Judgment Deepak Gupta, J. 1. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 29.5.2004 delivered by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution story is that deceased Madan Singh along with accused Rajinder Singh was sitting in the shop of PW-3 Balak Ram, situated at village Deed. Madan Singh had come to his shop along with a pouch of liquor and thereafter an altercation took place between Madan Singh and Rajinder Singh. Balak Ram asked them to leave his shop, but they both refused to do so and they told Balak Ram that this matter was their personal matter and he (Balak Ram) should not interfere. Thereafter Balak Ram left his shop and went to his house with a view to telephone the family members of Madan Singh. He informed PW-1 Ramesh Kumar at about 9.00/9.30 p.m. about the fact that there was some altercation going on between Madan Singh and Rajinder Singh. He then went back to his shop where he found the dead body of Madan Singh lying in front of his shop. The body of Madan Singh was totally naked. Clothes were lying around his body and there were injuries on the head and face caused with one huge stone Ext. P-1. 3. In the meantime, PW-1 Ramesh Kumar also arrived at the shop and then Ramesh Kumar rang up his other family members from the house of Balak Ram about the murder of Madan Singh. One of the family members PW-5 Tara Singh gave telephonic information in this regard to Police Station, Theog which was recorded in the daily diary register as Ext. P-1 at 2.15 p.m. on 8.5.2003. On receipt of this information, PW-12 Sub Inspector Raghuvir Singh immediately proceeded to the spot and reached there at about 3.25 a.m. On the morning of 8th May, 2003 statement of Ramesh Kumar was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and the same was forwarded to the police station and on this basis FIR Ext. PJ was recorded. Photographs of the body Exts. PM/1 to PM/15 were taken and their corresponding negatives were Ext. PM/16 to PM/30. Inquest of the body was conducted by PW-12 Raghuvir Singh and he prepared the inquest report Exts. PD, PE and PF on the spot. The blood stained stone Ext. PJ was recorded. Photographs of the body Exts. PM/1 to PM/15 were taken and their corresponding negatives were Ext. PM/16 to PM/30. Inquest of the body was conducted by PW-12 Raghuvir Singh and he prepared the inquest report Exts. PD, PE and PF on the spot. The blood stained stone Ext. P-1, which was lying near the dead body of Madan Singh, was taken into possession. The stone was covered with blood. Blood stained soaked earth was also recovered and taken into possession vide recovery memo Ext. P-C. The other articles of clothing were also taken into possession. 4. The dead body of Madan Singh was sent to the Civil Hospital, Theog for post mortem which was conducted by PW-13 Dr. Ashok Chauhan. As per his opinion and the post mortem report Ext. PR, Madan Singh had died as a result of ante mortem injuries to his head and face. PW-13 Dr. Ashok Chauhan also opined that these injuries could be caused due to stone Ext. P-1. 5. According to the prosecution, Rajinder Singh was arrested from a nearby nallah by Station House Officer, Raghuvir Singh on 8th May, 2003, in the morning itself. While in custody Rajinder Singh is said to have made a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act to the SHO in presence of PW-4 Roshan Lal and one Amar Singh. The so called disclosure statement in fact is a confessional statement and no recovery has been made pursuant to this disclosure statement and the same, therefore, cannot be read in evidence. The accused was got medically examined and certain injuries were found on his person. On the basis of this material, the accused was charged with having committed the murder of deceased Madan Singh. 6. The learned trial Court acquitted the accused mainly on the ground that since there was no eye witness and this was a case of circumstantial evidence the circumstances had not been proved and linked in such a fashion that it would lead to the irresistible conclusion that it was the accused alone who had committed the murder of the deceased and none else. 7. At the outset we may state that before the trial Court the main defence of the accused was of insanity. 7. At the outset we may state that before the trial Court the main defence of the accused was of insanity. In fact, the accused led evidence to prove the fact that he was insane and as such, was entitled to the benefit of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code which read 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.” 8. The Apex Court in Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar versus 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. 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.” 9. 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 versus State of U.P., AIR 1990 Supreme Court 1459, 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 under Section 84 of the Indian Penal code, the burden lies upon the accused to prove the insanity. 10. Thereafter, the Apex Court again dealt with this issue in Dharmendrasinh alias Mansing Ratansinh versus State of Gujarat, 2002 Supreme Court Cases (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. 10. Thereafter, the Apex Court again dealt with this issue in Dharmendrasinh alias Mansing Ratansinh versus State of Gujarat, 2002 Supreme Court Cases (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. So far as the nature of illness of the appellant is concerned, PW 3 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. 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.” 11. In Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale vs. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 7 SCC 748 , the Apex Court held as follows:- “Paranoid schizophrenia is a mental disease. It can recur. When a person is under paranoid delusion, he is not fully aware of his activities and its consequences. The cause of schizophrenia is still not known but heredity plays a part. Paranoid schizophrenia, in the vast majority of cases, starts in the fourth decade and develops insidiously. Suspiciousness is the characteristic symptom of the early stage. Ideas of reference occur, which gradually develop into delusions of persecution.” This judgment can apply only where it is proved that the accused is suffering from Paranoid schizophrenia. In the same case, the Apex Court held that the burden is on the accused to prove his insanity but this burden is no higher than that which rests upon a party to civil proceedings. Reliance by the accused has been placed on this case, but the facts of the said case were totally different since in that case the accused had already been diagnosed to be suffering from Paranoid schizophrenia whereas in the present case there is no clear cut diagnosis. In that case the accused was being treated for this ailment since 1992 and had been taken to the hospital 25 times and had also been an indoor patient. The accused had not made an attempt to hide or run away after the incident. He also had no motive for killing his wife. 12. In Bapu alias Gujraj Singh versus State of Rajasthan, (2007) 3 Supreme Court Cases (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). 12. In Bapu alias Gujraj Singh versus State of Rajasthan, (2007) 3 Supreme Court Cases (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. 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 under Section 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.” 13. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the accused on the judgment of Gauhati High Court in Abdul Latif vs. State of Assam, 1981 CRI. L.J. 1205 is totally misplaced. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the accused on the judgment of Gauhati High Court in Abdul Latif vs. State of Assam, 1981 CRI. L.J. 1205 is totally misplaced. In that case it was the prosecution itself which had alleged that the accused was a lunatic and it was in these circumstances, it was held that there was no burden on the accused to prove his insanity. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. It is in the light of the aforesaid law that we have to first examine the plea of insanity taken in this case. The accused examined Dr. Virandra Mohan, who is a Psychiatrist of repute and runs a Nursing Home at Dharampur. Dr. 16. It is in the light of the aforesaid law that we have to first examine the plea of insanity taken in this case. The accused examined Dr. Virandra Mohan, who is a Psychiatrist of repute and runs a Nursing Home at Dharampur. Dr. Virandra Mohan appeared as DW-1 and on the basis of record stated that he had examined Rajinder Singh accused on 17.4.2002 and his diagnosis was as follows:- “Query latent schizophrenia.” He further stated that he recorded the symptoms in his report on the basis of the information given by Rajinder Singh or by the father of Rajinder Singh who was accompanying him. His version is that Rajinder Singh was having paranoid feelings and may be suffering from homicidal tendencies. He also prescribed certain medicines. The doctor further stated as follows:- “The pschizophrenic patient specially the paranoiac have homicidal and suicidal tendencies and they became violent without reason. Such patients also suffer hallucination and have a feeling of being persecuted without reason. Under the state of paranoiac schizophrenia, the patient may commit the acts without knowing the consequences thereof.” 17. In cross-examination, Dr. Virandra Mohan admitted that he wanted to admit Rajinder Singh as an indoor patient. He also stated that Rajinder Singh did not show any gross psychotic symptoms. His further version is that he only examined Rajinder Singh on this one occasion. 18. The other evidence is that of the father, in which the father states that the behaviour of Rajinder Singh was not proper and he had many homicidal tendencies. The statement of the father has to be taken with a pinch of salt because admittedly Rajinder Singh is a married man and in fact if his mental condition was so bad the father would have got him admitted or treated him in some mental hospital. The law laid down by the Apex court is very clear that not only the behaviour at the time of occurrence but also the behaviour, antecedent, attendant and subsequent to the event is relevant. 19. It has also been urged by Mr. I.S. Chandel, learned counsel for the accused that the fact that deceased Madan Singh was naked and the manner of the offence itself is suggestive of the accused being insane. 19. It has also been urged by Mr. I.S. Chandel, learned counsel for the accused that the fact that deceased Madan Singh was naked and the manner of the offence itself is suggestive of the accused being insane. As observed by us above, if the plea of insanity is allowed to be raised and proved only on account of the nature and manner of the crime then the most heinous criminals who commit dastardly crimes in an inhumane manner would be able to take up the plea of insanity. This is not the law. According to the law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court when the accused takes the defence of exception under Section 84 of IPC it is for him to prove the said exception. No doubt, the accused is not required to prove this exception beyond reasonable doubt but this has to be proved in a manner like in a civil case i.e. preponderance of evidence must lead to the conclusion that the accused was an insane person. 20. Coming to the fact of the case, as noted above, the accused was married, had children, worked with other family members and lived at home. Only on one occasion he was treated by a doctor and if we examine the notings of the doctor made on the date they read as follows:- “? latent schizophrenia with symptoms of great anger and loosing control over himself. Sometimes he loves his children and sometimes beats them.” There is no clear cut diagnosis by the doctor that in fact the patient was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. This was only a query of the doctor and he could have arrived at a final diagnosis only after complete examination, but as mentioned above the patient was neither admitted in the hospital nor was he ever examined again by the doctor. 21. The accused has not led any evidence that even after the incident the accused ever remained under treatment. Even before this Court, the matter pending since 2004. No application has been filed before us for getting the accused medically examined nor any material has been placed on record to show that the accused was ever got medically examined or treated after the incident took place till date. 22. Even before this Court, the matter pending since 2004. No application has been filed before us for getting the accused medically examined nor any material has been placed on record to show that the accused was ever got medically examined or treated after the incident took place till date. 22. In view of the above circumstances we are of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court gravely erred in holding that the accused was entitled to the benefit of Section 84 of IPC. We are clearly of the opinion that in view of the evidence led by the accused he has only proved that he was taken to the doctor Virendra Mohan DW-1 for mental illness who suspected that the accused may be suffering from schizophrenia but there was no clear cut diagnosis. Thereafter, the accused was never under treatment and therefore, cannot get the benefit of Section 84 of IPC. 23. The law laid down by the Apex Court with regard to the circumstantial evidence is well settled and in cases which are based only on circumstantial evidence the standard of proof required is that the circumstances are fully proved and lead to the irresistible conclusion that it is the accused alone who committed the offence. Reference may be made to Akhilesh Hajam vs. State of Bihar 1995 Supp (3) SCC 357, wherein the Apex Court held as follows:- “7. ……. It may be stated that the standard of proof required to convict a person on circumstantial evidence is now well settled by a series of pronouncements of this court. According to the standard enunciated by this Court the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution in support of the case must not only be fully established but the chain of evidence furnished by those circumstances must be so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. The circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt of an accused is to be inferred, should be of conclusive nature and consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused and the same should not be capable of being explained by any other hypothesis, except the guilt of the accused and when all the circumstances cumulatively taken together lead to the only irresistible conclusion that the accused alone is the perpetrator of the crime.” 24. The learned trial Court found that none of the circumstances has been conclusively established against the accused and even if taken together they could not lead to the irresistible conclusion regarding the guilt of the accused. According to the trial Court though there may be strong suspicion against the accused, suspicion cannot take the place of proof and it is for the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 25. In this case the circumstances which are against the accused are as follows:- “i) The deceased was last seen in the company of the accused at the shop of PW- Balak Ram, where they was on exchange of hot words between them. ii) The accused fled away and was not available at the scene of occurrence immediately after the death of Madan Singh. iii) The accused at the time of his arrest, on the following day, i.e. on 08.05.2003 was found to be having some minor injuries which indicated that the deceased and the accused may have had some scuffle.. iv) The disclosure statement of the accused and the identification of the place of occurrence in pursuance thereof, under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.” 26. As far as the fourth circumstance is concerned, as already discussed by us above, the disclosure statement is not a disclosure statement and therefore, this circumstance is not proved. Having held so, we are not at all in agreement with the judgment of the learned trial court that the other three circumstances have not been proved. 27. With regard to the first circumstance, the basic evidence is of PW-3 Balak Ram who runs a radio mechanic shop at village Deed. He has clearly stated that on 7th May, 2003, at about 7.00 pm or 7.30 pm both Madan Singh and Rajinder Singh accused came to his shop. They sat in his shop and then some altercation took place between them. After the altercation kept continuing for a long time, this witness asked both of them to go away but they refused to disperse and asked the witness not to interfere in their personal matter. Balak Ram then went to his own house and rang up the house of Madan Singh and informed his family members about the quarrel which had taken place in his shop. According to him, his house is about 2½ furlong i.e. about 500 meters from his shop. Balak Ram then went to his own house and rang up the house of Madan Singh and informed his family members about the quarrel which had taken place in his shop. According to him, his house is about 2½ furlong i.e. about 500 meters from his shop. He returned to the shop within 30 to 45 minutes. On reaching his shop he found that Madan Singh was lying dead in front of the shop. Madan Singh was having an injury on his head and the stone Ext. P-1 was lying near his head. Madan Singh was totally naked and his clothes were lying near his body. In the meantime, PW-1 Ramesh Kumar also reached there and information was given to police telephonically about the incident. 28. A suggestion has been put to this witness in cross-examination that at the time of altercation Rajinder Singh was alleging that Madan singh used to play witchcraft on him. This itself is an admission on the part of the accused that he was present at the spot and it also provides the motive for the fight. He denied the suggestion that when he left for his house Rajinder Singh was not in his shop. Veiled suggestion has been put to this witness that he himself had an altercation with Rajinder Singh. Another suggestion put to him is that he made a false statement on the asking of the brother of Madan Singh. One fails to understand why the brother of Madan Singh would falsely implicate Rajinder Singh and let the true culprit go free especially when there is no allegation that the relations between Rajinder Singh and Madan Singh were strained. This witness in cross-examination has also stated that his house is 2½ Kms from the place of occurrence. He also stated that the nallah from where the police brought Rajinder Singh in the morning is about 1 Km from the place of occurrence and is not towards the house of the accused but on the other side. In reply to a Court question, this witness admitted that in his presence no physical act of violence had taken place between the deceased and the accused. 29. We find no reason to disbelieve the statement of this witness. It has a ring of truth. It has been urged that Balak Ram himself may be the culprit and may have committed the murder of Madan Singh. 29. We find no reason to disbelieve the statement of this witness. It has a ring of truth. It has been urged that Balak Ram himself may be the culprit and may have committed the murder of Madan Singh. In our opinion this argument is totally baseless. No motive or reason is there for Balak Ram to murder Madan Singh. The statement of Balak Ram is also supported by Ramesh Kumar brother of the deceased, who states that he received a telephonic message from Balak Ram late in the evening of 7th May, 2003 and he was informed that accused Rajinder Singh and his brother had quarrelled with each other and were exchanging hot words in front of his shop. There was no reason for Balak Ram to ring up the family members of Madan Singh if in fact he had committed the crime. According to Ramesh Kumar when he reached the shop of Balak Ram he saw the body of his brother lying in a naked position. According to him Balak Ram was not in his shop and thereafter he went to the house of Balak Ram and met him in the verandah of his house. There is contradiction in this regard between Ramesh Kumar and Balak Ram but this contradiction is not of such a nature so as to raise question regarding the veracity of the statement of these two witnesses. This witness states that he informed his other relative Tara Singh also in this regard. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that the first circumstance that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused at the shop of Balak Ram and there was exchange of hot words between them is fully proved. 30. The second circumstance relied upon is that the accused fled away and was not available at the scene of occurrence after the death of Madan Singh. In this regard reference may be made to the statement of PW6 Daulat Ram. According to this witness on the night intervening 7th May, 2003 and 8th May, 2003 accused Rajinder Singh came to his house at about 2.00 am. He informed the witness that he had got late at village Mohri and therefore, wanted to sleep at his house. According to this witness he offered food to the accused and made him sleep outside his house. He informed the witness that he had got late at village Mohri and therefore, wanted to sleep at his house. According to this witness he offered food to the accused and made him sleep outside his house. In the morning Rajinder Singh was not there. His statement has not been put to the test of cross-examination despite opportunity being given and the only question put to him is that Rajinder Singh was mentally imbalanced and under treatment at Dharampur. Thus his statement that Rajinder Singh slept on the night at his house has not been questioned. Why would Rajinder Singh sleep in the house of a villager in village Deed where the occurrence happened when his house is only 2½ Kms away? It is apparent that he was trying to hide himself. 31. PW-12 Raghuvir Singh stated that he arrested the accused on 8.5.2003 from a nallah at a distance of 1½ Kms from the scene of occurrence. He also stated that as per his evidence the accused had gone to the house of PW-6 Daulat Ram after the occurrence. Suggestion was put to this witness that the accused had disclosed to him during investigation that he was mentally imbalanced and not knowing about the things happening when he had lunatic fits. Another suggestion put to him was that the accused had altercation with the deceased on the apprehension that the deceased was indulging in witchcraft. This witness has not been cross-examined with regard to his statement that he arrested the accused from the nallah. Thus, it is apparent that after spending part of the night in the house of PW-6 Daulat Ram the accused went to the nallah and hid himself. Therefore, the second circumstance also stands proved and it is apparent that the conduct of the accused was such which raises strong suspicion against him. This also cast doubt on his defence that he was insane because if that had been so why would he run away from the spot or try to hide himself in the nallah. 32. As far as the last circumstance is concerned, the relevant statement is of PW-12 Dr. Ashok Chauhan who had not only conducted the post mortem but also examined the accused and found the following injuries on his person:- “1. Lacerated wound right side back at the level of T7 level reddish brown in colour 3 cm from midline. 2. 32. As far as the last circumstance is concerned, the relevant statement is of PW-12 Dr. Ashok Chauhan who had not only conducted the post mortem but also examined the accused and found the following injuries on his person:- “1. Lacerated wound right side back at the level of T7 level reddish brown in colour 3 cm from midline. 2. Patterned abrasion bright red in colour 6 cm from mid line right side length was 5 cm. and two in number running parallel to each other 5 cm apart. 3. Multiple grazes right side face and nose and left side wrist.” 33. With regard to the injuries on the person of the accused, the witness clearly stated that injury No.2 can be caused by a long hard substance like a wooden stick. He, however, clearly stated that none of the three injuries could be received during agricultural pursuit. Thus, it clearly shows that there were some injuries on the person of the accused which supports the prosecution that there was a scuffle between him and deceased Madan Singh. 34. In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 681 the Apex Court held that the question of burden of proof where some facts are in the personal knowledge of the accused is something for the accused to explain. Taking note of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the Apex Court held that though the pristine rule is that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused but this rule should not be taken as a fossilized doctrine as though it admits no process of intelligent reasoning. The Court can draw reasonable presumption on the basis of evidence led before it. In cases where there are no eye witnesses, presumptions have to be drawn and the doctrine of presumption co-exists with the rule that burden of proof is on the prosecution. 35. In Kirkan’s case (supra) the Apex Court after examining a number of cases went on to hold as follows:- “20. In Ram Gulam Chaudhary v. State of Bihar the accused after brutally assaulting a boy carried him away and thereafter the boy was not seen alive nor his body was found. The accused, however, offered no explanation as to what they did after they took away the boy. In Ram Gulam Chaudhary v. State of Bihar the accused after brutally assaulting a boy carried him away and thereafter the boy was not seen alive nor his body was found. The accused, however, offered no explanation as to what they did after they took away the boy. It was held that for the absence of any explanation from the side of the accused about the boy, there was every justification for drawing an inference that they had murdered the boy. It was further observed that even though Section 106 of the Evidence Act may not be intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but the section would apply to cases like the present, where the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding death. The accused by virtue of their special knowledge must offer an explanation which might lead the court to draw a different inference. 21. In a case based on circumstantial evidence where no eyewitness account is available, there is another principle of law which must be kept in mind. The principle is that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the said accused either offers no explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete.” 36. The Apex Court in State of West Bengal vs. Mir Mohd. Omar (2000) 8 SCC 382 held that if the traditional rule relating to burden of proof on the prosecution is allowed to be wrapped in pedantic coverage, the offenders in serious offences would be the major beneficiaries and the society would be the causality. Therefore, once the prosecution proves certain facts the Court may be entitled to raise presumption from such facts. The Apex Court went on to hold as follows:- “33. Presumption of fact is an inference as to the existence of one fact from the existence of some other facts, unless the truth of such inference is disproved. Presumption of fact is a rule in law of evidence that a fact otherwise doubtful may be inferred from certain other proved facts. Presumption of fact is an inference as to the existence of one fact from the existence of some other facts, unless the truth of such inference is disproved. Presumption of fact is a rule in law of evidence that a fact otherwise doubtful may be inferred from certain other proved facts. When inferring the existence of a fact from other set of proved facts, the court exercises a process of reasoning and reaches a logical conclusion as the most probable position. The above principle has gained legislative recognition in India when Section 114 is incorporated in the Evidence Act. It empowers the court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened. In that process the court shall have regard to the common course of natural events, human conduct, etc. in relation to the facts of the case.” 37. In Krishnan and another v. State (2003) 7 SCC 56 , the Apex Court considered the question as to what is meant by the phrase “proof beyond reasonable doubt”. The pertinent observations of the Apex Court are as follows:- “22. A person has, no doubt, a profound right not to be convicted of an offence which is not established by the evidential standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Though this standard is a higher standard, there is, however, no absolute standard. What degree of probability amounts to `proof' is an exercise particular to each case. Referring to/of probability amounts to `proof' is an exercise the inter-dependence of evidence and the confirmation of one piece of evidence by another a learned author says : (See "The Mathematics of Proof II" : Glanville Williams : Criminal Law Review, 1979, by Sweet and Maxwell, p. 340 (342). “The simple multiplication rule does not apply if the separate pieces of evidence are dependent. Two events are dependent when they tend to occur together, and the evidence of such events may also be said to be dependent. In a criminal case, different pieces of evidence directed to establishing that the defendant did the prohibited act with the specified state of mind are generally dependent. A junior may feel doubt whether to credit an alleged confession, and doubt whether to infer guilt from the fact that the defendant fled from justice. In a criminal case, different pieces of evidence directed to establishing that the defendant did the prohibited act with the specified state of mind are generally dependent. A junior may feel doubt whether to credit an alleged confession, and doubt whether to infer guilt from the fact that the defendant fled from justice. But since it is generally guilty rather then innocent people who make confession, and guilty rather than innocent people who run away, the two doubts are not to be multiplied together. The one piece of evidence may confirm the other." 23. Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any favourite other than truth. To constitute reasonable doubt, it must be free from an over emotional response. Doubts must be actual and substantial doubts as to the guilt of the accused person arising from the evidence, or from the lack of it, as opposed to mere vague apprehension. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt; but a fair doubt based upon reason and commonsense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case. 24. The concepts of probability, and the degrees of it, cannot obviously be expressed in terms of units to be mathematically enumerated as to how many of such units constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is an unmistakable subjective element in the evaluation of the degrees of probability and the quantum of proof. Forensic probability must, in the last analysis, rest on a robust common sense and, ultimately, on the trained intuitions of the judge. While the protection given by the criminal process to the accused persons is not be eroded, at the same time, uninformed legitimization of trivialities would make a mockery of administration of criminal justice.” 38. In Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai and others, (2003) 12 SCC 395 the same view was reiterated. 39. The latest judgment brought to our notice in this regard is in the case of Iqbal Moosa Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 2 SCC 198 , wherein the Apex Court held as follows:- “23. It is true that the prosecution is required to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt, but that does not mean that the degree of proof must be beyond a shadow of doubt. It is true that the prosecution is required to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt, but that does not mean that the degree of proof must be beyond a shadow of doubt. The principle as to what degree of proof is required is stated by Lord Denning in his inimitable style in Miller v. Minister of Pensions (1947) 2 ALL ER 272: "That degree is well settled. It need not reach certainty, but it must carry a high degree of probability. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. The law would fail to protect the community if it permitted fanciful possibilities to deflect the course of justice. If the evidence is so strong against a man as to leave only a remote possibility in his favour which can be dismissed with sentence `of course, it is possible but not in the least probable,' the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt.... “88. It is true that under our existing jurisprudence in a criminal matter, we have to proceed with presumption of innocence, but at the same time, that presumption is to be judged on the basis of conceptions of a reasonable prudent man. Smelling doubts for the sake of giving benefit of doubt is not the law of the land." 24. Reference may also be made to the decision of this Court in Sucha Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab (2003) 7 SCC 643 where this Court has reiterated the principle in the following words: "20. Exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts or lingering suspicion and thereby destroy social defence. Justice cannot be made sterile on the plea that it is better to let a hundred guilty escape than punish an innocent. Letting the guilty escape is not doing justice according to law. (See Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh AIR 1990 SC 209 ). Prosecution is not required to meet any and every hypothesis put forward by the accused. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case. (See Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh AIR 1990 SC 209 ). Prosecution is not required to meet any and every hypothesis put forward by the accused. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case. If a case is proved perfectly, it is argued that it is artificial; if a case has some flaws inevitable because human beings are prone to err, it is argued that it is too imperfect. One wonders whether in the meticulous hypersensitivity to eliminate a rare innocent from being punished, many guilty persons must be allowed to escape. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish." 40. A bare perusal of this judgment clearly shows that proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean certainty, but only mean a very high degree of probability. Therefore, fanciful arguments or trivial issues raised for casting doubt on the evidence cannot be said to mean that the case has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. As observed by the Apex Court, the doubt should be reasonable and not imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. 41. In the present case, the accused was last seen with the deceased having heated arguments with him. The occurrence took place in a small village where there would not be many people out at late hours. Within 30 minutes to 45 minutes PW-3 Balak Ram came back to his shop and found that the deceased was dead and the accused was missing. The accused has not given any explanation in this regard and his only defence appears to be that of insanity. His conduct of going to the house of PW-6 Daulat Ram and then running away to the nallah and not staying at his own house for the night indicate that it is the accused alone and none else who committed the murder of the deceased. All these circumstances taken together lead to only one irresistible conclusion that it is the accused alone who caused the death of the deceased. 42. There is no manner of doubt that a huge stone was used to smash the head of the deceased. This would be used only with an intention to kill him. All these circumstances taken together lead to only one irresistible conclusion that it is the accused alone who caused the death of the deceased. 42. There is no manner of doubt that a huge stone was used to smash the head of the deceased. This would be used only with an intention to kill him. Therefore, we find that the accused of having committed the murder of Madan Singh. Accordingly the appeal is allowed and the judgment of acquittal dated 29.5.2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla is set aside. The respondent is convicted for having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Bail bonds are cancelled and the accused be produced before us for being heard on the quantum of sentence on 4th October, 2012. The Registry is directed to take follow up action.