JUDGMENT Utpalendu Bikas Saha, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the accused appellant from the jail challenging the judgment dated 25.6.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar in Sessions Trial No. 10(NT/K) of 2009 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 302 IPC for causing death of Rabi Chandra Debbarma and under Section 326 IPC for causing grievous hurt to Smt. Radha Sakhi Debbarma and thereby sentencing him to suffer R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer R.I. for two months and also to suffer R.I. for three years respectively. Both the sentence shall run concurrently. Heard Mr. S. Lodh, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State respondents. 2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case is: That on 9.10.2008, the informant, Sri Swapan Debbarma, (P.W. 1) was engaged as cook in the shradha ceremony of mother-in-law of Smt. Brihapati Debbarma, (PW 2). In connection with the said shradha ceremony, there were several invitees including the P.W 3, Sri Mohan Debbarma, P.W.4, Sri Jyoti Mohan Debbarma, P.W. 5, Shri Chandra Mangal Debbarma, P.W. 6, Shri Krishna Debbarma, P.W. 7, Shri Jakshamani Debbarma, P.W 9, Smt. Radha Sakhi Debbarma, wife of the deceased Rabi Chandra Debbarma and others. At about 4/4-30 p.m., while the informant (P.W. 1) was in the kitchen, at that time, he heard some hallah (hue & cry) and he came out of the kitchen and found that his father-in-law, Rabi Chandra Debbarma and mother-in-law (PW 9) in severe injured condition. He also saw the accused/appellant to flee away with a dao in his hand. 3. On enquiry, the informant came to know that the accused/appellant assaulted his father-in-law and mother-in-law by means of a dao and thereafter he also inflicted injury upon his body and fled away. Both Rabi Chandra and Radha Sakhi were then shifted to Kumarghat hospital and from there, they were referred to RGM Hospital, Kailashahar. In the RGM Hospital, Rabi Chandra succumbed to his injuries. 4. Upon receipt of the complaint from P.W. 1, a police case being Kumarghat P.S. case No. 91/2008 was registered. Both Rabi Chandra and Radha Sakhi were then shifted to Kumarghat hospital and from there, they were referred to RGM Hospital, Kailashahar. In the RGM Hospital, Rabi Chandra succumbed to his injuries. 4. Upon receipt of the complaint from P.W. 1, a police case being Kumarghat P.S. case No. 91/2008 was registered. Thereafter, I.O. of the case (P.W 17) collected the necessary papers, recorded the statement of the witnesses and also collected the injury report relating to P.W. 9 and post mortem report of the deceased Rabi Chandra. Ultimately, the accused/appellant was arrested while he was in hospital and filed the charge sheet against him under Sections 302/326 IPC. 5. The offence alleged being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kailashahar, North Tripura committed the case to the court of learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar. 6. The learned trial Judge framed the charge as follows: Firstly, that you on 9.10.08 at about 1600/1630 hours at Saidacherra (Darjeeling Tilla) in the house of Smti. Brihapati Debbarma under Kumarghat PS voluntarily caused grievous hurt to victim-cum-deceased Rabi Chand Debbarma by means of a Takkal Dao causing severe bleeding injuries to his person and in consequence of such injuries he succumbed on the same day at about 20-30 hours in RGM Hospital, at Kailashahar and you by this act intentionally caused the death of deceased Rabi Chand Debbarma and thereby you have committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of this Court of Sessions. Secondly, that on the same date, time and place mentioned in the first charge you voluntarily caused grievous hurt to Smti. Radha Sakhi Debbarma, wife of victim-cum-deceased Rabi Chand Debbarma by means of Takkal Dao and thereby you have committed an offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of the court of Sessions. The accused appellant pleaded not guilty with the charge and claimed to be tried. 7. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 17 witnesses including the official witnesses and also placed certain documents including the seizure list and post mortem report which were exhibited. 8. The learned trial Court on completion of the examination of witnesses also examined the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr. 7. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 17 witnesses including the official witnesses and also placed certain documents including the seizure list and post mortem report which were exhibited. 8. The learned trial Court on completion of the examination of witnesses also examined the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr. P.C. and finally on consideration of the evidence on record and also after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties convicted the accused appellant under Sections 302/326 IPC and sentenced him as stated supra. 9. Mr. Lodh, learned Counsel for the appellant while urging for setting aside the judgment and order impugned would contend that the accused/appellant was abnormal at the time when he went out, picked up the dao and dealt dao blows on the deceased as well as P.W 9 and he was incapable of knowing the nature of the acts or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to the law. 10. He further submits that nothing is an offence which is done by a person of unsound Mind, as the same will come within the exception as stated in Section 84 of the IPC. To show the conduct of the accused at the relevant time of committing the alleged offence he has referred to the evidence of P.W. 3 wherein the said witness stated that all on a sudden, the accused/appellant started assaulting the deceased Rabi Chandra and his wife, P.W. 9 and also inflicted injuries upon his own body and thereafter he fled away from the place of occurrence with dao. He also placed reliance on the cross of P.W. 4 who stated that few days before the incident, the wife of the accused/appellant told him that behavior of her husband was abnormal and he does not take food in time and also did not sleep at night. 11. The learned Counsel for the appellant again contended that the appellant was also hospitalized with his injuries for treatment in the same hospital where the deceased and the P.W. 9 were treated. He has also placed reliance on the evidence of P.W. 9 wherein she stated that the accused/appellant also caused injuries upon his own body by means of dao and then he left their room and P.W 14, Dr. He has also placed reliance on the evidence of P.W. 9 wherein she stated that the accused/appellant also caused injuries upon his own body by means of dao and then he left their room and P.W 14, Dr. K. Sen Laskar, who examined the accused/appellant as well as deceased, has stated in his evidence that after examining the accused appellant, it appeared to him that the accused/appellant was suffering from abnormality and as such, he advised for accused/appellant's check up by a psychiatrist, namely, Dr. Swapan Barman, who in his turn after examining the accused/appellant advised to regularly follow up in the psychiatry OPD and suggested for his treatment. 12. The learned Counsel has finally referred to the evidence of P.W 17, I.O. of the case, wherein the I.O. has stated that on that date, where the accused appellant fell down on the ground, from there he seized blood stained earth by preparing seizure list. In his cross-examination, I.O. has further stated that he did not examine any family members of the accused though there was an indication in the injury report of the appellant that he was required to be produced before a psychiatrist for further treatment and that he did not take any steps for the said purpose. 13. He has further contended that when there was indication in the injury report of the appellant that he was required to be produced before a psychiatrist, it was the duty of the prosecution, particularly, I.O. of the case to place the accused/appellant for his medical examination immediately as to whether the accused/appellant was suffering from any insanity/abnormality at the time of alleged commission of offence. In support of his aforesaid contention, he has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Bapu @ Gajraj Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2007 AIR SCW 3808. 14. The learned Counsel again contended that if a plea of insanity is raised by the accused, it is the duty of the prosecution as well as the Court to subject the accused to a medical examination immediately as during the course of investigation, it was revealed that the accused was suffering from abnormality so that the plea of insanity/abnormality can be ruled out. More so, the public prosecutor is to be honest both to the prosecution and to the defence and he should not seek conviction by hook or crook. More so, the public prosecutor is to be honest both to the prosecution and to the defence and he should not seek conviction by hook or crook. In support of his aforesaid contention, he has placed reliance on a decision of the Bombay High Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Govind Mhatarba Shinde, 2010 Cri. L.J. 3586, particularly, para-9 of the said Report. 15. He further submits that when a plea of insanity is taken by an accused, obviously the burden of proof is always with him, but general burden of prosecution never shifts to the defence and the prosecution is to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the offence was committed by the accused with the requisite mens rea and the said burden of proof always rests with the prosecution from the beginning to the end of the trial and that the prosecution is also to prove that the accused was not insane when he committed the offence and the duty of the accused/appellant is to establish a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court that the accused was not aware about his acts and the requisite criminal intention as described in Section 299 and/or other provisions of the IPC and ultimately, if the judge has a reasonable doubt regarding the insanity/abnormality of the accused, then he has to be acquitted. In support of his aforesaid contention, he has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Debeswar Bhuyan Vs. State of Assam, 2012 Cri. L.J. 274. 16. He finally contended that the accused has discharged his duty as required under Section 84 of the IPC read with Sections 105 and 4 of the Evidence Act which would be evident from the cross of P.W. 4, P.W. 9 and P.W. 17. 17. Mr. Debnath, learned Additional P.P. while supporting the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence would counter the contention of Mr. Lodh saying that the accused/appellant himself was aware that he was not unsound mind at the time of commission of offence for which he ran away with dao, the weapons used in his hand after commission of offence. He has also placed reliance on Bapu @ Gajraj Singh (supra), particularly, Para-11 of the said judgment wherein the Apex Court noted of Sherall Walli Mohammed Vs. State of Maharashtra (1972 Cri. He has also placed reliance on Bapu @ Gajraj Singh (supra), particularly, Para-11 of the said judgment wherein the Apex Court noted of Sherall Walli Mohammed Vs. State of Maharashtra (1972 Cri. LJ 1523 (SC) and held that mere abnormality of mind or partial delusion, irresistible impulse or compulsive behavior of a psychopath affords no protection under Section 84 of the IPC. The Apex Court ultimately dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant Bapu. 18. He has also referred to para-7 of the said Report wherein the Apex Court referring to Section 105 of the Evidence Act discussed how the burden of proof rests on the accused to prove his insanity. 19. He has also submitted that the precedent of a decision is not automatically applicable since each and every case, particularly in the criminal cases, facts of each case vary from one another. In support of his aforesaid contention, he placed reliance on paragraph-16 of Sayarabano @ Sultana Begum Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2007 Cri. L.J 1458, wherein the Apex Court noted, inter alia: In our opinion, criminal cases are decided on facts and on evidence rather than on case law and precedents. In the case on hand, there is ample evidence to show that even prior to the incident in question, the appellant used to beat the deceased and ill-treat her. It is in the light of the said fact that other evidence requires to be considered. 20. He again contended that the accused was all along defended by the Counsel and at no point of time; he filed any application before the trial Court raising the plea of insanity. And, he finally contended that the accused/appellant though was entitled to adduce evidence by way of examining his family members for proving his insanity, but he did not do so. Thus, it cannot be said that the learned trial Court committed any wrong convicting the accused/appellant for causing death of the deceased Rabi Chandra and causing grievous injuries to P.W. 9. 21. Before addressing to the submission of the learned Counsel for the parties and discussing the law Reports, it would be proper on our part to examine the evidence on record and accordingly, we are doing the same. 22. 21. Before addressing to the submission of the learned Counsel for the parties and discussing the law Reports, it would be proper on our part to examine the evidence on record and accordingly, we are doing the same. 22. P.W 1 Swapan Debbarma, the informant of the case in his evidence has stated that on 22nd Aswin (corresponding to 19.10.2008) while he was cooking food in the house of the P.W. 2, Smt. Brihapati Deb Barma on the occasion of Shrada ceremony of her mother-in-law at about 4 p.m., he suddenly heard hue and cry in the room of Brihapati and he immediately rushed to the place of occurrence and found the accused/appellant was running away with a dao in his hand and his body was stated with blood. Thereafter, he went into the room and found his father-in-law, deceased Rabi Chandra and his mother-in-law Radha Sakhi, P.W. 9 with severe bleeding injuries. He also saw other persons who were inside the room and they told him that his father-in-law and mother-in-law were assaulted by the accused/appellant. He also found mark of injuries on the hand of his father-in-law and on the shoulder of his mother-in-law and other parts of their bodies. Seeing them in injured condition, people who gathered there made arrangement for shifting them to Kumarghat hospital and subsequently to RGM Hospital, kailashahar as referred to and ultimately, his father-in-law succumbed to the injuries in the RGM hospital. This witness also stated that his mother in law was treated in the RGM hospital for about 22 days. 23. P.W. 2, Smti Brihapati Deb Barma in her evidence has stated that on 22nd Aswin on the occasion of Shradha ceremony of mother-in-law, there were several invitees in her house and Swapan Debbarma (P.W. 1) was cooking food for the invitees. She has also stated that at about 4.30 p.m., while she was in the kitchen room, at that time, she heard hue and cry and she immediately rushed to the place of occurrence and found the deceased Rabi Chandra and Radha Sakhi in the injured conditions. She has also stated that at about 4.30 p.m., while she was in the kitchen room, at that time, she heard hue and cry and she immediately rushed to the place of occurrence and found the deceased Rabi Chandra and Radha Sakhi in the injured conditions. She has further stated that she also saw accused appellant inflicting injuries on his body by dao and seeing the situation she raised alarm for help and then the accused appellant fled away from the place of occurrence with a dao in his hand and at that relevant time, P.W. 3 Mohan Debbarma, P.W. 5 Chandra Mangol Debbarma, P.W. 6 Krishna Debbarma were there inside the room. She further stated that she saw the accused appellant to deal dao blows upon the deceased. This witness has also stated that the dao by which the accused appellant inflicted injuries to the deceased as well as P.W. 9 and himself belonged to them and the said dao was subsequently seized by the I.O. 24. P.W 3 Mohan Debbarma in his chief also stated in the same line. In his cross, he stated that the accused appellant also became senseless receiving injuries and he was also taken to the hospital for treatment. Out of fear they did not try to resist the accused/appellant because at the time of alleged incident his behavior was abnormal. 25. P.W. 4 Jyotimohan Debbarma, younger brother of the accused/appellant in his evidence stated that on the date of occurrence, he went to attend Shradha ceremony in the hosue of P.W. 2 and at about 4/4-30 p.m. while he was taking food, at that time, he heard hue and cry and rushed to the place of occurrence and saw his elder brother running away with a dao in his hand and after going some distance, his brother fell down on the road. This witness also stated that when he went nearby his brother, (the accused/appellant), at that time, he again started injuring himself with dao in his hand. Subsequently, he heard from PW 1 that the accused/appellant dealt dao blows to the deceased Rabi Chandra and his wife Radha Sakhi and they were shifted. This witness also stated that both Rabi Chandra and Radha Sakhi were taken to Kumarghat hospital and from there they were referred to RGM Hospital, Kailashahar where Rabi Chandra succumbed to his injuries. Subsequently, he heard from PW 1 that the accused/appellant dealt dao blows to the deceased Rabi Chandra and his wife Radha Sakhi and they were shifted. This witness also stated that both Rabi Chandra and Radha Sakhi were taken to Kumarghat hospital and from there they were referred to RGM Hospital, Kailashahar where Rabi Chandra succumbed to his injuries. In his cross, he stated that the wife of the accused appellant Smt. Satyabati told him three days before the incident that behavior of his elder brother was abnormal and he did not take food in time and also did not sleep at night. He also discussed with the deceased Rabi Chandra relating to the treatment of his brother. 26. P.W. 5 Sri Chandra Mangal Debbarma in his evidence has stated that he also went to the house of his sister-in-law, Brihapati Debbarma (P.W. 2), to attend the Shradha ceremony of her mother-in-law and besides him, there were some other invitees. After taking food, while he along with the deceased Rabi Chandra, P.W. 9, P.W.6 and P.W. 3 were taking rest, all on a sudden, the accused/appellant started to give blows upon the deceased Rabi Chandra and his wife (P.W. 9), with a dao and also started inflicting injuries upon him by a dao and left the room. In his cross, he has also stated that the accused/appellant was hospitalized for long period but could not say whether the accused appellant was abnormal during the relevant time or not. 27. P.W. 6, Krishna Mohan Debbarma, in his evidence has stated that he also attended the Shradha ceremony along with others in the house of P.W 2 and he heard that the accused appellant assaulted the deceased Rabi Chandra. 28. P.W. 7, Sri Jakhamani Debbarma, son of P.W 2 has stated in his evidence that he heard about the incident from his mother P.W. 2. 29. P.W 8, Sri Anil Debbarma is the witness of seizure of dao as well as blood stained cloth who proved seized articles as well as seizure list 30. P.W. 9, Smt. Radha Sakhi Debbarma is the star witness of the prosecution and was injured in the incident who has stated in her evidence that she went to Shradha ceremony along with her deceased husband and many others including the P.W. 3, P.W. 5 and P.W. 10. P.W. 9, Smt. Radha Sakhi Debbarma is the star witness of the prosecution and was injured in the incident who has stated in her evidence that she went to Shradha ceremony along with her deceased husband and many others including the P.W. 3, P.W. 5 and P.W. 10. While after taking food they were taking rest in the room of P.W 2 at about 4.30 p.m., all on a sudden, the accused appellant started assaulting her husband with a dao and when she went to resist the accused/appellant, then he also assaulted her by the said dao and she received cut injuries on various parts of her body and the accused appellant also started inflicting injuries upon his own body with the help of dao and then he left the room. This witness has also stated that they were shifted initially to the Kumarghat hospital and thereafter to RGM Hospital where her husband succumbed to the injuries and she was treated in the hospital for about 20 days. This witness has also identified the accused appellant in the dock. 31. In her cross, she has stated that before the incident there was no quarrel between her husband and the accused/appellant and without any cause, the accused appellant assaulted them. She has also stated that the accused/appellant was hospitalized for his treatment 32. P.W. 10, Smti. Bijoylaxmi Debbarma, one of the invitees in the said Shradh ceremony also stated the same story like other witnesses. 33. P.W 11 Sri Sachindra Debbarma is a witness of seizure of dao and blood stained earth. He has not stated anything regarding the incident. 34. P.W 12 Sri Bishuchandra Debbarma is a hearsay witness who has stated that he heard regarding the incident from P.W.5. 35. P.W. 13 Dr. Rup Narayan Chakraborty is a medical officer who was posted on 9.10.2008 at Kumarghat hospital and on that date, he examined the deceased Rabi Chandra Debbarma and on examination, he found four injuries, namely, (i) Cut injury 6" X 1" X 1/4" occipital region. (ii) Cut injury (lt) shoulder region 3" X 1' X 1/2" (iii) Cut injury (lt) thigh 2" X 1" X 1/2" (iv) Upper 1/3 of (rt) Forearm He also examined P.W. 9 Radha Sakhi and found the following cut injuries: (i) Cut injury ball of 1st Phalanx (Rt) ring finger bone exposed. (ii) Cut injury (lt) shoulder region 3" X 1' X 1/2" (iii) Cut injury (lt) thigh 2" X 1" X 1/2" (iv) Upper 1/3 of (rt) Forearm He also examined P.W. 9 Radha Sakhi and found the following cut injuries: (i) Cut injury ball of 1st Phalanx (Rt) ring finger bone exposed. (ii) Cut injury tip of finger Middle finger (Rt) (iii) Cut injury (lt) Maxillary region from the forehead region 6" X 1/4" X 1/4" (iv) Chest Wall (lt) side 8" X 1" X 1/2" (v) Cut injury base of 1st Phalanx little finger (Rt) 1/2" X 1/2" X 1/4" He proved the injury report marked as Exbt. 7 and 8 respectively and thereafter he referred both the injured to RGM Hospital, Kailashahar. 36. P.W. 14 Dr. Keshab Sen Laskar was the M.O. of RGM Hospital, Kailashahar, who had treated the deceased Rabi Chandra and Radha Sakhi, (P.W. 9) who were referred to the said hospital from Kumarghat hospital as well as the accused/appellant. In his evidence, this witness has also stated that all the injured persons were admitted in the hospital and on examination, he found five injuries on the body of the accused/appellant with various measurements and out of five injuries, two were of simple in nature and there were grievous injuries also. The accused/appellant was discharged from the said hospital on 27.10.2008 and he has proved the injury report which was marked as Exbt. 9. This witness also treated the P.W. 9 Radha Sakhi and found four injuries upon her body, out of which, three were simple in nature and one was grievous and the injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapon. He also proved the injury report which was marked as Exbt. 10. 37. This witness also done autopsy over the dead body of the deceased Rabi Chandra on 10.10.2008 on the basis of the requisition of Kailashahar police station. According to him, the cause of death was due to hemorrhagic shock following injuries which is ante-mortem and homicidal in nature. He has proved the post mortem report which was marked as Exbt. 11. After showing the seized dao, he has also stated that injuries sustained by P.W. 9, the deceased and the accused appellant may be caused by the seized dao. 38. He has proved the post mortem report which was marked as Exbt. 11. After showing the seized dao, he has also stated that injuries sustained by P.W. 9, the deceased and the accused appellant may be caused by the seized dao. 38. In his cross, he specifically stated that after examining the accused appellant, it appeared to him that the accused/appellant was suffering from abnormality and as such he advised for the accused appellant to be checked up by a psychiatrist, namely, Dr. Swapan Barman and the said doctor also advised for regular follow up check up in the psychiatric OPD and suggested for anti psychiatric treatment for the accused/appellant. 39. P.W 15, Sri Pharendra Debbarma is the son of the deceased Rabi Chandra who is a hearsay witness. He heard about the incident from his mother. He is the witness of inquest report and he proved the inquest report which was marked as Exbt. 12. 40. P.W. 16, Sri Sankar Nag is the Assistant Sub-Inspector of police who seized the wearing apparels of the deceased by preparing the seizure list. 41. P.W. 17 Sri Gopesh Chandra Sarkar is the I.O. of the case who in his statement has stated that on the date of occurrence he was posted as OC, Fatikroy OP. At that time, one Sanjoy Kr. Bhowmik was posted as OC, Kumarghat P.S. At about 7 p.m., he was informed by the O.C. Kumarghat P.S that two persons were injured and they were taken to Kumarghat hospital and he was also directed to enquire about the matter. Then he rushed to the Place of occurrence which is known as Darjeeling Tilla. While he reached the P.O., P.W. 1 lodged one oral complaint which he reduced in writing and being the said complaint relates to cognizable offence, he took up the investigation of the case and at the time of investigation, he prepared the hand sketch map of the place of occurrence. He also stated that he prepared another hand sketchjnap of the place where from he recovered the dao. He further stated that on 11.10.2008 he came to RGM Hospital and found the accused/appellant admitted in the said hospital and as such he could not interrogate him. But he had shown the accused/appellant as arrested in connection with the aforesaid police case and he also seized one lungi from the possession of the accused/appellant preparing seizure list. He further stated that on 11.10.2008 he came to RGM Hospital and found the accused/appellant admitted in the said hospital and as such he could not interrogate him. But he had shown the accused/appellant as arrested in connection with the aforesaid police case and he also seized one lungi from the possession of the accused/appellant preparing seizure list. He thereafter collected the injury report of the accused/appellant and Radha Sakhi (P.W 9). Being a prima facie case is established against the accused, he had submitted the charge sheet. 42. In his cross, he has stated that he did not collect the injury report of the deceased Rabi Chandra and he did not examine any of the family members of the accused/appellant in connection with the aforesaid case, though there was an indication in the injury report of the accused/appellant that he required to be produced before a Psychiatrist for further treatment, but he did not take any step in this regard. 43. Before addressing to the facts of the case and findings of the learned trial Court as well as submission of the learned Counsel for the parties, it would be proper on our part to consider the provisions of the Penal Code as well as the provisions of the Evidence Act as raised by the learned Counsel for the parties which are relevant for deciding the case in hand. Those are as follows: Indian Penal Code Section 299. Culpable homicide. - Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide. Section 84. 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. Indian Evidence Act Section 105: Burden of proving that case of accused comes within exceptions. Indian Evidence Act Section 105: Burden of proving that 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. Section 4. "May presume". - Whenever it is provided by this Act that the Court may presume a fact, it may either regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved, or may call for proof of it. "Shall presume": whenever it is directed by this Act that the Court shall presume a fact, it shall regard such facts as proved, unless and until it is disproved. "Conclusive proof".- When one fact is declared by this Act to be conclusive proof of another, the Court shall, on proof of the one fact, regard the other as proved, and shall not allow evidence to be given for the purpose of disproving it. Section 6. Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction.- Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places. 44. In Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 563, the Apex Court considered the provisions of Section 299 of the IPC and Section 4 and Section 105 of the Evidence Act and noted that It is fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent and, therefore, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution, therefore, in a case of homicide shall prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused caused death with the requisite intention described in S. 299 of the Indian Penal Code. This general burden never shifts and it always rests on the prosecution. The prosecution, therefore, in a case of homicide shall prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused caused death with the requisite intention described in S. 299 of the Indian Penal Code. This general burden never shifts and it always rests on the prosecution. But S. 84 of the Indian Penal Code provides that nothing is an offence if the accused at the time of doing that act, by reason of unsoundness of mind was incapable of knowing the nature of his act or what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law. This being an exception, under S. 105 of the Evidence Act the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within the said exception lies on the accused, and the court shall presume the absence of such circumstances. Under S. 105 of the Evidence Act, read with the definition of "shall presume" in S. 4 thereof, the court shall regard the absence of such circumstances as proved unless, after considering the matters before it, it believes that the said circumstances existed or their existence was so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that they did exist. To put it in other words, the accused will have to rebut the presumption that such circumstances did not exist, by placing material before the court sufficient to make it consider the existence of the said circumstances so probable that a prudent man would act upon them. The accused has to satisfy the standard of a 'prudent man'. If the material placed before the court, such as, oral and documentary evidence, presumptions, admissions or even the prosecution evidence, satisfies the test of 'prudent man' the accused will have discharged his burden. The evidence so placed may not be sufficient to discharge the burden under S. 105 of the Evidence Act, but it may raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of a judge as regards one or other of the necessary ingredients of the offence itself. It may, for instance, raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the judge whether the accused had the requisite intention laid down in S. 299 of the Indian Penal Code. It may, for instance, raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the judge whether the accused had the requisite intention laid down in S. 299 of the Indian Penal Code. If the judge has such reasonable doubt, he has to acquit the accused, for in that event the prosecution will have failed to prove conclusively the guilt of the accused. There is no conflict between the general burden, which is always on the prosecution and which never shifts, and the special burden that rests on the accused to make out his defence of insanity. (Emphasis supplied). 45. In the said judgment, the Apex Court also noted that: 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. (Emphasis supplied) 46. In Bapu @ Gajraj Singh (supra) while the Apex Court considered regarding the plea relating to Section 84 IPC also discussed regarding the duty of the I.O. and stated in Para-8 of the said Report: 8. Under Section 84 IPC, a person is exonerated from liability for doing an act on the ground of unsoundness of mind if he, at the time of doing the act, is either incapable of knowing (a) the nature of the act, or (b) that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. The accused is protected not only when, on account of insanity, he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act, but also when he did not know either that the act was wrong or that it was contrary to law, although he might know the nature of the act itself. He is, however, not protected if he knew that what he was doing was wrong, even if he did not know that it was contrary to law, and also if he knew that what he was doing was contrary to law even though he did not know that it was wrong. He is, however, not protected if he knew that what he was doing was wrong, even if he did not know that it was contrary to law, and also if he knew that what he was doing was contrary to law even though he did not know that it was wrong. 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. The onus, however, has to be discharged by producing evidence as to the conduct of the accused shortly prior to the offence and his conduct at the time or immediately afterwards, also by evidence of his mental condition and other relevant factors. Every person is presumed to know the natural consequences of his act. Similarly every person is also presumed to know the law. The prosecution has not to establish these facts. (Emphasis supplied) 47. In the said decision, the Apex Court also stated that: Section 84 embodies the fundamental maxim of criminal law, i.e., "actus non reum facit nisi mens sit red" (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). 48. It is further discussed that Section 84 provides that the benefit is available only after it is proved that at the time of committing the act; the accused was laboring 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. According to the Apex Court, the crucial point is the time when the offence takes place for deciding whether the benefit of this Section should be given or not. 49. According to the Apex Court, the crucial point is the time when the offence takes place for deciding whether the benefit of this Section should be given or not. 49. In Bapu (supra), the appellant was not acquitted as his mother P.W. 8 stated that he had remained mentally fit for about four years after treatment and during trial also pursuant to the court's order, he was sent to the treatment and his conduct was normal thereafter. Thus, in that case, rightly, the appellant was not provided protection under Section 84 of the IPC, but the case in hand is different which would be evident from the evidence on record as stated supra. 50. As Mr. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Sherall Walli Mohammed (supra) which was considered in Bapu (supra), it would be proper on our part to discuss about the said judgment. 51. There is no doubt that mere abnormality of mind or partial delusion, irresistible impulse or compulsive behavior of a psychopath if so facto would not be entitled to protection under Section 84 of the IPC, rather the accused is to prove that at the relevant point of time, he was not aware regarding the outcome of his acts either by way of relying the evidence laid by the prosecution or by way of cross. 52. In Bapu (supra), taking note of Sherall Walli Mohammed (supra), the Apex Court also noted 'the behavior, 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.' 53. In the instant case, it would be evident from the evidence of P.W. 3 that without any previous conversation or quarrel from either side, all on a sudden the accused appellant started assaulting deceased Rabi Chandra and his wife (PW9). Not only that, he also inflicted injuries upon his own body and thereafter, he fled away from the place of occurrence with dao. Not only that, he also inflicted injuries upon his own body and thereafter, he fled away from the place of occurrence with dao. More so, from the cross-examination of P.W. 4, it appears that the said witness was informed by the wife of the accused appellant that the behavior of the accused appellant was abnormal and he did not take food in time and also did not sleep at night. P.W. 5 also corroborated the evidence of P.W. 3 to the extent that the accused appellant himself inflicted injuries upon his own body by dao and left the room and, out of fear, the said witness did not come out from the room. P.W. 9 in her evidence while corroborating the statement of P.W. 3 and 5 also stated in her cross that there was no quarrel between her deceased husband and the accused/appellant and the accused/appellant had assaulted her husband and her without any cause and he was also hospitalized for treatment. If we consider the evidence of these witnesses and the evidence of the doctor (P.W. 14), who examined the accused appellant and P.W. 17, the I.O. of the case, then it can be said that the burden of the accused, which is not higher than the plaintiff or defendant in a civil proceeding, is proved. 54. Now question is whether the accused appellant will be exonerated from the charge leveled against him on the ground of benefit of doubt or not. 55. We are of further opinion that the investigating officer failed to discharge his duty in the instant case. He should have sent the accused/appellant before a Psychiatrist for his treatment and also to prove that the accused/appellant was suffering neither from unsoundness of mind nor abnormality at the time of commission of alleged offence. Such non-discharging of duty creates a serious infirmity in the prosecution case and the benefit of doubt regarding the conduct of the accused appellant is to be given to him. 56. In Govind Mhatarba Shinde (supra), the Bombay High Court while considering the judgment and order of acquittal challenged before it, took note of the judgment of the Apex Court in Vijayee Singh & Ors. Vs. 56. In Govind Mhatarba Shinde (supra), the Bombay High Court while considering the judgment and order of acquittal challenged before it, took note of the judgment of the Apex Court in Vijayee Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1990 SC 1459 and ultimately noted that: this reported judgment reveals that Honourable Supreme Court has taken survey of earlier judgments and it has been held in para 33 that the general burden of establishing the guilt of accused is always on the prosecution and it never shifts, even in respect of cases covered by Section 105 the prosecution is not absolved of its duty of discharging the burden. The accused may raise a plea of exception either by pleading the same specifically or by relying on the probabilities and the circumstances obtaining in the case. He may adduce evidence in support of his plea directly or rely on the prosecution case itself or, as stated above, he can indirectly introduce such circumstance by way of cross-examination and also rely on the probabilities and the other circumstances. The initial presumption against the accused regarding the non-existence of the circumstances in favour of his plea, gets displaced and on examination of the material even a reasonable doubt arises the benefit of it should go to the accused. The accused can also discharge the burden under Section 105 by preponderance of probabilities in favour of his plea. In case of general exceptions, special exceptions, proviso contained in the Penal Code or in any law defining the offence, the Court, after due consideration of the evidence, in the light of the above principle, if satisfied, would state in the first instance as to the exceptions the accused is entitled, then see whether he would be entitled for complete acquittal of the offence charged or would be liable for a lesser offence and convict him accordingly. 57. In the said judgment of the Bombay High Court, while appreciating the distinction of defence raised in that case under Section 84 of IPC and Chapter No. 25 of Cr. P.C., it is stated that: if plea of insanity is raised by the accused, it is the duty of the prosecution to subject the accused to a medical examination immediately. In the said judgment of the Bombay High Court, while appreciating the distinction of defence raised in that case under Section 84 of IPC and Chapter No. 25 of Cr. P.C., it is stated that: if plea of insanity is raised by the accused, it is the duty of the prosecution to subject the accused to a medical examination immediately. This is important, because if it is revealed, during the course of investigation that the accused was suffering from mental disease, the prosecution is further duty bound to place before the Court all the evidence that could be available to show that the accused was in a proper state of mind when he committed the alleged offence. This is to rule out the plea of mental disease or insanity that may likely to be raised at the trial. The failure of the prosecution to do so creates serious infirmity in the prosecution case of murder. In case of failure on the part of the prosecution, it may entitle the accused to seek benefit of doubt. 58. In the said case, the Hon'ble Judges of the Bombay High Court had considered the evidence of P.W. 2 and 3 of that case and those witnesses had also referred regarding the mental illness of the accused and that was the background on the basis of which Hon'ble Judges expressed their above observation. 59. In the instant case, admittedly, before the investigating officer the fact relating to the abnormality of the accused appellant was in existence. According to us, the doctor, P.W. 14 who examined the accused appellant also suggested for the treatment of the accused/appellant by a psychiatrist and ultimately, when a psychiatrist, namely, Dr. Swapan Barman examined him, advised for regular check up in the psychiatry OPD for treatment Thus, it cannot be ruled out that the accused/appellant was suffering from insanity/abnormality. More so, the said Dr. Swapan Barman who is the best authority to say regarding the abnormality of the accused/appellant at the relevant time was also not examined by the prosecution as normally a human after injuring somebody would not go to injure himself like others and to be admitted in the hospital for his treatment about twenty days. The I.O. of the case also did not examine the accused/appellant to find out as to why he had injured the deceased and P.W. 9 as well as himself. The I.O. of the case also did not examine the accused/appellant to find out as to why he had injured the deceased and P.W. 9 as well as himself. Had he gone for examination of the accused/appellant, his apprehension that the accused/appellant was required to be produced before a Psychiatrist for further treatment would have been proved. Therefore, for not taking any step for treatment of the accused/appellant also creates a serious doubt in our mind regarding the prosecution case. Thus, such benefit of doubt is to be given to the accused/appellant. 60. In Lohit Chandra Das Vs. The State of Assam, (1986) 1 GLR 299, after surveying on the earlier judgment of the Apex Court in Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 1563 , Ratan Lal Vs. State of M.P., AIR 1971 SC 778 , Abdul Latif Vs. State of Assam, 1981 Cri. L.J. 1205 and Kumar Sunilal Deb Vs. State of Assam, 1981 (1) GLR 120, a Division Bench of this Court while considering the plea of insanity or unsoundness of the mind, noted that the rules of burden of proof in the context of the plea of insanity are: (a) that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the offence was committed by the accused with the requisite 'mens rea' and the burden continues from the beginning till the end of the trial, (b) that it is a rebuttable presumption that the prisoner was not insane when he committed an offence in the sense set forth in Section 84 I.P.C., (c) that the accused may rebut the presumption of sanity at the relevant time bringing the case within Section 84 I.P.C. by producing oral, documentary, circumstantial and other Crl. A 73 of 2009 materials and he may discharge the burden by establishing a reasonably probable case. A 73 of 2009 materials and he may discharge the burden by establishing a reasonably probable case. The accused is not called upon to establish the element of Sec. 84 I.P.C. by producing evidence beyond reasonable doubt; and (iv) that even the accused fails to establish affirmatively or conclusively that he was of unsound mind and committed the act under the circumstances set out in Section 84 I.P.C. but raises a reasonable doubt in the mind of the court as regards presence of the essential ingredients of the offence, which of course includes 'mens rea', the requisite criminal intention, 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. The Division Bench also stated that: Section 6 of the Indian Penal Code is an extra-ordinary provision, which obligates the court to consider whether a case is covered by any of the exceptions under Chapter IV of the Indian Penal Code. Section 6, I.P.C., in our opinion, should be read as a proviso to Sec. 105, Indian Evidence Act. That apart, section 6 of the Code imposes a statutory obligation on the court to consider as to whether a case is covered by exception or not. 61. In the instant case, though the learned Trial Court discussed the evidence of P.W. 14 wherein he stated that death of the deceased Rabi Chandra was caused due to hemorrhagic shock following injuries, but he failed to discuss regarding the evidence of the said witness wherein the said witness stated that after examining the accused/appellant it appeared to him that the accused/appellant was suffering from abnormality and as such, he advised for check up of the accused/appellant by a psychiatrist, namely, Dr. Swapan Barman and the said Dr. Swapan Barman after examining the accused/appellant advised for his regular check up in the Psychiatry OPD, who also suggested for anti psychiatric treatment. When a doctor suggested for "anti psychiatric treatment", it can be easily presumed that the accused/appellant was suffering from insanity/abnormality. 62. Now question is as to whether the accused/appellant was suffering from insanity/abnormality at the time of commission of act to get the benefit of Section 84 of the IPC. To answer the aforesaid question, the prosecution ought to have examined Dr. 62. Now question is as to whether the accused/appellant was suffering from insanity/abnormality at the time of commission of act to get the benefit of Section 84 of the IPC. To answer the aforesaid question, the prosecution ought to have examined Dr. Swapan Barman, a Psychiatrist, but admittedly he was not examined and as a result, it cannot be definitely said that at the time of commission of act, the accused/appellant was not suffering either from insanity or abnormality. 63. In the instant case, it is the admitted position that there was no enmity or ill-will between the deceased Rabi Chandra and the accused/appellant. As per evidence of the eye witnesses as produced by the prosecution, it is also admitted fact that the accused appellant while assaulted the deceased as well as P.W. 9 was motiveless. The accused/appellant in this case though failed to establish affirmatively or conclusively that he was either abnormal or unsound mind while he committed the act as required under Section 84 of the IPC, but by way of his cross, it creates a reasonable doubt in our mind regarding the absence of mens rea, i.e., the requisite criminal intention at the time of commission of the act. 64. In Debeswar Bhuyan (supra), another Division Bench of this Court considered the earlier decision of the Apex Court in Dayabhai Chhaganbhai (supra), Hari Singh Gond Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 16 SCC 109, Siddhapal Kamala Yadav Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2009 Cri. L.J. 372, Sudhakaran Vs. State of Kerala, (2010) 10 SCC 582 and noted that the burden on the accused to prove its plea of unsoundness of mind under Section 84 IPC is not higher than that rests upon a party to civil proceeding and further noted that the accused/appellant charged with offence with murder and in terms of the maxim actus non fecit reum nisi mens sit rea, in order to hold him guilty, the prosecution is to prove that the act of assault and his guilty mind i.e. mens rea did coexist at the relevant point of time. In other words, the act said to have been committed by the accused/appellant, in order to constitute the offence of murder under the Penal Code has to be invariably accompanied by his guilty mind or mens rea. In other words, the act said to have been committed by the accused/appellant, in order to constitute the offence of murder under the Penal Code has to be invariably accompanied by his guilty mind or mens rea. It is further noted that if the evidence on record vis-a-vis the mental state of the accused casts a doubt with regard to the mental culpability of his, to that extent it has to be inevitably held that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge of murder against him and this is permissible even if the accused/appellant has not been able to prove beyond doubt that at the relevant point of time he was of unsound mind. And ultimately, in that case, considering the evidence available therein on record, the Division Bench held that at the point of time when the accused/appellant had committed the act of assault he was not in a normal state of mind so as to infer that he had the mens rea to commit the offence with which he has been charged. 65. In the instant case also, considering the evidence available on record, particularly, the evidence of P.W. 3, P.W. 9, P.W. 14 and P.W.17, we are of the view that at the time of commission of the Act, the accused/appellant was not in a normal state of mind to understand what he was doing i.e., mens rea was absent. 66. We have also no quarrel with the proposition laid down in Sayarabano @ Sultana Begum (supra) as referred to by Mr. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P that every decision itself cannot be considered as precedent, particularly, in a criminal case, each and every case has to be decided on the basis of the evidence on record. One additional or different fact can make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases even when the same principles are applied in each case to similar facts. 67. In a criminal case, an additional fact itself would be a ground for deciding the matter differently than the case law cited. In the facts and circumstances, admittedly the prosecution failed to discharge his duties by way of placing the accused/appellant for his treatment. More so, even from the evidence available itself, it appears that the accused appellant was suffering from psychiatric disease. In the facts and circumstances, admittedly the prosecution failed to discharge his duties by way of placing the accused/appellant for his treatment. More so, even from the evidence available itself, it appears that the accused appellant was suffering from psychiatric disease. Thus, it was the duty of the prosecution to rule out that at the time of commission of the act by the accused/appellant for which a charge is leveled against him, he was culpable of knowing the nature of act committed by him and the same act is contrary to law, but the prosecution admittedly failed to prove the same. In view of the above, taking note of the facts and circumstances, we are inclined to give the benefit of doubt to the accused appellant. The appeal is thus allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 25.6.2009 is hereby set aside. Consequently, the accused/appellant is set at liberty and he should be released forthwith, if he is not wanted in any other case. Send down the L.C. records. Appeal allowed