JUDGMENT C.R. Sarma, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 26.04.2005, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sivsagar in Sessions Case No. 102(S-S)/2001. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted Shri Jiban Gogoi (hereinafter called the appellant) under Sections 448/326/302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, "IPC") and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand), in default suffer rigorous imprisonment for another period of 1 (one) year for his conviction under Section 302, IPC, suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) months and pay fine of Rs.300/- (Rupees three hundred), suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) month for his conviction under Section 448, IPC and suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) years and pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand), in default suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) months for his conviction under Section 326, IPC. It has been directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the convicted person, as appellant, has come with this appeal. 3. We have heard Ms. M. Bujar Baruah, learned amicus curiae, appearing for the appellant and Mr. Z. Kamar, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State-respondent. 4. The prosecution case, in brief, as revealed at the trial, may be stated as follows: (i) On 08.07.1995, at about 5.00 p.m., the accused person, namely, Shri Jiban Gogoi, being armed with a dao entered the house of Smti Reba Gogoi @ Deba Gogoi (PW 9), wife of Shri Khogen Gogoi and inflicted dao blows on her daughter Smti Bogiti Gogoi (herein after called the deceased person) causing her death and inflicted cut blows on the persons of Smti Reba Gogoi @ Deba Gogoi (PW 9) and her another daughter Smti Joon Mani Gogoi (herein after called the injured persons), causing injuries to them. After committing the said acts, the accused chased Shri Sarat Gogoi, another son of PW 9, towards the field and inflicted cut blows causing his death and, thereafter, he appeared in the Police Station alongwith the dao. Accordingly, the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station (PW 13) seized the dao, vide seizure list (Ext. 11) and arrested the accused. (ii) Shri Manju Gogoi (PW 1), a cousin lodged FIR (Ext 1) with the O.C. of the Amguri Police Station. Accordingly, the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station (PW 13) seized the dao, vide seizure list (Ext. 11) and arrested the accused. (ii) Shri Manju Gogoi (PW 1), a cousin lodged FIR (Ext 1) with the O.C. of the Amguri Police Station. On receipt of the FIR, police registered Amguri P.S. Case No. 44/95 under Sections 448/326/302, IPC and launched investigation into the matter. The O.C. of the Police Station (PW 13), as the Investigating Officer, visited the place of occurrence, recovered the dead bodies of deceased Shri Sarat Gogoi, Smti Bogiti Gogoi,. prepared a sketch map (Ext. 16) of the place of occurrence, conducted inquest and prepared inquest report (Ext. 14) in respect of the dead bodies, forwarded the dead bodies for autopsy and the injured persons, namely, smti Reba Gogoi @ Deba Gogoi (PW 9) and Smti Joon Moni Gogoi for medical treatment, recorded statements of the witnesses and forwarded the witnesses, namely, Dr. Nurul Islam Ali (PW 15), Mrs. Anjali Gogoi (PW 11), Smti Nagini Gogoi, Shri Bhadreswar Gogoi (PW 10) for recording their statements, under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter in short, the Cr PC), and accused Shri Jiban Gogoi for recording his confessional Statement. 5. At the close of investigation, police submitted charge sheet, under Sections 448/325/302IPC, against the accused. The offence, being exclusively triable by the Court of sessions and the case, being committed, the learned Additional Sessions' Judge framed charge, under Sections 448/325/302, IPC, against the appellant. The charges were, read over and explained to the accused person, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The plea of the appellant was a denial one. 6. In order to prove their case, prosecution examined as many as 15 (fifteen) witnesses including the medical officer (PW 5), who conducted the post-mortem examination of Sarat Gogi and Joon Mani Gogoi Dr. Bacha Chandra Bora (PW 8), examined the injured persons, namely. Miss. Joon Mani Gogoi (aged about 4 years) and Smti Reba Gogoi @ Deba Gogoi (PW 9). At the close of the evidence for the prosecution, the accused person was examined, under Section 313, Cr PC. He denied the allegations, brought against him and pleaded that at the relevant time, his mental condition was not good and that he was under treatment of doctor and quack. He also denied to have made confessional statement before the Magistrate. 7. He denied the allegations, brought against him and pleaded that at the relevant time, his mental condition was not good and that he was under treatment of doctor and quack. He also denied to have made confessional statement before the Magistrate. 7. In support of the plea of insanity, the appellant examined 4 four defence witnesses including his wife (DW-3) and his daughter (DW 4). Considering the evidence of record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge disbelieved the plea of insanity and came to the findings that the accused person committing criminal tresspass into the house of PW 9 caused grievous hurt to Smti Reba Gogoi @ Deba Gogoi (PW 9) and Smti Joon Moni Gogoi and death to Smti Bogiti Gogoi and Shri Sarat Gogoi by inflicting dao blows intentionally. Accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant, as indicated above. 8. Ms. M. Bujar Baruah, learned amicus curiae, appearing for the appellant, has submitted that, as the appellant, at the relevant time, was suffering from insanity he was not aware of acts done by him and as such he is entitled to the protection, prescribed by Section 84, IPC The learned amicus curiae has also submitted that the prosecution failed to establish, by adducing sufficient cogent and reliable evidence, that the appellant had committed the alleged offences. The learned amicus curiae has also submitted that, considering the insanity of the appellant and non-availability of sufficient evidence, the impugned conviction and sentences are liable to be set aside and that the appellant is entitled to be acquitted. 9. Refuting the said arguments, advanced by Ms. M. Bujar Baruah, the learned amicus curiae, Mr. Z. Kamar, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State respondent, has submitted that the mere plea of insanity or unsound mind, unless the same is proved, is not sufficient to seek the benefit under Section 84, IPC. The learned P.P. has submitted, that in a case where the plea of insanity is taken, the burden lies upon the accused person to establish, by adducing sufficient evidence, that at the relevant time the accused person was suffering from legal insanity and that he was incapable of knowing the nature of the acts, committed by him. The learned P.P. has submitted, that in a case where the plea of insanity is taken, the burden lies upon the accused person to establish, by adducing sufficient evidence, that at the relevant time the accused person was suffering from legal insanity and that he was incapable of knowing the nature of the acts, committed by him. It is submitted by the learned P.P. that considering the fact that the appellant was regularly attending his office duty as an employee of the Railway Department and in the absence of any medical evidence regarding his treatment etc., the oral evidence, given by DWs, that the appellant was suffering from insanity cannot be accepted as evidence in support of plea of insanity. 10. The learned Public prosecutor, referring to the evidence, rendered by the prosecution witnesses, has submitted that the prosecution witnesses, more particularly, PWs 9, 10 and 11, who are the eyewitnesses to the occurrence, clearly stated regarding involvement of the appellant and their evidence has been corroborated by PW 5, (Medical Officer), who visited the house of the victims in connection with treatment of the mother-in-law of PW 9. The learned Public Prosecutor has also submitted that the oral evidence, given by PWs 9, 10 and 11, coupled with the circumstantial evidence, that the appellant had entered the house of the deceased persons with a dao in his hand, that PW 9 and her daughter Ms. Joon Mani Gogoi sustained cut injuries, that the deceased persons namely Shri Sarat Gogoi and Smti Bogity Gogoi died due to the fatal injuries sustained by them, that the Medical Officer (PW 15) had seen the appellant visiting the house of the deceased persons with a weapon in his hand, that the said Medical Officer, who had taken shelter inside the room, had heard sound of hitting and seen a 10 to 12 years boy being chased by the said accused person, that the appellant had appeared before the police with a dao in his hand, has forcefully substantiated the prosecution version that the appellant had committed the offences charge against him. 11. In view of the above, supporting the impugned conviction and sentence, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the learned trial Judge committed no error by convicting and sentencing the appellant and that the impugned conviction and sentences do not warrant any interference. 12. 11. In view of the above, supporting the impugned conviction and sentence, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the learned trial Judge committed no error by convicting and sentencing the appellant and that the impugned conviction and sentences do not warrant any interference. 12. Having heard the learned counsel, appearing for both the parties and carefully perusing the evidence on record, more particularly, the evidence, given by Dr. Akhil Hazarika (PW 5), who performed the autopsy of the deceased persons, on 09.07.1995 i.e. on the subsequent date of occurrence, it is found that the Shri Sarat Gogoi, aged about 10 years and Smti Bogiti Gogoi, aged about 7 years died due to injuries sustained by them. The said Medical Officer found the following injuries in respect of deceased Sarat Gogoi: 1. External appearance: Body fresh. Rigor mortis present. 2. Wound: One incised wound 8 inches long 2 inches deep on the right side of the scalp. 3. On dissection fracture of the right parietal bone. The underlying membrane is contused. The brain tissue is contused. Heard empty and other organs were health." He opined that the cause of death of the deceased was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries sustained by him and that the injuries were ante mortem, homicidal in nature and sufficient to cause to death of a person, in normal course. 13. The said Medical Officer found the following injuries in respect of the deceased Botity Gogoi: I. Incised wound 5" long 2 inches deep over the right upper chest causing injury to the long tissue. II Incised wound on the left side of the scalp 5 inches long and 2 inches deep fracture of the skull bone with injury to the brain tissue. On dissection fracture of skull bone, contains in the brain membrane and brain tissues. Lung tissue was contused and blood clot found inside the thorasic cavity." The Medical Officer opined that the injuries were ante mortem, homicidal in nature, caused by sharp weapon and that the injuries were sufficient to cause death, in ordinary course of nature. He also opined that the victim died due to shock and haemorrhage, as a result of the injuries sustained by her. 14. Though the Medical Officer was cross-examined, on behalf of the defence, no material contradiction in respect of his evidence and opinion aforesaid could be elicited. 15. Dr. Bacha Ch. He also opined that the victim died due to shock and haemorrhage, as a result of the injuries sustained by her. 14. Though the Medical Officer was cross-examined, on behalf of the defence, no material contradiction in respect of his evidence and opinion aforesaid could be elicited. 15. Dr. Bacha Ch. Bora (PW 8) examined the injured persons namely Smti Reba Gogoi @ Deba Gogoi (PW 9) and her daughter Smti Joon Mani Gogoi, aged about 4 years. He found the following injuries in respect of injured Smti Joan Mani Gogoi: 1. An incised wound lies obliquely 1-1/2 distal (sic) to the left shoulder joint. The socket of the joint was open at the time of examination. The length of the wound was 2-1/2" and muscle depth with active bleeding. The said Medical Officer (PW 8) opined that the injuries were grievous in nature and caused by sharp cutting weapon. He also found the following injuries in respect of injured Smti Reba Gogoi @ Deva Gogoi (PW 9): I. Cut wound over which lies transversely extending from the outer angle of the left eye to the outer cartilage of the left ear. The wound was clean cut having sharp edged extending up to the maxilla. II. An incised wound clean cut measuring 3-1/2 inches length in two muscle deep with flopinng muscles in the flexor aspect of the left forearm 2" distal to the wrist joint. The said Medical Officer (PW 8) opined that injures were grievous caused by sharp cutting weapon. From the cross-examination of the said Medical Officer, no material contradiction could be elicited, with regard to the finding and opinion aforesaid. 16. From the above discussed medical evidence, it has been clearly established, that the death of the deceased and the injuries in respect of PW 9 and Smti Joon Mani Gogoi were caused by sharp cutting weapon. The said Medical Officer supports the evidence, given by PWs 2, 3 and 9 that the deceased and the injured persons aforesaid sustained cut injuries at the hands of the assailants. The prosecution version is that the fatal injuries in respect of the deceased persons and the grievous injuries in respect of PW 9 and Smti Joon Moni Gogoi were caused by the appellant, who surrendered before the police with the incriminating weapon, after the incident. 17. In the FIR (Ext. The prosecution version is that the fatal injuries in respect of the deceased persons and the grievous injuries in respect of PW 9 and Smti Joon Moni Gogoi were caused by the appellant, who surrendered before the police with the incriminating weapon, after the incident. 17. In the FIR (Ext. 1), it has been clearly mentioned that, the appellant entered the house of Shri Khogen Gogoi (since deceased) and killed his son Sri Sarat Gogoi, daughter Smti Bagity Gogoi and caused injuries to Smti Reba Gogoi (PW 9) and her daughter Smti Joon Mani Gogoi by-inflicting cut injuries. 18. Shri Maju Gogoi (PW 1), who lodged the said FIR (Ext. 1) was not present at the time of occurrence. After his return home from the market, he found Shri Sarat Gogoi, Smti Bogity Gogoi, Smti Reba Gogoi and Smti Junmoni Gogoi lying in injured condition. He further stated that the deceased Sarat Gogoi was lying in the road, while Bogity Gogoi lying inside the house. Though, this witness was subjected to cross-examination, no contradiction could be elicited to demolish his evidence. 19. Smti Anima Gogoi (PW 2), who is the niece of the appellant was declared hostile by the prosecution. However, she stated that Bogiti Gogoi was cut to death by the appellate and that upon hearing hue and cry, she rushed to the place of occurrence and saw Bogity lying on the ground with injuries on her abdomen and that the accused was present there with a dao. In her cross-examination, made-by the prosecution, she admitted that, at the time of occurrence, she was present in the house of late Khagen Gogoi (since deceased) wherein a Medical Officer attended her mother-in-law i.e. the mother of Khogen Gogoi. She further stated that the appellant, after assaulting Bogiti Gogoi and Smti Reba Gogoi had left the place of occurrence. From the evidence given by PW 2, it stands established that Bogity Gogoi and smti Reba Gogoi were given cut blows by the appellant, who was present there with a dao. Her evidence also indicates that Bogity Gogoi was cut to death by the appellant. This evidence of PW 2 lends support in favour of the evidence given by PW 9 i.e. Smti Reba Gogoi @ Deba Gogoi, who is one of the injured persons. She is the mother of Sarat Gogoi, Bogity Gogoi (both deceased and Joon Mani Gogoi (injured). 20. This evidence of PW 2 lends support in favour of the evidence given by PW 9 i.e. Smti Reba Gogoi @ Deba Gogoi, who is one of the injured persons. She is the mother of Sarat Gogoi, Bogity Gogoi (both deceased and Joon Mani Gogoi (injured). 20. In tune with the evidence of PW 2, PW 9 stated that, at the relevant time, her mother-in-law was lying ill and as such a doctor was called to attend her. The said evidence of PWs 2 and 9 that the doctor was called to attend the said mother-in-law has been corroborated by Dr. Nurul Islam Ali, who deposed as PW 15. He stated that, on being called, while attending a patient, he heard cry and pipping from a small window, he could see a bearded person, armed with weapon, coming towards the house. He stated that out of fear, he took shelter inside a room and thereafter saw the dead bodies, lying in injured condition. According to the said Medical Officer, he had also seen the said bearded person chasing a boy. At the time of giving the evidence, the said Medical officer identified the appellant to be that bearded person who had visited the house, wherein he was attending a patient. 21. The said Medical Officer was duly cross-examined on behalf of the defence. His evidence that he had seen the appellant coming to the house of the deceased with a weapon in his hand and that he had seen the injured persons remained un-demolished. Though, PW 2 was declared hostile, she also stated about the presence of the Medical Officer in the house of the deceased and finding of the accused with a dao therein. The evidence of PW 2 lends sufficient corroboration in favour of the evidence of PW 9, who was the eyewitness to the occurrence. PW 9, who also sustained injury, at the hands of the appellant, clearly stated that when doctor was examining her mother-in-law, the appellant, armed with a dao had entered their house and inflicted cut blows firstly on Smti Bogity Gogoi and Smti Joon Mani Gogoi. PW 9, who also sustained injury, at the hands of the appellant, clearly stated that when doctor was examining her mother-in-law, the appellant, armed with a dao had entered their house and inflicted cut blows firstly on Smti Bogity Gogoi and Smti Joon Mani Gogoi. According to PW 9, after assaulting Smti Bogity and Smti Joon Mani Gogoi, the appellant gave a dao blow on her and thereafter he had chased her son Sarat Gogoi towards the nearby field.' She clearly stated that Bogity Gogoi died on the spot due to the blows given the appellant. She also stated that the appellant had attacked them in connection with some land dispute. In her cross-examination this witness denied the suggestion that she did not tell the police that the appellant had killed her children in connection with some land dispute. She also denied the suggestion that her husband and children used to tease the appellant. Except putting the said suggestion, which, was categorically denied by PW 9, no material contradiction or omission could be elicited to render her evidence dis-beliable. 22. Shri Badreswar Gogoi, another son of the injured (PW 9) deposing as PW 10 fully corroborated the evidence of PW 9 regarding the involvement of the appellant. PW 10 stated that while the appellant was attacking his mother, sisters and the brother aforesaid, he saw the incident taking shelter under the bed. Supporting the evidence of PW 15, this witness stated that the said Medical Officer had taken shelter inside another room. This witness has also corroborated the evidence of PW 9 supporting her evidence in respect of sequence of the events. PW 9 denied the suggestion that the appellant was suffering from mental disorder. PW 10 was subjected to cross-examination on behalf of the defence, but no material contradiction could be brought out to discard his evidence. Therefore, his evidence, regarding involvement of the appellant remained un-demolished. 23. Another daughter of PW 9, Smti Anjali Gogoi, deposing as PW II, stated that, at the relevant time, while she was angling in their compound saw the appellant entering their house with a dao in his hand. She dearly stated that the appellant had inflicted dao blows on her sisters, Bogiti Gogoi, Joan Moni Gogoi and mother, Smti Reba Gogoi. Another daughter of PW 9, Smti Anjali Gogoi, deposing as PW II, stated that, at the relevant time, while she was angling in their compound saw the appellant entering their house with a dao in his hand. She dearly stated that the appellant had inflicted dao blows on her sisters, Bogiti Gogoi, Joan Moni Gogoi and mother, Smti Reba Gogoi. She also stated that the appellant had chased her brother Shri Sarat Gogoi and killed him in the field, near their compound. No material contradiction, to demolish her said evidence, could be elicited from the cross-examination of this witness. 24. Carefully reading the evidence of PWs 9, 10, 11 and 15 it is found that, on the fateful day, the appellant, being armed with dao i.e. sharp cutting weapon, entered the house of PW 9 and inflicted cut injuries on the deceased person, namely Sarat Gogoi and Bogity Gogoi and injured persons, namely, Smti Reba Gogoi and Smti Joon Mani Gogoi. From the evidence aforesaid, it is also found that both Sarat Gogoi and Bogity Gogoi died on the spot. The Medical evidence rendered by PW 5, who performed autopsy of the deceased persons reveals that the deceased died due to the said cut injuries. The Medical evidence, given by Dr. Bacha Ch. Bora (PW 8), who examined the injured persons i.e. PW 9 and her daughter Smti Joon Mani Gogoi, stated that both of the said injured persons sustained cut injuries, caused by sharp cutting weapon. The socket of the left shoulder joint in respect of Smti Joon Mani Gogoi got open due to the injuries sustained by her. 25. From the above Medical evidence, it is found that the injured Smti Joon Mani Gogoi suffered dislocation of bone well as privation of joint. Therefore, the injury sustained by Smti Joon Mani Gogoi was grievous in nature. The Medical Officer also pointed that the injury was a grievous one. The plea of the defence is that the appellant was suffering from insanity and as such he was not aware of the act committed by him. Factremains that the appellant, immediately after committing the alleged offences, appeared at the Police Station with the dao Police had taken him to the custody and seized the said dao. The confessional statement of the appellant was recorded by a Judicial Magistrate (PW 6). Factremains that the appellant, immediately after committing the alleged offences, appeared at the Police Station with the dao Police had taken him to the custody and seized the said dao. The confessional statement of the appellant was recorded by a Judicial Magistrate (PW 6). In the confessional statement, the appellant, admitted to have committed the offence. He stated that Shri Khagen Gogoi, the father of the deceased persons, on 8.7.1995, abused him and as such out of anger, he picked up dao and chased him. He also stated that as Shri Khgen Gogoi had run away, he attacked his son, Sarat Gogoi, daughters Bogity Gogoi, Smti Toon Mani Gogoi and wife, Smti Reba Gogoi @ Deba Gogoi with a dao and thereafter appeared in the Police Station. However, in the statement, made under Section 313 of the Cr PC, he denied to have made any confession. The learned Trial Judge refused to accept the confessional statement on the ground that the learned Judicial Magistrate who recorded the confessional statement did not ask the accused as to what treatment he got from the Police that no certificate regarding voluntariness of the confessional statement was given. A Judicial Magistrate, recording the confessional statement, is required to take utmost care and caution to ascertain the voluntariness of the confessional statement. The concerned Magistrate is required to give certificate indicating reasons for believing that the statement was voluntarily made. 26. In the present case, the learned Judicial Magistrate did not mention any reason, which satisfied him to believe to believe that the statement was made voluntarily. That apart, before recording the confessional statement, while assuring the accused person that he was liberty to make confession, without fear or extraneous pressure, it is necessary to inform, that even if the accused refuses to confess his guilt, he would not be returned to the police custody, in connection with that case. This assurance is required to be given to remove any apprehension, in the mind of the accused person with regard to any ill-treatment at the hands of the police, in the event of his refusal of statement. 27. In the present case, learned Magistrate did not inform the accused per-son that in the event of his failure to make confession, he would not be sent to the police custody i connection with that case. 27. In the present case, learned Magistrate did not inform the accused per-son that in the event of his failure to make confession, he would not be sent to the police custody i connection with that case. Failure to give such assurance indicates that the accused person was not free from 'to apprehension that by refusing to make confession, he would land any trouble, Therefore, in our considered opinion, the confessional statement recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate cannot be treated as voluntarily made confessional statement and as such the same cannot be used against the appellant to base conviction. The learned trial Judge committed no error by refusing to accept the said confessional statement. 28. In view of the above discussed evidence rendered by the eye witnesses i.e. PWs 9 and 10 and the events of circumstantial evidence that the appellant was found visiting the house of the deceased persons with dao in his hand, that the deceased sustained fatal injuries, caused by sharp cutting weapon, that the PW 9 and her daughter Smti Joon Mani Gogoi sustained cut injuries caused with sharp cutting weapon, that all the said acts were committed in a series of events that took place at the time of occurrence, that after the said incident, the appellant had appeared in the police station with a dao and that the appellant had taken the unsuccessful plea of insanity, lead to the irresistible conclusion that 'none other than the appellant' had committed the said offences. Admittedly, the deceased persons namely Sarat Gogoi and Bogity Gogoi succumbed to the injuries caused by a sharp cutting weapon. It has also been established that the injuries sustained by Smti Joon Mani Gogoi was grievous in nature. Therefore, we find that the prosecution could successfully establish that the appellant had caused the death, of the deceased persons and injuries to PW 9 and her daughter Smti Joon Mani Gogoi. 29. Now the question is whether the appellant, who committed the said act, was suffering from insanity and if he was entitled to get the benefit prescribed by Section 84, IPC. 29. Now the question is whether the appellant, who committed the said act, was suffering from insanity and if he was entitled to get the benefit prescribed by Section 84, IPC. Section 84, IPC provides that 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 unable to know whether the act done by him is wrong or contrary to law. The principle of extending the said benefit is that a mad man has no will, i.e. to do an act which is wrong. He is punished by his own madness. The exemption prescribed by Section 84, IPC is to be extended to an insane person who is incapable of knowing the nature of the act done. To get the benefit under Section 84, IPC, it must be established that (i) the accused was of unsound mind at the time of commission of the act, (ii by reason of unsoundness of mind, the accused was incapable of knowing the nature of the act which is contrary to law. 30. It is settle position that every insanity is not legal insanity. The accused taking such plea is required to prove insanity and establish that he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act committed by him or that he did not know that the act done by him was wrong or contract to law. The state of mind before and after commission of offence is relevant for establishing whether the accused was labouring any incapability. The evidence of expert is also relevant in matters of insanity. The Medical officer, who use to treat the person concerned, is the best person to prove the insanity. Unless it is proved by adducing evidence that the" accused to insanity incapable of knowing the nature of the act, done and judging between right and wrong or contrary to law cannot be sufficient to show that he was suffering from legal insanity. 31. In view of the above, we are required to examine, if at the relevant time, the accused was suffering from legal in-sanity, as provided by Section 84, IPC. In support of the said plea, the defence examined 4 (four) witnesses as DW Nos. 1 to 4. 31. In view of the above, we are required to examine, if at the relevant time, the accused was suffering from legal in-sanity, as provided by Section 84, IPC. In support of the said plea, the defence examined 4 (four) witnesses as DW Nos. 1 to 4. DWs 1 and 2 are the co-villagers and DWs 2 and 3 are the wife and the son, respectively of the appellant. Shri Horen Bora deposing as DW 1 stated that before the incident, people used to call the appellant as 'Jiban Pagla' i.e. Mad. He stated that during the said period, the appellant used to quarrel in his house taking dao and lathi and roam on the road cutting the trees etc. He stated that, some times, the appellant was suffered from madness and sometimes he became normal. In his cross examination, this witness stated that, at the time of occurrence, he was serving in the Railway Department. He further stated that the appellant used to give one or two blows on trees only and that never attacked any person including the members of his family. 32. In tune with the evidence of DW 1, Shri Suren Borguhain (DW 2) also stated that the appellant was termed as mad and that he sometimes became mentally unbalanced. This witness also stated that the appellant used to do atrocities on his wife and son. In his cross-examination, he further stated that the appellant, who was working in the Railway Department, never attacked any member of his family as well as villagers. He further stated that he did not know as to what was the mental condition of the appellant on the date of occurrence, which took place in the house of Shri Khogen Gogoi. 33. Carefully perusing the evidence of the said two defence witnesses, it is found that though the appellant, occasionally become mentally imbalanced, he never attacked any other person of the village. From their evidence it in mind that the appellant was regularly attending his duty. The facts that the appellant was attending his official duty regularly and that he never attacked any person, negates the plea of legal insanity. His conducts indicates that he was a man of common prudence, without any mental disability. From their evidence it in mind that the appellant was regularly attending his duty. The facts that the appellant was attending his official duty regularly and that he never attacked any person, negates the plea of legal insanity. His conducts indicates that he was a man of common prudence, without any mental disability. The evidence given by the said two defence witnesses does not inspire confidence to believe that the appellant was suffering from mental insanity for which he was not aware of what he was doing. 34. Smti Sunappa Gogoi, wife of the appellant deposing as defence witness No. 3 stated that her husband, who was an employee of Railway Department, was suffering from mental disorder from last 20 years and that he used to become mentally abnormal for five to six months. She also stated that he was suffering from mental illness and he used to chase the member of the family for which they had to run to the nearby jungle for 3/2 hours. She also stated that on the date of occurrence, her husband developed from mental insanity and chased her and her four children for which they had to take shelter in the jungle. In her cross-examination, this witness stated, that her husband used to attend his duty regularly. She also stated that though her husband was earlier treated by doctors for mental ailment, he has not taken any such treatment for the last 10 years. 35. From the evidence of DW 3, who deposed on 26.07.2004 it is found that at the time of occurrence (Occurrence took place on 8.6.1995) the appellant was not under an treatment. Her evidence that her husband used to attend regularly, that he was not under any medical treatment and that he was normal for 5 to six months indicates that her said husband was not suffering from legal insanity at the relevant time. A person who is not regular to take medical aid for 10 (ten) years and who attends office regularly cannot be held. to be suffering from legal insanity. 36. The daughter of the appellant, Smti Baby Gogoi, deposing as DW 4 stated that, occasionally her father was suffering from mental illness and the he used to beat them for which they were required to take shelter in the jungle. to be suffering from legal insanity. 36. The daughter of the appellant, Smti Baby Gogoi, deposing as DW 4 stated that, occasionally her father was suffering from mental illness and the he used to beat them for which they were required to take shelter in the jungle. In her cross examination this witness stated that sometimes, due to madness, her father could not attend office and as such she used to write application by herself, and sometimes got such application written by the elder brother of her father. Contradicting the evidence given by her mother (DW-3) that her husband was under treatment' of doctor, this witness clearly stated that the railway doctor used to treat her father for his mental disorder. But no medical evidence, in support of her evidence has been adduced. 37. From the above discussion, we found that according to PW 3 for the last 10 years, the appellant was not under any medical treatment and that he was attending office regularly. But according to PW 4, the appellant was under treatment of the Railway doctor. The said contradictory evidence given by PWs 3 and 4, i.e. the wife and the daughter respectively of the appellant raises doubt about the veracity of their evidence. Though, DW Nos. 3 and 4 stated that due to the conduct of the appellant out of fear of attack they had to take shelter in the jungle, DWs 1 and 2 did not whisper anything about this. Rather they stated that the appellant never attacked any person. 38. Carefully perusing the evidence given by the defence witnesses, it appears that the appellant occasionally suffered from mental disorder. No medical evidence in support of such mental disorder has been adduced. There is no corroboration in the evidence of DW 4 that the appellant was under the treatment of railway doctor. DW 3, i.e. the wife of the appellant clearly stated that the appellant, who was serving the railway Department for the last 40 years used to attend duty regularly Her evidence indicate that he was not required to take any leave due to insanity etc. but DW 4 i.e. the daughter of the appellant contradicted the evidence of DW 3 by saying that the appellant sometimes could not attend office regularly for which applications were submitted. but DW 4 i.e. the daughter of the appellant contradicted the evidence of DW 3 by saying that the appellant sometimes could not attend office regularly for which applications were submitted. Neither the controlling officer has been examined, nor the leave applications, if any, have been proved to substantiate such plea of absence from duty due to insanity. 39. Therefore, we find no force in the contention of DW 4 that her father could not attend office due to mental illness. Rather, the evidence of DW 3, i.e. the wife of the appellant clearly indicates that the appellant attended office, without being interrupted by any mental illness. It has already been notice that the appellant never attacked any person. 40. The above discussed evidence, rendered by the defence witnesses, does not lead to the conclusion that the appellant was suffering from legal insanity and that he was not capable of knowing what he was doing. It is not believable that a person, who used to perform his official duty regularly without taking any medical aid for the last ten years was not in a position to know as to what he was doing or judging between the right and wrong or contrary to law. Therefore, the act done by-him, we have no hesitation in holding that the defence failed to establish the plea of legal insanity and as such the appellant is not entitled to the benefit extended by Section 84, IPC. 41. From the above discussed fact and circumstances and the evidence revealed by the prosecution witnesses, it has been clearly established that the appellant caused the death of the said deceased persons, namely Sarat Gogoi and Bogity Gogoi and the injuries to the inured persons i.e. Deba Gogoi @ Reba Gogoi (PW 9) and her daughter, Smti Joon Mani Gogoi with sharp cutting weapon is noting on record to show that the appellant was provoked by the deceased as well as the injured persons aforesaid or that the said acts were committed by him in a hit of passion out of a quarrel. The fact that the appellant, without being provoked, entered the house of the victim with a weapon i.e. dao and attacked the members of the family of Shri Khogen Gogoi (since deceased), one after another, thereby causing death of two of the children of PW 9 and injuries to PW 9 and her daughter, Smti Joon Mani Gogoi, substantiate that he had committed the said act with pre-meditation and intention of causing death or with intention that the blows inflicted by him were likely to cause death of the persons attacked. The acts committed by the appellant, in respect of Sarat Gogoi, Bogity Gogoi, does not fall under any of the exceptions prescribed by Section 300, IPC. Therefore, we have no difficulty in holding that the appellant committed the offence of murder by inflicting the fatal blows on Sarat Gogoi and Bogity Gogoi and grievous injury to Smti Joon Mani Gogoi and PW 9 i.e. Smti Reba Gogoi @ Deba Gogoi with a sharp cutting weapon. 42. In view of what has been discussed above, the learned trial Judge committed no error by recording the conviction and sentences under Sections 448/326/302, IPC Hence, we find no merit in this appeal requiring interference with the impugned conviction and sentence. 43. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned conviction and the sentences are upheld and affirmed. 44. Return the LCR. We acknowledge with appreciation the assistance rendered by Ms. M. Bujar Baruah, learned amicus curiae and direct that an amount of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only be paid to the learned amicus curiae, as her remuneration, by the Assam State Legal Services Authority. Appeal dismissed.