He further stated that the appellant was like a mad person and did not have any sense. It was also stated by him that the husband and wife were not on good terms and quarrel used to take place between them. Whenever he got ill, his father used to take him to the hospital. So far as the nature of illness of the appellant is concerned, PW3 denied the suggestion that he was suffering from any mental illness. She stated that he had been taking liquor. She further goes on to say that he was admitted in Himmatnagar Hospital but did not know if it was the hospital of Dr. Navin Modi or some other hospital. We do not think that on the basis of the statement of these witnesses, any conclusion can be drawn that the appellant was suffering from any mental illness or he used to become mad. We find no infirmity in the finding of the High Court that in case it was so, evidence should have been led on behalf of the defence to prove the fact of mental illness. The prescription of the treatment given to the appellant in the hospital should have been brought in the record or the doctor who may have treated him could be produced to show that the appellant suffered from any mental illness. Obviously these facts if at all, would be in the special knowledge of the defence and in case the defence wanted to take advantage of any such ground of mental illness, this plea should have been substantiated by adducing relevant and cogent evidence. No circumstance has been indicated on the basis of which any such inference could be drawn. We therefore, find no force in this argument as advanced on behalf of the appellant. 14. In Bapu alias Gujraj Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 509, the Apex Court held as follows: 10. Section 84 embodies the fundamental maxim of criminal law, i.e., actus non reum facit nisi mens sit rea (an act does not constitute guilt unless done with a guilty intention). In order to constitute an offence, the intent and act must concur; but in the case of insane persons, no culpability is fastened on them as they have no free will (furios is nulla voluntas est). 11. In order to constitute an offence, the intent and act must concur; but in the case of insane persons, no culpability is fastened on them as they have no free will (furios is nulla voluntas est). 11. The Section itself provides that the benefit is available only after it is proved that at the time of committing the act, the accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or that even if he did not know it, it was either wrong or contrary to law then this Section must be applied. The crucial point of time for deciding whether the benefit of this Section should be given or not, is the material time when the offence takes place. In coming to that conclusion, the relevant circumstances are to be taken into consideration, it would be dangerous to admit the defence of insanity upon arguments derived merely from the character of the crime. It is only unsoundness of mind which naturally impairs the cognitive faculties of the mind that can form a ground of exemption from criminal responsibility. Stephen in History of the Criminal Law of England, Vol. II, p. 166 has observed that if a person cuts off the head of a sleeping man because it would be great fun to see him looking for it when he woke up, would obviously be a case where the perpetrator of the act would be incapable of knowing the physical effects of his act. The law recognizes nothing but incapacity to realise the nature of the act and presumes that where a man's mind or his faculties of ratiocination are sufficiently dim to apprehend what he is doing, he must always be presumed to intend the consequence of the action he takes. Mere absence of motive for a crime, howsoever atrocious it may be, cannot in the absence of plea and proof of legal insanity, bring the case within this Section. This Court in Sheralli Wali Mohd. Mere absence of motive for a crime, howsoever atrocious it may be, cannot in the absence of plea and proof of legal insanity, bring the case within this Section. This Court in Sheralli Wali Mohd. v. State of Maharashtra, held that : (SCC p. 79) the mere fact that no motive has been proved why the accused murdered his wife and child or the fact that he made no attempt to run away when the door was broken open, would not indicate that he was insane or that he did not have the necessary mens rea for the commission of the offence. 12. Mere abnormality of mind or partial delusion, irresistible impulse or compulsive behaviour of a psychopath affords no protection u/s 84 as the law contained in that Section is still squarely based on the outdated M' Naughton rules of 19th Century England. The provisions of Section 84 are in substance the same as that laid down in the answers of the Judges to the questions put to them by the House of Lords, in M' Naughton's case. Behaviour, antecedent, attendant and subsequent to the event, may be relevant in finding the mental condition of the accused at the time of the event, but not that remote in time. It is difficult to prove the precise state of the offender's mind at the time of the commission of the offence, but some indication thereof is often furnished by the conduct of the offender while committing it or immediately after the commission of the offence. A lucid interval of an insane person is not merely a cessation of the violent symptoms of the disorder, but a restoration of the faculties of the mind sufficiently to enable the person soundly to judge the act; but the expression does not necessarily mean complete or prefect restoration of the mental faculties to their original condition. So, if there is such a restoration, the person concerned can do the act with such reason, memory and judgment as to make it a legal act; but merely a cessation of the violent symptoms of the disorder is not sufficient. 15. It is, thus, apparent that no person can be held guilty of having committed a criminal offence unless it is done with a guilty intention. In the case of an insane person, no culpability is fastened on him as the insane person has no free will. 15. It is, thus, apparent that no person can be held guilty of having committed a criminal offence unless it is done with a guilty intention. In the case of an insane person, no culpability is fastened on him as the insane person has no free will. However, it is apparent from the bare reading of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code itself that this benefit is available only if it is proved, that at the time of committing the act, the accused was labouring under such a defect of reason or disease of the mind as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing. 16. At the same time, the defence of insanity cannot be accepted only because of the behaviour of the accused at that particular time, It that would be so, then there are certain crimes, so heinous, that no sane person would commit such crime. No sane person would rape a minor girl aged five or six years. We, however, unfortunately come across such crimes and if the plea of insanity was to be accepted only on the basis of the behaviour at the time of commission of the offence, it would result in many heinous criminals being set free. There must be some cogent evidence to show that in fact the person is actually insane in medical terms. The behaviour not only at the time of the occurrence but also the behaviour antecedent, attendant and subsequent to the event is relevant to give a finding on the mental condition of the accused. 17. As pointed out by the Apex Court, the mere fact that an accused is odd and his brain is not quite right or that his intellect is weak and has affected his emotions and will is not sufficient to attract the application of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. In the present case, there is no manner of doubt that the behaviour of the accused, at the time of the incident, indicates that he was not behaving in a normal fashion. However, this does not mean that he was insane. As pointed out earlier, no normal person would otherwise commit a crime. His behaviour may have been odd, but it cannot be said that he was insane. 18. Ms. However, this does not mean that he was insane. As pointed out earlier, no normal person would otherwise commit a crime. His behaviour may have been odd, but it cannot be said that he was insane. 18. Ms. Kanta Thakur, learned Counsel for the accused respondent, has relied upon the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Dr. A.G. Bhagwat Vs. U.T., (1989) CriLJ 214. We need not refer to this judgment, since the law has been clearly laid down by the Apex Court in the various judgments referred to above. In fact, even the facts of the judgment do not help the accused respondent in the present case. 19. Coming to the evidence of Dr. K.S. Mehta relied upon by Ms. Kanta Thakur, learned Counsel for the accused-respondent, the Doctor opined that the accused appeared to be a malingerer. He has stated that the term 'malingerer' means that he was posing as unconscious. The dictionary meaning of the word 'malingerer' is 'a person who pretends to be ill in order to escape duty or work'. Therefore, it appears that the Doctor was of the opinion that the accused was feigning to be insane. No doubt, the police should have taken the accused for psychiatric opinion to the doctor, but the mere fact that the prosecution did not do so cannot be sufficient reason to hold that the respondent-accused was insane. 20. We may point out that from the record it is apparent that during the course of the trial, the accused was on bail. In fact, on his request, the trial was conducted in Jawali. The learned trial Court did not ever observe that the accused was unable to look after his own interest. There is no observation that the accused appears to be insane or that he was not fit to face trial. The accused engaged a Counsel and, therefore, if he wanted to take a plea that when he committed the offence, he was suffering from a fit of insanity, it was for him to lead medical evidence to prove this fact. The accused led no medical evidence and in fact, the record clearly indicates that there is no material on record to show that the accused was insane. Therefore, this plea raised by the accused could not have been accepted. 21. The accused led no medical evidence and in fact, the record clearly indicates that there is no material on record to show that the accused was insane. Therefore, this plea raised by the accused could not have been accepted. 21. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused caused injuries to the injured persons, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4. We have rejected the plea that he was insane. The question that next arises is as to what is the offence he has committed. 22. Ms. Kanta Thakur, learned Counsel for the accused-respondent, has relied upon the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in State of Punjab v. Bant Singh and another, 1996 Cri. L.J. 3886. On the basis of this judgment, Ms. Kanta Thakur, Advocate, urges that the accused cannot be held guilty of committing offence punishable u/s 307 or 326 IPC. As far as offence u/s 307 IPC is concerned, when we read the entire evidence of the witnesses, it is apparent that the intention of the accused was not to kill the witnesses. However, we cannot be oblivious to the fact that he was carrying a sharp edged dangerous weapon, i.e. a 'darat' and gave blows to several persons. Though, he may not have had the intention or knowledge that he could cause the death of these persons, but it is more than obvious that he has actually caused grievous injuries on PWs 3 and 4 with a sharp edged weapon. Therefore, he is guilty of having committed an offence punishable u/s 326 IPC as far as these two witnesses are concerned. He is also held guilty of committing an offence punishable u/s 324 IPC insofar as PW-2 is concerned. We, therefore, set aside the judgment of the learned trial Court and hold the accused guilty of having committed offences punishable under Sections 324 and 326 IPC. The bail bonds of the accused are cancelled and the accused be produced before us for being heard on the quantum of sentence on 31st May, 2012.