JUDGMENT : K. Hema, J. What is the scope of S.6 of Indian Penal Code ('I.P.C.,' for short), with reference to definition of an offence or penal provision in I.P.C.? Does S.84 I.P.C. lay down merely a defence for accused in a trial or does it have any relevance during investigation? What constitute offence of murder and attempt to commit murder, under Sections 302 or 307 I.P.C., in the light of S.6 of I.P.C.? Does S.105 of Evidence Act have any relevance during investigation stage? These are some of important questions which are to be considered in this appeal. 2. The appellant was tried for offences under Sections 307 and 302 I.P.C. by the Additional Sessions Court. He is alleged to have attempted to commit murder of his own wife (PW2) and his only child who was aged just four months at the time of death. After trial he was convicted and sentenced under both the above provisions. This appeal is filed challenging the said conviction and sentence. 3. According to prosecution, on 30.3.2005 accused went for an afternoon nap to the bed room situated in his wife's house, along with his wife, PW2. At about 3 p.m., while PW2 was breast feeding the baby, accused went out of the room and came back with an axe (MO1) and cut his wife and child with MO1, with intention to commit their murder. Both of them sustained serious injuries and they were rushed to the hospital. The child succumbed to the injuries and the wife survived. The motive for the offence is the alleged suspicion of accused on fidelity of his wife. 4. To prove prosecution case, PWs 1 to 21 were examined and marked Exts.P1 to P19 and MO1 to MO6 series. The accused examined DW1 and DW2 and marked Exts.D1 to D7 on his side. While questioned under S.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the Code', for short), he stated that he did not know anything. He also filed a statement to the following effect; "The accused was a mental patient, at the time of offence and also prior to that. He did not commit any offence knowingly. Five or six days prior to the incident, accused was taken to the hospital by his wife and his uncle (DW2) and he was treated by DW1, the doctor who suggested that he should be admitted as an inpatient. He did not commit any offence knowingly. Five or six days prior to the incident, accused was taken to the hospital by his wife and his uncle (DW2) and he was treated by DW1, the doctor who suggested that he should be admitted as an inpatient. But, his wife and others did not admit him. He did not know what happened at the alleged time of incident. After he was released from the prison, he was treated as an inpatient in a hospital. He is taking 7 pills daily. He loved his wife and child as his own life. Because of the gravity of his mental illness, he is unaware of what happened and he cannot even remember what happened on the crucial day”. 5. On analysis of evidence and rival contentions taken up, trial court held that prosecution proved that the accused inflicted injuries on PW2 and also the child and caused the death of child. It is also held that accused is not entitled to benefit of Exception under S.84 I.P.C. However, court below observed that accused never questioned paternity of the child is not a circumstance in favour of the defence. His target was PW2 and the child received fatal blows during the course of attack on PW2, it is held. 6. Heard Sri. R. Muraleedharan for appellant and Sri. Noble Mathew, learned Public Prosecutor for prosecution. Perused records. The points arising for consideration in this appeal are: 1. Whether accused committed offence of murder, by intentionally causing death of his deceased son by cutting with MO1-axe, as alleged by prosecution? 2. Whether appellant attempted to commit murder of PW2, his wife by cutting with MO1? 3. Whether conviction and sentence passed against appellant are sustainable? 7. Points 1 to 3: The fact that child Athul Krishna aged only 4 months died due to injuries sustained in the incident involved in this case is proved by medical evidence. It is not challenged also. But, no reason is stated by the prosecution why accused committed murder of his own child in his tender age. It is in evidence that accused loved both his child and wife. The deceased baby was very dear to him. PW2 accused's wife deposed that he loved herself and the child as his own life. PW1 who is accused's mother in law deposed that accused loved members of her entire family. 8. It is in evidence that accused loved both his child and wife. The deceased baby was very dear to him. PW2 accused's wife deposed that he loved herself and the child as his own life. PW1 who is accused's mother in law deposed that accused loved members of her entire family. 8. Therefore, apparently there is no reason for accused to commit murder of his own child, who was aged just 4 months. The trial court also found that there was no motive for accused to commit murder of the child. But, court below observed that 'the actual attack was on PW2 and the child only received fatal blows during the course of attack on PW2'. There is no basis for entering such a finding. There is no eye witness to occurrence. The prosecution itself has no case that injuries were sustained while he was attacking his wife but, the case is that attack on the child was intentional. In such circumstances, finding of court below that ' the actual attack was on PW2 and the child only received fatal blows during the course of attack on PW2' has no basis. 9. The charge sheet laid by police is silent about any motive for accused to kill his child. The charge sheet does not reveal any animosity for accused to kill his own child. The only allegation made by prosecution in respect of motive is suspicion of accused about fidelity of his wife. Even if this is accepted and he had suspicion about his wife, it is no reason to commit murder of his child. Prosecution has no case that accused had any suspicion that the child is an illegitimate child or that he had any doubt about paternity of the child. On the other hand, his child was very dear to him and he loved him. 10. In such circumstances, it is a mystery why the baby was mercilessly murdered by accused. What is more mysterious is that the mystery was not unveiled in investigation. The charge being for 'murder', it is necessary to ascertain whether accused had any criminal intention or motive to commit murder of the victim child. It is essential to know why a motiveless murder of 4 month old baby was committed by accused; for what gain, for what satisfaction? Learned Public Prosecutor argued that motive is quite irrelevant on the facts of this case. It is essential to know why a motiveless murder of 4 month old baby was committed by accused; for what gain, for what satisfaction? Learned Public Prosecutor argued that motive is quite irrelevant on the facts of this case. If it is proved that accused committed the overt act, it is more than sufficient to convict him, it is submitted. With due respect, we cannot accept this contention, for many reasons. 11. Learned counsel for appellant, Sri. R. Muraleedharan submitted that accused raised the plea under S.84 I.P.C. was raised in the bail application itself, much prior to the completion of investigation and accused specifically stated that he was not aware of anything what transpired because of unsoundness of mind. The defence plea is that accused was ailing from mental illness, at the time of commission of offence. But, absolutely no investigation was conducted into the mental state of accused. 12. It was strongly argued, citing a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Bapu v. State of Rajasthan (2007) 8 SCC 66 ) that investigating officer, in his fairness, ought to have conducted investigation into the mental condition of accused and in the absence of it, accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. Several other arguments were also advanced on various other aspects by prosecution as well as defence. On hearing both sides and on going through relevant provisions in the I.P.C., Evidence Act, evidence and records in this appeal, it is essential to consider in depth, many aspects of legal importance in this case. 13. What is the scope of S.6 I.P.C., with reference to definition of an offence or penal provision in I.P.C.? Does S.84 I.P.C. provide merely a defence for accused or does it have any relevance during investigation? What constitute offence of murder and attempt to commit murder under Sections 302 or 307 I.P.C., in the light of S.6 of I.P.C.? Does S.105 of Evidence Act have any relevance during investigation stage? These are some of the questions which are to be considered in this appeal. 14. On the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we will firstly consider the question what constitutes “murder”, as per I.P.C., in the light of S.6 of I.P.C., instead of considering scope of S.84 I.P.C. vis-a-vis S.105 of Evidence Act etc. S.299 I.P.C. defines what is “culpable homicide'. S.300 I.P.C. defines 'murder'. 14. On the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we will firstly consider the question what constitutes “murder”, as per I.P.C., in the light of S.6 of I.P.C., instead of considering scope of S.84 I.P.C. vis-a-vis S.105 of Evidence Act etc. S.299 I.P.C. defines what is “culpable homicide'. S.300 I.P.C. defines 'murder'. While considering the definition of any offence in I.P.C., what is most important is the provision contained in S.6 of I.P.C.. This provision is quite often ignored by legal fraternity. S.6 I.P.C. reads as follows: “6. Definitions in the Code to be understood subject to exceptions:--Throughout this Code every definition of an offence, every penal provision, and every illustration of every such definition or penal provision, shall be understood subject to the exceptions contained in the Chapter entitled “General Exceptions”, though those exceptions are not repeated in such definition, penal provision, or illustration”. 15. A reading of S.6 I.P.C. reveals that every definition of offence, every penal provision and every illustration of every such definition or penal provision shall be understood subject to the exceptions contained in Chapter IV titled as “General Exceptions”. Even though those Exceptions are not repeated in each of the definition or the penal provision or illustration, such definition or penal provision or illustration have to be understood, subject to the General Exceptions contained in Chapter IV of I.P.C.. 16. Therefore, as per S.6 I.P.C., whenever a penal provision or definition of offence or illustration is sought to be interpreted and understood, it is essential to read the same along with “General Exceptions”, even though “General Exceptions” are not repeated in every definition of offence. Thus, “General Exceptions” in Chapter IV of I.P.C. form integral and inseparable part of every definition, penal provision and illustration and those cannot be read in isolation of “General Exceptions”. 17. The importance of “General Exceptions” in Chapter IV I.P.C. was highlighted by Lord Macaulay himself before the House of Commons at the time of introduction of the Bill as under: “This Chapter has been framed in order to obviate the necessity of repeating in every penal clause a considerable number of limitations. Some limitations relate only to a single provision, or to a very small class of provisions.... Every such exception evidently ought to be appended to the rule which it is intended to modify. Some limitations relate only to a single provision, or to a very small class of provisions.... Every such exception evidently ought to be appended to the rule which it is intended to modify. But there are other exceptions which are common to all the penal clauses of the Code, or to a greater variety of clauses dispersed over many chapters. It would obviously be inconvenient to repeat these exceptions several times in every page. We have, therefore, placed them in a separate chapter and, we have provided that every definition of an offence, every penal provision, and every illustration of a definition or penal provision, shall be construed subject to the provisions contained in that chapter.” 18. A reading of S.6 I.P.C. and its object makes it abundantly clear that a penal provision or a definition of every offence under I.P.C. cannot be read detached from the “General Exceptions”. But, this is seldom done, despite the mandate under S.6 of I.P.C. A reading of “General Exceptions” in Chapter IV of I.P.C. read with S.6 I.P.C. makes it clear that “General Exceptions” are drafted in such a way so that it shall apply to every penal provision or definition of an offence under I.P.C. and illustration thereto. The word used in S.6 I.P.C. is “shall” and the said provision contained in the said provision is mandatory. 19. Therefore, a penal provision or a definition of an offence or illustration thereto under I.P.C. must be read, construed and understood subject to the “General Exceptions” contained in Chapter IV of I.P.C.. For example, if a child commits all the acts which constitute offence of murder or any other offence in I.P.C., though such acts squarely fall within the definition of a particular offence, by virtue of the definition of such offence is to be read along with “General Exceptions” contained in Chapter IV of I.P.C., to ascertain whether such act constitute such offence. 20. Section 82 I.P.C. (which falls under “General Exceptions” in Chapter IV) lays down that nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age. Therefore, even if a child aged below 7 years commits all the acts which may constitute an offence as per the definition in I.P.C., such acts will not constitute an offence by virtue of the “General Exceptions” and therefore, he or she cannot be charge sheeted for any offence. Therefore, even if a child aged below 7 years commits all the acts which may constitute an offence as per the definition in I.P.C., such acts will not constitute an offence by virtue of the “General Exceptions” and therefore, he or she cannot be charge sheeted for any offence. Though the acts committed may constitute offence under I.P.C., it is no offence at all, if the definition of any offence in I.P.C. is read and understood in the light of “General Exceptions” contained in S.82 I.P.C.. 21. The illustration (a) to S.6 I.P.C. reads thus: “(a) The sections, in this Code, which contain definitions of offences, do not express that a child under seven years of age cannot commit such offences, but the definitions are to be understood subject to the general exception which provides that nothing shall be an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age”. 22. Likewise, if a police officer without warrant apprehends an accused who committed murder and confines him in lock up and even though such act may amount to offences, going by the definition under S.339 and 340 of I.P.C., such act committed by such officer will not constitute any offence, by virtue of General Exceptions contained in Chapter IV I.P.C.. 23. Illustration (b) of S.6 I.P.C. lays down thus: “A, a police-officer, without warrant, apprehends Z, who has committed murder. Here A is not guilty of the offence of wrongful confinement; for he was bound by law to apprehend Z, and therefore the case falls within the general exception which provides that “nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is bound by law to do it”. Therefore, such a police officer, having not committed an offence, when definition of offence is read along with General Exceptions, he cannot be charge sheeted for the acts committed by him. 24. Similarly if a judge directs an accused to remain in the Court hall and restricts his movements, for the purpose of questioning him under S.313 of the Code, going by the definition contained in Sections 339 and 340 I.P.C., it may amount to wrongful confinement or wrongful restraint which are offences under I.P.C. But, such act committed by a Judge is not an offence, by virtue of “General Exceptions” contained in S.77 falling in Chapter IV of I.P.C.. S.77 I.P.C. provides that nothing is an offence which is done by a Judge when acting judicially in the exercise of any power which is, given to him by law. 25. Therefore, if a complaint is made before police alleging that a police officer or judge committed offence of wrongful confinement under the circumstances referred above, or that a child aged below 7 years committed murder, no charge sheet can be laid against them for any such offence, for the reason that though such acts, strictly speaking, may fall under definition of one or other offence in the I.P.C., such acts will not constitute any such offence, when the definition of the particular offence is read and understood subject to the “General Exceptions” contained in Chapter IV of I.P.C., as required in S.6 I.P.C.. 26. Therefore, it follows that whenever an offence under I.P.C. is allegedly committed by a person, the investigating officer must satisfy himself first that the act or acts allegedly committed by him constitute an offence as per definition in I.P.C. He must also ascertain whether such act or acts constitute the particular offence, if the definition of such offence is read and understood, subject to “General Exceptions” contained in Chapter IV of I.P.C. Merely because certain act or acts committed by accused constitute an offence as per definition under I.P.C., investigating officer shall not mechanically lay charge against any person for such offence, for the mere reason that those acts constitute offence as defined in I.P.C.. He shall further confirm that an offence is made out against a person despite what is contained in the General Exceptions etc., because of the mandate in S.6 I.P.C. 27. For example, in a case in which an investigating officer finds that a child committed the acts which constitute offence of murder, he must investigate and find out whether the child is below 7 years or not. It is only in cases in which he collects evidence to show that the child is not under 7 years, he can file a charge sheet against him. Otherwise, if he is below 7 years, he has to report that no offence is made out in the light of General Exceptions contained in S.82 I.P.C. 28. No investigating officer shall ignore the mandate under S.6 of Evidence Act. Otherwise, if he is below 7 years, he has to report that no offence is made out in the light of General Exceptions contained in S.82 I.P.C. 28. No investigating officer shall ignore the mandate under S.6 of Evidence Act. By virtue of S.6 of I.P.C., every definition of offence, every penal provision and illustration have to be understood by him, subject to the exceptions contained in Chapter IV titled as “General Exceptions”, even though those Exceptions are not repeated in each of the definition or the penal provision or illustration, contained in I.P.C.. So, in cases in which investigating officer fails to conduct investigation into the relevant aspects covered by the relevant “General Exceptions” which may apply to the facts of a particular case, depending on facts of a particular case, charge itself may not be sustainable, for want of investigation into the relevant facts. 29. A charge shall not be filed ritualistically or mechanically. By virtue of mandate in S.6 I.P.C. the definition of offence has to be understood subject to “General Exceptions” and hence, investigating officer is bound to conduct investigation on the relevant aspects, to rule out possibility of such acts not constituting any offence because of any “General Exceptions” which may be applicable to the facts of each case. Only if investigation is conducted and possibility of the case falling under the relevant “General Exceptions” as may be applicable to facts of the particular case is ruled out, it can be said whether alleged offence is actually attracted or not. 30. Therefore, provisions contained in Chapter IV I.P.C. titled as “General Exceptions” do not merely provide any defence to an accused at the trial. Such provisions have great significance even at the investigating stage itself. An investigating officer will have power to file a final report against a person alleging commission of an offence under I.P.C., only if he finds on investigation that an offence is committed by such person. Even if all acts which may attract defintion of an offence are committed by an accused, those may not constitute such offence because of provisions contained in “General Exceptions”, in certain cases. Therefore, before filing charge, investigating officer has to confirm that such acts will still constitute the alleged offence under I.P.C., despite what is contained in the General Exceptions. 31. Therefore, before filing charge, investigating officer has to confirm that such acts will still constitute the alleged offence under I.P.C., despite what is contained in the General Exceptions. 31. Therefore, having discussed scope of S.6 I.P.C. and General Exceptions with reference of definition of an offence, we will understand definition of offences and penal provisions in S.300 or 302 or 307 I.P.C. subject to General Exceptions. If the relevant definition and penal provisions relating to such offence are read and understood subject to S.84 I.P.C. which provision falls under “General Exceptions” in Chapter IV of I.P.C., it would be clear that even if a person commits all the acts contained in the definition of S.300 I.P.C. (and he cuts another person with an axe and causes his death etc.) or any other offence, such acts will not constitute any offence if, by reason of unsoundness of mind, he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he was doing what is either wrong or contrary to law, as stated in S.84 I.P.C.. 32. Therefore, it follows that even if all the acts constituting an offence as per definition in I.P.C. are committed by a person, if an investigating officer finds on investigation that by reason of unsoundness of mind, accused was incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he was doing what is either wrong or contrary to law, as stated in S.84 I.P.C., he shall not file a charge sheet against such person. This is for the reason that such acts will not constitute offence, when definition of the offence is read, with S.84 I.P.C., by virtue of S.6 I.P.C.. Only if an investigating officer is satisfied that the acts committed by an accused constitute offence despite what is contained General Exceptions, he can file a charge sheet against such person. 33. However, it was strenuously argued by learned Public Prosecutor that it may not be practical or proper to insist that in all cases, investigating officer shall conduct investigation on soundness or unsoundness of mind of accused or whether at the time of doing the act, by reason of unsoundness of mind, accused was incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law etc. Referring to scope of S.6 I.P.C., learned Public Prosecutor also argued that the said provision only imposes statutory obligation on the court to consider whether the case falls within the Exception or not. 34. By virtue of S.6 I.P.C., only the accused is bound to prove that the case at hand is covered by any of the General Exceptions falling under Chapter IV of I.P.C. and it is the duty of the court to consider whether any offence is made out because of General Exceptions, it is strongly argued by learned Public Prosecutor. But, S.6 I.P.C. cannot be over stretched to shift the burden of proof on the prosecution to establish that an accused was sane, at the time of commission of offence on the prosecution, it is vehemently contended. He also raised an argument that every person is presumed to be sane until the contrary is proved, as held in certain decisions of the Supreme Court. Hence, it is for accused to prove the contrary and it is not the duty of investigating officer to make an enquiry or investigation into such facts, it is strongly argued. 35. It is true that Supreme Court, in certain cases held that every person will be presumed to be sane, until the contrary is proved. But, it is relevant to note the context in which the said pronouncement was made. It is only in cases involving application of S.84 I.P.C. and burden of proof under S.105 of Evidence Act, the Supreme Court held that a person can be presumed to be sane. A close look at the entire matter will reveal that there is a reason for laying down such a proposition. A reading of S.105 Evidence Act is necessary in this context. The said provision excluding portions which are not quite relevant for this appeal, reads as follows: “105. case of accused comes within exceptions.--When a person is accused of any offence, the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the General Exceptions in the Indian Penal Code (XLV of 1860), or within any special exception or proviso contained in any other part of the same Code, or in any law defining the offence, is upon him, and the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances. Illustrations (a) A, accused of murder, alleges that, by reason of unsoundness of mind, he did not know the nature of the act. The burden of proof is on A. (b) xxxx xxxx (c) xxxx xxxx” 36. A reading of S.105 Evidence Act reveals that existence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the “General Exceptions” in I.P.C. is upon the accused and the Court shall presume absence of such circumstances. The expression contained in S.105 of Evidence Act that “the/court shall presume the absence of such circumstances” is relevant. If an accused is putting forward a plea that he is insane or was of unsound mind and proposes to prove circumstances to establish insanity or unsoundness of mind, the court shall presume absence of such circumstances i.e., accused is not insane or of unsound mind, by virtue of by S.105. 37. In other words, sanity can be presumed by virtue of the expression “the court shall presume the absence of such circumstances” contained in S.105 of Evidence Act. It is in the above sense that the Supreme Court held that a person can be presumed to be sane. Therefore, in cases in which an accused takes up defence under S.84 I.P.C. during trial and he tries to prove the defence as per S.105 of Evidence Act, a presumption can be drawn that a person is sane. 38. But, we could not come across with any provision of law which permits a presumption that a person is sane. No specific provision could also be pointed out by learned Public Prosecutor which permits drawing of any such presumption of either in law or on facts. Learned Public Prosecutor was also not able to point out any provision of law which lays down that court may or shall presume that person is sane until contrary is proved. In this context, another important fact is also worth mentioning. 39. By virtue of S.105 of Evidence Act, if at all a presumption of sanity can be drawn as stated above, it can be done only by a Court and that too, when accused takes up a defence under S.84 I.P.C. This is evident from the expression, “the Court shall presume'' in S.105. 39. By virtue of S.105 of Evidence Act, if at all a presumption of sanity can be drawn as stated above, it can be done only by a Court and that too, when accused takes up a defence under S.84 I.P.C. This is evident from the expression, “the Court shall presume'' in S.105. Therefore, presumption of sanity can be drawn only by a Court and not by any other authority and only in cases in which Court draws a presumption of sanity by virtue of S.105 of Evidence Act, accused will have the burden to establish the contrary. 40. Section 105 of Evidence Act relates to burden of proof in a proceedings before Court and not elsewhere. Whatever is contained in S.105 of Evidence Act relating to burden of proof is applicable only in a proceeding before Court and not before investigating officer or any other authority. S.105 of Evidence Act is not applicable during investigation. The investigating officer is therefore, not competent to draw any presumption of sanity by virtue of S.105 of Evidence Act. The accused is also not under any obligation to discharge any burden of proof before investigating officer that he was mentally unsound during investigation. 41. Even if an accused was genuinely of unsound mind at the time of commission of offence, it is puerile to contend that immediately on his arrest, such a person must prove before investigating officer that he was legally insane. So, the so-called presumption of sanity is not available during investigation and an investigating officer shall not presume an accused to be sane and file a charge sheet, without conducting investigation on relevant aspects touching S.84 I.P.C., depending upon facts of such case. 42. Investigating officer is bound to investigate and confirm that despite what is contained in the “General Exceptions”, acts committed by accused shall constitute offence under I.P.C.. This shall be done, by virtue of S.6 of I.P.C.. In the light of S.6 of I.P.C., definition of every offence is to be understood subject to the “General Exceptions”. Therefore, investigation shall not confine merely to the acts committed by a person. Depending on facts and circumstances of each case, many other relevant facts also have to be investigated into, in the light of the provisions contained in “General Exceptions”. Therefore, investigation shall not confine merely to the acts committed by a person. Depending on facts and circumstances of each case, many other relevant facts also have to be investigated into, in the light of the provisions contained in “General Exceptions”. It is only then, an investigating officer will be able to confirm whether the acts committed by a person is an offence or not, as defined in I.P.C. subject to what is contained in “General Exceptions”. 43. Therefore, in cases in which any inappropriate, extraordinary or strange behaviour of accused is noticed or the manner in which offence is committed raises any reasonable doubt or belief, or even strong suspicion that accused must or might have been acting because of some problem in his mental condition or due to unsoundness of mind, investigating officer shall inevitably, conduct investigation into the mental state of accused. In such cases, he shall ascertain whether accused had any history concerning mental condition. He shall also get accused examined by a Phychiatrist at the earliest opportunity to ascertain whether he was acting under unsoundness of mind at/the time of occurrence, without knowing nature of the acts etc. 44. The investigating officer shall not shirk off his responsibility to conduct investigation into the relevant aspects which is thrust upon him by virtue of S.6 I.P.C. as per which he is bound to understand definition of every offence subject to General Exceptions. He must bear in mind that in cases in which certian General Exceptions is involved, acts committed may not constitute offence, under certain circumstances. 45. By virtue of General Exceptions in S.84 I.P.C., even if a person commits an act which may attract definition of an offence, such act may not constitute an offence, if it 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. Hence, no charge sheet can be laid against such a person for any offence under I.P.C., since acts committed by him may not be any offence under I.P.C.. 46. Thus, it follows that in the light of S.6 of I.P.C., “General Exceptions” which contains S.84 I.P.C. has great significance and relevance during investigation also. Hence, no charge sheet can be laid against such a person for any offence under I.P.C., since acts committed by him may not be any offence under I.P.C.. 46. Thus, it follows that in the light of S.6 of I.P.C., “General Exceptions” which contains S.84 I.P.C. has great significance and relevance during investigation also. S.84 I.P.C. does not merely lay down a defence to accused which he can take up during trial. An impression that S.84 I.P.C. only provides for a defence is not correct, on a close reading of S.6 I.P.C.. S.6 I.P.C. makes it abundantly clear for what purpose Chapter IV is introduced into I.P.C. which contains various “General Exceptions”. The provisions relating to “General Exceptions” are actually part of every definition of offence in I.P.C. or a penal provision or its illustration and not provisions merely laying down certain defences to accused. 47. However, we do not mean to say that in every case investigating officer shall conduct investigation into the soundness of mind of accused, even though strictly speaking, that is what is revealed from an apparent reading of S.6 of the Act. As argued by learned Public Prosecutor, in each and every murder case, it may not be necessary for investigating officer to conduct investigation into mental soundness or unsoundness of mind of the accused. Only if facts and circumstances of a particular case warrant such an investigation, it may be necessary to do so. 48. Therefore, we do not intend to lay down as a general proposition that in every case where an offence of murder is alleged, investigating officer shall conduct an investigation into the soundness or unsoundness mind of the accused. But, an investigation into the mental state of a person will be inevitable, depending on the facts of a particular case. If accused exhibits any peculiar or strange behaviour which may appear to be due to mental derangement or even if such behaviour is stage managed, unless investigation is conducted into the relevant aspects, investigating officer may not be able to find out whether accused was actually mentally unsound or legally insane at the time of commission of offence. 49. The real cause for the inappropriate or strange behaviour of accused has to be subjected to investigation to rule out possibility of accused acting under mental unsoundness and legal insanity. 49. The real cause for the inappropriate or strange behaviour of accused has to be subjected to investigation to rule out possibility of accused acting under mental unsoundness and legal insanity. Any way, if during investigation, it comes to the knowledge of an investigating officer from any of the relatives or friends or neighbours etc., that there is some thing wrong with accused mentally, investigating officer shall necessarily conduct investigation into the mental condition of accused. 50. This must be the reason why in Bapu's case cited by learned defence counsel, it is held by the Supreme Court that it is the duty of an honest investigator to subject the accused to a medical examination and place that evidence before the court, where during the investigation previous history of insanity is revealed and if this is not done, it creates a serious infirmity in the prosecution case and the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused etc. Though scope of S.6 I.P.C. was not considered in Bapu's case, the dictum laid down by us in this appeal gains strength from Bapu. 51. Learned Public Prosecutor raised a strong contention that S.6 I.P.C. is an extra ordinary provision but it must be read along with S.105 of Evidence Act. It is also argued by him that S.6 I.P.C. has to be treated as a proviso to S.105 of Evidence Act, citing a decision in Khageswar Pujari v. State of Orissa (1984 Crl.L.J. 1108 (Orissa). Therefore, by virtue of S.6 I.P.C., no duty is attached to the investigating officer to conduct any investigation into the mental condition of the person who committed the offence, it is strongly argued. 52. On going through S.105 of Evidence Act and S.6 I.P.C., we cannot accept the above contention. We are not persuaded by what is laid down in the decision of the Orissa High Court cited above, to hold that S.6 I.P.C. is only a proviso to S.105 of Evidence Act. Even on a plain reading of both S.6 I.P.C. and S.105 of Evidence Act, we find that both provisions revolve on totally different spheres. They have no bearing with each other. Both provisions fall under different statutes. Even on a plain reading of both S.6 I.P.C. and S.105 of Evidence Act, we find that both provisions revolve on totally different spheres. They have no bearing with each other. Both provisions fall under different statutes. While S.6 I.P.C. applies when definition of an offence or penal provision and illustration in I.P.C. are to be understood, S.105 of Evidence Act relates to burden of proof of accused before court that his case falls within any of the General Exceptions. 53. Section 105 of Evidence Act is not applicable during investigation. It is a provision relating to burden of proof of accused that his case falls within any of the provisions contained in Chapter IV of I.P.C. titled as “General Exceptions” which includes S.84 I.P.C.. Only when the matter is before court and accused puts forward a plea and seeks benefit of General Exceptions or other Exceptions and the court considers whether the circumstances which bring his case within the General Exceptions are proved or not, S.105 of Evidence Act will apply. The relevancy of S.105 Evidence Act arises only when the court considers whether accused proved that his case falls under the "General Exceptions”, as stated therein. But, S.105 will not apply during investigation. 54. In the above circumstances, it cannot also be said that by virtue of S.6 I.P.C., burden is on the accused to prove that his case falls within General Exceptions and that it is the duty of court to find out whether a case falls under any General Exceptions etc. Depending on facts of each case, it is as much the duty of investigating officer to confirm on investigation that despite what is contained in General Exceptions, the acts committed by accused is still an offence under I.P.C.. The arguments to the contrary are rejected. 55. It must also be borne in mind that in all cases, there may not be any history of treatment or examination of an accused by a psychiatrist in certain cases. This may be due to reluctance of the relatives to accept the reality that he is mentally sick. It may also be due to the fact that relatives were not aware of the gravity of the mental illness or they would have ignored a serious mental problem which necessitated treatment. This may be due to reluctance of the relatives to accept the reality that he is mentally sick. It may also be due to the fact that relatives were not aware of the gravity of the mental illness or they would have ignored a serious mental problem which necessitated treatment. It may also be a case in which the problem might not have aggravated to an uncontrollable extent so that it did not catch attention of relatives. 56. There may be cases where the accused may apparently appear to be mentally sound to another person and he may not exhibit any symptom of mental illness or unsoundness of mind, but a close relative or some other person who has close association with him might have noticed some abnormalities and he would bring it to the notice of investigating officer. In such case also, investigating officer shall conduct an investigation and find out whether accused was acting under any unsoundness of mind at the time of commission of offence. These are only a few examples but, those are not exhaustive. 57. It is needless to say that from a reading of Sections 6, 84 and 300 I.P.C. and S.84 I.P.C., it is clear that if the investigating officer is satisfied that the acts committed by an accused still constitute an offence under I.P.C., even though a person is medically unsound, he may file a charge sheet, if on investigation, he is satisfied that such person is not legally insane. This satisfaction can be arrived at only after causing examination of accused by a Psychiatrist. In such cases, it will be still open to accused to establish before court that his case falls under S.84 I.P.C. notwithstanding what is concluded by investigating officer. It is in such situation that he will have to discharge burden of proof, as stated in S.105 I.P.C.. 58. Learned counsel for appellant, Sri. R. Muraleedharan strongly argued that evidence in this case clearly reveals that accused was legally insane. As per records, absolutely no motive is alleged against accused to commit murder of his 4 month old baby. The evidence in this case will amply reveal that wife and child were very dear to accused and he loved both of them. PW1, the mother in law deposed that accused was very loving even his in-laws also. As per records, absolutely no motive is alleged against accused to commit murder of his 4 month old baby. The evidence in this case will amply reveal that wife and child were very dear to accused and he loved both of them. PW1, the mother in law deposed that accused was very loving even his in-laws also. The acts were committed against wife and son only because accused was suffering from serious mental illness and he was not aware of the nature of his acts etc., it is argued. 59. Learned defence counsel also pointed out that accused had specifically taken up plea of insanity at the earliest stage of the case and stated all details in the bail application filed by appellant, even prior to the completion of investigation. He stated that he was not aware of anything what transpired because of his unsoundness of mind. But, no investigation was conducted into the mental state of accused. The investigating officer, in his fairness, ought to have conducted investigation and in the absence of it, he is entitled for benefit of doubt it is argued, by placing reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Bapu v. State of Rajasthan (2007) 8 SCC 66 ).' 60. Learned defence counsel also argued that it is the duty of investigating officer to subject accused to medical examination and place evidence before court and if it is not done, it creates serious infirmity in the prosecution case and benefit of doubt has to be given to accused. The relevant extract from the above decision is as follows: “The onus of proving unsoundness of mind is on the accused. But where during the investigation previous history of insanity is revealed, it is the duty of an honest investigator to subject the accused to a medical examination and place that evidence before the court and if this is not done, it creates a serious infirmity in the prosecution case and the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused.” 61. Learned counsel for accused also advanced another limb of argument that even if accused fails to prove legal insanity, if any doubt-arises in the mind of the court regarding mens rea, accused is entitled for its benefit. Learned counsel for accused also advanced another limb of argument that even if accused fails to prove legal insanity, if any doubt-arises in the mind of the court regarding mens rea, accused is entitled for its benefit. The failure to prove legal insanity by itself may not be a ground to convict a person who is suffering from unsoundness of mind and who was incapable of knowing the nature of the act. The very fact that accused attacked his own child who is aged only 4 months without any reason at all or any motive will itself indicate that he was suffering from mental derangement and therefore, investigating officer should have conducted investigation into mental condition of the accused. Having not done so, accused may be extended benefit of doubt, it is argued. 62. The Supreme Court has taken similar view in various decisions, it is submitted. Even in cases in which accused failed to prove his defence under S.84 I.P.C., he was acquitted by the Supreme Court, by extending benefit of doubt, since a doubt arose on mens rea. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused committed offence with the requisite mens rea and burden is always upon prosecution from the beginning to the end of trial. The relevant extract from Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat ( AIR 1964 SC 1563 ) which is referred to with approval in T.N. Lakshmaiah v. State of Karnataka (2002) 1 SCC 219 ) and Sheralli Wali Mohammed v. State of Maharashtra ( (1973) 4 SCC 79 ) is as follows: “(1) The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed the offence with the requisite mens rea; and the burden of proving that always rests on the prosecution from the beginning to the end of the trial. ...(3) Even if the accused was not able to establish conclusively that he was insane at the time he committed the offence, the evidence placed before the Court by the accused or by the prosecution may raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court as regards one or more of the ingredients of the offence, including mens rea of the accused and in that case the Court would be entitled to acquit the accused on the ground that the general burden of proof resting on the prosecution was not discharged.” 63. Learned Public Prosecutor strongly refuted the arguments and maintained the stand that this is not a fit case to extend benefit under S.84 I.P.C., since requirements under the said provision are not satisfied. The burden is on the accused to prove the circumstances which would bring his case within the General Exceptions and he will be presumed to be sane until such presumption is rebutted by the accused. The accused has put forward a plea falling under S.84 I.P.C., and hence, by virtue of S.105 of Evidence Act, court will presume accused is same. 64. Learned Public Prosecutor also argued supported by decision reported in Sanna Eranna v. State of Karnataka (1983 Crl. L.J. 619) that it is not the burden of the prosecution to prove a negative fact that accused was having unsoundness of mind at the time of commission of offence and the court cannot insist for proof beyond 360° by giving evidence on the mental condition of the accused at the time of commission of offence. According to learned Public Prosecutor, court can infer that intention of accused was to cause the death, by taking into account nature of weapon used, site of injury, seriousness of the injury, time within which deceased succumbed to the injuries etc. 65. Learned Public Prosecutor also strongly argued that if an accused is affected by mental unsoundness, it is for him to prove such defence. By virtue of S.105 of Evidence Art, burden is heavily upon him to prove that his case falls within General Exceptions and it never shifts to prosecution, it is argued. It is also submitted by him that the court may not proceed on a mere surmise that only a person of unsound mind can commit murder of a child by cutting him with axe etc. Learned Public Prosecutor also pointed out that the Superior Courts in this country repeatedly held that by looking into the nature of the act itself, the court shall not say that accused was suffering from any insanity. 66. The accused may not be acquitted, without examining whether he proved requirements under S.84 I.P.C. and also by ignoring mandate under S.105 of Evidence Act, it is submitted by learned Public Prosecutor. If an accused is acquitted by merely looking into his conduct, lack of proof of motive etc., it would result in gross injustice, it is further argued. 66. The accused may not be acquitted, without examining whether he proved requirements under S.84 I.P.C. and also by ignoring mandate under S.105 of Evidence Act, it is submitted by learned Public Prosecutor. If an accused is acquitted by merely looking into his conduct, lack of proof of motive etc., it would result in gross injustice, it is further argued. He also submitted that court must always bear in mind the sad plight of the victims and justice must be done to the victims as well. 67. It is also argued that if at all there is failure on the part of the investigating officer to discover motive for an offence does not signify its non existence. Proof of motive is never indispensable for conviction, it is argued. When facts are clear and evidence is cogent, it is immaterial whether the motive is proved or not, it is further submitted. According to learned Public Prosecutor, if prosecution proves that accused committed the act which is punishable in law, there is no escape and accused shall necessarily be convicted for such offence. 68. If accused pleads benefit under any of the General Exceptions or other Exceptions, he must prove all the circumstances which will bring his case within such exception, it is argued by learned Public Prosecutor. Law never casts burden upon the prosecution to prove such existence, it is submitted. S.105 of Evidence Act allows the court to draw a presumption of absence of such circumstances which accused may put forward to support his plea under the General Exceptions, it is submitted. 69. The strange behaviour attended with uncommon ferocity by themselves are not sufficient to extent any benefit to accused, it is argued. It is also submitted that a reading of the various decisions referring to legal insanity would show that in many cases where the acts were grossly gruesome, the courts have found that accused will not be entitled to the benefit under S.84 I.P.C.. In one of the cases, the Supreme Court even observed that death penalty ought to have been imposed to a father who killed his young children, even though it was an unnatural act and no clear motive was proved by the prosecution, it is pointed out. Similar examples are plenty, it is submitted. 70. In one of the cases, the Supreme Court even observed that death penalty ought to have been imposed to a father who killed his young children, even though it was an unnatural act and no clear motive was proved by the prosecution, it is pointed out. Similar examples are plenty, it is submitted. 70. It is also pointed out that in the case in Sankaran v. State 1993 KHC 436), accused killed his wife, dragged her dead body and laid on the veranda of neighbour and the court held that it only reveals his perplexed mind seeking solace and it is not an indication of insanity. In State of Kerala v. Ravi ( 1978 KLT 177 ), it is observed that a mere vague suspicion that accused might have been suffering from any insanity of a minor type is not by itself sufficient to discharge the onus of proving which lies on the accused who pleads benefit under General Exceptions. 71. After hearing and on going through the precedents, it is clear that even if accused was not able to establish exclusively that he was unsound at the time he committed the offence, if evidence placed before the court by accused or by prosecution raises a reasonable doubt in the mind of the court as regards one or more ingredients of the offence including mens rea of accused, the court has to acquit accused on the ground that general burden of proving mens rea on the prosecution was not discharged, it is argued. The burden on the accused is not as heavy as that on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. 72. It will be clear from the above facts that the burden of proof of prosecution will not be discharged, unless prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt the mental state of accused or his criminal intention, at the time of commission of offence. Even if alleged act is proved by prosecution, and even if accused fails to prove his defence under S.84 I.P.C., accused will be entitled to benefit of doubt, if by any omission from the side of the prosecution or some other reason, a reasonable doubt is cast on mens rea or criminal intention of accused to commit the alleged act. Even if alleged act is proved by prosecution, and even if accused fails to prove his defence under S.84 I.P.C., accused will be entitled to benefit of doubt, if by any omission from the side of the prosecution or some other reason, a reasonable doubt is cast on mens rea or criminal intention of accused to commit the alleged act. Resultantly, the court has to consider not only whether accused committed the overt act alleged against him but also whether he had mens rea to commit such act, irrespective of whether defence plea is taken under S.84 I.P.C.. 73. Now, having understood legal position involved in this appeal relating to S.6 I.P.C., S.105 of Evidence Act etc., we will revert back to the facts of this case, once again. According to prosecution, accused cut his son aged four months and his wife with an axe (MO1), with intention to cause their death. While his wife survived, baby died. Prosecution also does not have a case that accused had any motive to commit murder of his own child. There is absolutely no whisper why he had committed murder of his own son. No motive is alleged for cutting the baby to death. 74. Learned Additional Sessions Judge who analysed the evidence also could not find out a reason why accused committed murder of the child. This sort of a motiveless heinous crime will not ordinarily be committed by a mentally normal person. Any reasonable person would entertain a strong doubt whether there was any thing wrong with accused mentally and would probe into the reason why the acts were committed. We are also looking for an answer to this. 75. The appellant contended that he was suffering from a major mental decease paranoid and psychosis and he was taken by PW2 and DW2 who is his uncle to the hospital run by DW1, a Psychiatrist a few days prior to the incident. He was not aware of what transpired. PW1 and PW2 deposed that no untoward incident had happened till the date of occurrence and they did not even imagine that an incident of this nature would take place. To the inmates of the house, PW1 and PW2, the incident was a shock and it was least expected from accused. He was not aware of what transpired. PW1 and PW2 deposed that no untoward incident had happened till the date of occurrence and they did not even imagine that an incident of this nature would take place. To the inmates of the house, PW1 and PW2, the incident was a shock and it was least expected from accused. It is only natural for any person to feel so, if the state of affairs was as stated by inmates of the house. 76. PW1 and PW2 deposed that accused was very affectionate towards his wife and child. He was affectionate to the entire family of his wife. No body said he had any enemity towards any body or to his wife and child. PW2 specifically deposed that herself and child were as dear to accused as his own life. It is also in evidence that even though he has his own house to live, he was residing with his wife in her parental house, after delivery of the child. Evidence of PW1 also reveals that all the members of his wife's family were dear to him. 77. No person who is as affectionate as the accused as depicted by his own wife and mother in law would normally commit a heinous crime like this. There must be some reason which is beyond his control which might have led to this unfortunate situation. DW1, a Psychiatrist was examined to prove that accused was mentally sick and he would not know what he was doing because of his mental illness. He gave evidence to that effect also. 78. DW1 deposed that a few days prior to the incident, appellant was examined by him and he was found to be mentally sick. He strongly recommended for his admission in the hospital. He also warned the persons who brought the patient to the hospital that there could be some danger, unless he was treated as inpatient. But, ignoring his advice, appellant was taken away by stating that they had not informed other members of the family. 79. It has come out from evidence of DWs 1 and 2 that accused was taken to hospital run by DW1 and the Psychiatrist instructed to admit accused for treatment because of bad condition of his mental state. The incident in this case happened soon after this episode. 79. It has come out from evidence of DWs 1 and 2 that accused was taken to hospital run by DW1 and the Psychiatrist instructed to admit accused for treatment because of bad condition of his mental state. The incident in this case happened soon after this episode. Ext.D5 appears to be a prescription which is issued in the letter pad of DW1, even though it is referred to as a case sheet. It contains some inscriptions with different dates starting from 4.7.2005 to 11.7.2005. 80. It is also recorded at the bottom of the said prescription on the left hand side that accused stabbed his wife and child. It is also recorded “seen as OP on 25.3.2005”. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that the said fact was recorded after 11.7.2005 and subsequent to issuance of Ext.D5 and therefore, it is a concocted document. On a perusal of Ext.D5, there is nothing to indicate that the said document was created for purpose of this case. The mere fact that an observation relating to 25.3.2005 is recorded at the bottom of Ext.D5 is no reason to hold that it is a false document. 81. If, as a matter of fact, DW1 or the accused wanted any false records to be prepared and convince the court that accused was seen as out patient on 25.3.2005, it could have done in a perfect manner. There were several other methods which could be adopted by the doctor to concoct evidence. An OP ticket could have been easily created by the doctor, instead of making a mere observation at the time of preparing Ext.D5, if his intention was to create false document. Neither the accused nor the doctor indulged in any such practice to misguide the court by creating false document. 82. It is also pertinent to note that there is sufficient space left in Ext.D5 itself at the beginning of the document where he could have interpolated and recorded the details relating to 25.3.2005. But that was also not done. Therefore, what is recorded at the bottom relating to 25.03.2005 could be a genuine and it may be relevant for purpose of continuing treatment. If at all there is any imperfection in Ext. D5, as pointed out, such imperfection actually negatives allegation of a concoction in this case. But that was also not done. Therefore, what is recorded at the bottom relating to 25.03.2005 could be a genuine and it may be relevant for purpose of continuing treatment. If at all there is any imperfection in Ext. D5, as pointed out, such imperfection actually negatives allegation of a concoction in this case. Taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration, arguments of learned Public Prosecutor that medical records produced in this case are concocted and no value can be attached to such document can only be rejected. 83. At any rate, it is most difficult to believe that Ext.D5 was concocted by DW5 at the instructions or persuasion of the accused for production of the same before court to cheat the court and get away. On going through the evidence of DW1, we could not come across any reason why he should give false details or perjure in favour of the accused. DW1 has given evidence that he was working as a Psychiatrist in Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. He was a Professor of Psychiatry and he was having thirty years of experience. He is working in City Hospital and he stated that he had treated the accused. Nothing is brought out from his evidence to show that he was giving false evidence before the court en though attacks were made against documents. 84. Apart from the above defence evidence, learned counsel for appellant pointed out that there is evidence to show that accused was treated even from jail and is even now under treatment for mental decease. A petition under S.391 of the Code was filed in this appeal for receiving certain documents relating to appellant's treatment from jail. This court called for a report from Superintendent of the Prison and as per his report, appellant was admitted in Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram on 21.6.2008 where he was undergoing sentence and he was later transferred to open prison and he is still undergoing sentence there, ever since 22.5.2011 . 85. A certificate is also produced along with the above report stating that appellant was undergoing regular medication under the supervision of visiting Psychiatrist during the course of his stay in Central Prison and he was seen by the Psychiatrist for the last time there on 5.4.2011. Another letter issued by the Medical Officer, Open Prison is also produced by the Superintendent, Open Prison. Another letter issued by the Medical Officer, Open Prison is also produced by the Superintendent, Open Prison. It is reported therein that appellant is undergoing regular medication in Open Prison, as prescribed by visiting Psychiatrist, Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram. 86. From the above facts, it is evident that accused was under continuous treatment for psychiatric problem, at least after the incident. The accused was convicted and sentenced in 2008 and till now he is in prison for the past about 41/2 years. Unless the problem is so severe, it may not be necessary to put him on medicines for such a long period. All these facts coupled with defence evidence and other facts revealed from evidence would prima facie reveal that the case put forward by the accused that he was having mental illness cannot be said to a fake plea. It cannot be said that he was putting forward such a plea only for the purpose of this case. 87. The defence plea in bail application ought to have alerted him to find out whether accused was having any unsoundness of mind at the time of commission of offence. At any rate, appellant having taken up a contention in the bail application which was filed before closing of investigation that he was of unsound mind at the time of incident and he was not aware of the nature of his acts etc., investigating officer, he should have definitely conducted an investigation into mental condition of accused. By virtue of S.6 of I.P.C., investigating officer is bound to confirm on investigation whether the acts allegedly committed by appellant would still constitute the alleged offences, if the definition and penal provisions are understood subject to S.84 I.P.C.. 88. Even though there is every reason for investigating officer to look into the mental condition of the accused in this case to confirm whether the alleged offence is committed or not, he failed to discharge his duty and filed a charge sheet without confirming whether the accused committed the offence, by understanding the definition of the offence subject to General Exceptions. Had investigating officer enquired about absence of motive for committing murder of the child, he would have definitely got some clue for investigation into the mental condition. Had investigating officer enquired about absence of motive for committing murder of the child, he would have definitely got some clue for investigation into the mental condition. Had an investigation been conducted into the mental state of accused, it would have been possible to either confirm or rule out possibility of accused acting under bouts of any mental derangement which will attract S.84 I.P.C.. 89. Having not done so, accused can successfully take up a contention that there was absolutely no investigation on mens rea and prosecution failed to establish beyond doubt that accused had requisite mens rea to commit the offence. While discharging burden of proof under S.105 of Evidence Act also, such failure of investigating officer to conduct investigation can also be projected as a strong circumstance in favour of accused to prove his defence plea. 90. On the facts and circumstances of this case, we have no doubt that this is an apt case in which investigating officer ought to have investigated into mental condition of accused and ruled out that accused did not have any unsoundness of mind which incapacitated him from knowing nature of his act etc. Without doing so, charge sheet ought not to have been filed against accused. In cases in which an investigation into mental state of accused is warranted and if no investigation is conducted into the same, charge itself will be defective for want of investigation into mens rea. 91. Of course, in the course of arguments, a question was posed, why should investigating officer collect materials to support defence plea? The situation shall not be viewed from that angle. An investigation into mental condition of an accused is not to collect evidence in support of defence. Its purpose is not to aid accused during trial. An investigation into the mental state of an accused at the time of commission of offence will be inevitable in certain cases, to confirm that such offence is committed by him, when definition of offence or penal provision is read with General Exceptions (S.84 I.P.C.), as stated in S.6 I.P.C.. 92. The investigating officer can lay charge only if an offence is committed by accused and for this purpose, depending upon the facts of each case, a probe into the mental condition of accused will be inevitable. 92. The investigating officer can lay charge only if an offence is committed by accused and for this purpose, depending upon the facts of each case, a probe into the mental condition of accused will be inevitable. It is well settled that even if a person is mentally sick or medically insane, it may not constitute legal insanity and the acts committed by an accused will still be an offence despite his medical insanity. A close reading of S.84 I.P.C. will also show that mere unsoundness of mind will not be sufficient to extent benefit of the said provision to an accused. 93. To attract S.84 I.P.C., unsoundness of mind must be of such a nature which rendered him incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law etc., as stated therein. So, even if a person is medically and mentally unsound, to confirm that such unsoundness of mind is not of the nature stated in S.84 I.P.C. and that his unsoundness of mind will not exenorate him from criminal liability, examination of accused by a medical expert will be necessary. 94. Therefore, to confirm that acts committed by an accused will constitute an offence under I.P.C. despite his mental illness since he was was not having legal insanity as stated in S.84 I.P.C., it is absolutely essential for investigating officer to cause examination of accused by a medical expert and seek his opinion to satisfy himself that accused committed an offence under I.P.C. when definition or penal provision is read with S.84 I.P.C., by virtue of S.6 I.P.C.. But, nothing of that sort was done in this case, though it ought to have been done on the facts of this case. 95. At any rate, it is only reasonable to infer that investigating officer deliberately failed to conduct investigation into mental condition of accused at the time of commission of offence and place all materials before court, since he must have been aware that if such investigation is done and materials are collected, the acts of accused would not constitute any offence, by virtue of S.84 I.P.C.. It appears that had an investigation into the mental state been conducted, evidence which are in support of the accused's plea of legal insanity and which may go against prosecution would have come to light. 96. It appears that had an investigation into the mental state been conducted, evidence which are in support of the accused's plea of legal insanity and which may go against prosecution would have come to light. 96. Therefore, it can reasonably be inferred that an investigation into mental state of accused is deliberately suppressed, the only reason for such suppression would be to ensure conviction for the acts committed by accused, even though such acts, if read with S.84 I.P.C. will not constitute any offence. From the nature of the evidence given by accused and in the light of the report of the Superintendent of Prison and the certificates, which are marked as Ext.C1series, we cannot brush aside the contention raised on behalf of the accused. It does not appear to us that accused was putting forward a fake defence, without any basis. The defence does not appear to be mere fanciful one. 97. Thus, even though on the facts of the case, investigating officer had every reason to doubt whether accused was suffering from unsoundness of mind, investigating officer failed to consider whether by virtue of S.6 I.P.C., acts committed by the accused constitute any offence, if definition and penal provisions contained in Sections 300, 302, 307 I.P.C. are understood subject to S.84 I.P.C.. Such failure to conduct investigation into the mental state of accused at the time of offence coupled with evidence adduced in this case including medical evidence and the circumstances under which accused killed his own dear son at the age of just 4 months without any motive, a serious doubt is cast on the criminal intention of accused to commit murder. 98. Learned Public Prosecutor in this context, argued that the fact that accused used a weapon like MO1 and cut the child aged four months and his wife and inflicted very serious injuries on her still reveals that he had the intention to commit murder. According to him, prosecution cannot be expected to give negative evidence as to the insanity of the accused as held in Sanna Eranna v. State of Karnataka (1983 Crl. LJ. 619). Prosecution need not establish that a person who tried to attack with a deadly weapon was knowing the nature of the act or that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law. Even person is presumed to know the natural consequences of his act. LJ. 619). Prosecution need not establish that a person who tried to attack with a deadly weapon was knowing the nature of the act or that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law. Even person is presumed to know the natural consequences of his act. Prosecution has no burden to prove any of the elements which brings the case within S.84 I.P.C., it is submitted. 99. No doubt by virtue of S.105 of Evidence Act, burden of proof is on accused to establish the circumstances which will bring his case within any of the General Exceptions including S.84 I.P.C. In such cases, the court shall also presume absence of such circumstances which will bring in the case of the accused within S.84 I.P.C. But, that is not a reason for the prosecution to wash off its hands by saying that no investigation need be conducted into the relevant aspects referred to in S.84 I.P.C. In the decision cited by learned Public Prosecutor himself in Sanna Eranna, in paragraph 11, it is held as follows: “Though there is no burden cast on the prosecution to establish negatively that the accused was not of unsound mind when he committed the acts of violence resulting in the death of the person or persons murdered, yet as under the present circumstances where the accused has a previous history of mental disease or lunacy and it is revealed during the course of investigation that the accused had such previous history of mental disease or lunacy, fairness in investigation does require probing into this aspect with an unbiased approach particularly when the accused himself cannot in the very nature of things assist in unravelling the necessary facts being in custody and may be being mentally imbalanced. Therefore, it becomes obligatory on the part of the investigating agency, particularly when the accused is apprehended, at about the time of the commission of the offence or shortly thereafter, to subject the accused to medical examination, at least to ensure itself that the accused was in fact a person of ordinary state of mind. If that is done, it necessarily rules out the possibility of the accused having committed the acts of violence attributed to him to on account of mental disease or lunacy. The prosecution must place all such materials that could possibly be had. If that is done, it necessarily rules out the possibility of the accused having committed the acts of violence attributed to him to on account of mental disease or lunacy. The prosecution must place all such materials that could possibly be had. The failure to subject the accused to such medical examination immediately and to place all evidence that could be available may have, depending on facts and circumstances of a case, a serious consequence on the prosecution case when such plea of insanity is raised by the accused at the trial, as that may give rise to a doubt whether the act or acts of violence were committed with the requisite intention of committing a particular offence and any such failure on the part of the prosecution to collect the evidence and place before the Court on the mental aspect of the accused, creates serious infirmity in the case of the prosecution and, consequently the benefit of doubt will have to be given to the accused”. 100. In the light of the discussion already made, though prosecution does not have a burden to prove the absence of circumstances referred to in S.84 I.P.C., it is still the duty of the investigating officer to confirm before a charge sheet is filed that accused has committed the offence despite what is contained in General Exceptions. If this course is not adopted, it is likely that in cases in which accused is not entitled to the benefit under S.84 I.P.C., he will escape on the ground of reasonable doubt. It is also likely that in genuine cases, where the accused for some or other reason, failed to prove his plea under S.84 I.P.C., he will be illegally convicted for want of proper investigation into the relevant aspects. Both should not occur. 101. The benefit which legislature has extended to a citizen of India must go to him. It is the duty of the court to respect intention of legislature and act accordingly. Therefore, we hold that it is essential that investigating officer, must conduct an investigation into the relevant aspects in cases where a doubt is cast on the mental capacity or soundness of mind of the accused and confirm whether acts committed by accused constitute any offence, despite what is contained in “General Exceptions”, as may be applicable to the facts of each case. 102. 102. Before concluding, we will also refer to evidence of PW2. It will appear from her evidence independently that an incident as alleged by the prosecution had taken place. According to her, accused had cut his wife and child with MO1. But, in the light of other evidence, presence of PW2 at the scene is doubtful. It will appear from the evidence of PW1, her affidavit in another case and her earlier version in the deposition which she gave before another court that PW2 was not present at the time of incident. 103. As per the affidavit filed by PW1 before the Family Court, it was not her mother but a woman who had come to the house for collecting bills who knew about the incident. PW1 had not stated in the affidavit given by her before the matrimonial court that her mother was a witness to the incident. PW1 admitted that all what is stated in the affidavit are true and the said affidavit is marked as Ext.D1. 104. The deposition of PW1 given in another court is marked as Ext.D2. When confronted with her earlier deposition and affidavit, she made certain admissions which will show that PW1 could not be an eye witness to the occurrence. Though PW1 denied the suggestion that accused was taken to the doctor prior to the incident, it is clear from her evidence that she was suppressing various facts which have a tendency to support the defence plea. It is also clear from her evidence that she had already moved the matrimonial court for divorce. In such circumstances, the mere fact that PW2 denied the fact that the accused was taken to a doctor is not a reason to disbelieve DW1. 105. Summing up, we hold that prosecution failed to prove that acts committed by accused constitute alleged offences, when read with General Exceptions contained in S.84 I.P.C.. A reasonable doubt is cast whether accused was capable of understanding the nature of the act committed by him at the time of incident, particularly in the absence of investigation into the relevant aspects pertaining to mental condition of appellant at the time of commission of offence. Therefore, the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant are not sustainable. Hence, the following order is passed: 1. The conviction and sentence passed against the appellant are set aside. 2. Therefore, the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant are not sustainable. Hence, the following order is passed: 1. The conviction and sentence passed against the appellant are set aside. 2. The appellant is found not guilty and he is acquitted of offences under Sections 302 and 307 of Indian Penal Code. 3. The appellant is set at liberty forthwith. 4. The Registry shall issue release memo forthwith to the Superintendent of the prison concerned. This appeal is allowed.