JUDGMENT P.K. Musahary, J. 1. The prosecution case in brief is that on the night of 19.2.2010 at about 8 PM, while Abu Hanifa was sleeping in his house, the appellant Rezia Khatoon suddenly dealt a blow by an axe on his head, causing grievous injuries resulting into his death at Civil Hospital, North Lakhimpur on the same night. On receipt of a written ejahar from Md. Sirajul Islam, PW 1, a case being North Lakhimpur Police Station Case No. 102/10 was registered under Section 302 IPC. Usual investigation was made and on completion of investigation, the I.O. submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under Section 302 IPC. The Magistrate concerned committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge, North Lakhimpur for trial. The learned trial court framed charge under Section 302 IPC, which was read over and explained to the appellant, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to establish the charge examined 10 witnesses in all including the I.O. and the medical officer. The appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., who denied the evidence on record but declined to examine any witnesses in her defence. Defence, therefore, took the plea of total denial of the charge without adducing any evidence. The learned trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above vide judgment & order dated 06.3.2012 passed in Sessions Case No. 88 (NL) 2011, which is under challenge in this appeal. 2. The informant Md. Shirajul Islam was examined as PW-1. He deposed that he was informed over phone by one Dulal Mandal that his sister-in-law, appellant, killed her husband who is his elder brother. He could not come as it was already night and the place of occurrence was at a distance of 15/16 kms from his house. So he came in the next morning and saw the appellant being tied and detained by villagers. He also visited the North Lakhimpur Civil Hospital where he found his brother lying dead. Then he lodged an FIR with the North Lakhimpur Police Station. Police held the inquest in his presence. In cross examination he stated that his accused sister-in-law has been suffering from mental illness for long and his deceased brother got her treated but at the time of occurrence the appellant was not suffering from mental illness. 3. PW-2 is one Sri Dulal Mandal. Police held the inquest in his presence. In cross examination he stated that his accused sister-in-law has been suffering from mental illness for long and his deceased brother got her treated but at the time of occurrence the appellant was not suffering from mental illness. 3. PW-2 is one Sri Dulal Mandal. He deposed that on the date of occurrence the children of Abu Hanifa made hue and cry that his father had been killed. Hearing the hue and cry he came in a rush and on his arrival, the children of the deceased told him that their mother killed their father by an axe. The people present at the place of occurrence called for 108 vehicle and shifted Abu Hanifa to Hospital. The police seized the axe vide Ext. 3 and he put his signature as seizure witness. In cross-examination he stated that he knew the accused since before but he does not know that she was suffering from any mental problem. He never saw any quarrel between the appellant and the deceased. The seized axe was not seen in the court. He denied the suggestion that he knew that the appellant was suffering from mental illness. 4. PW 3, Sri Krishna Das is a reported witness and he has no knowledge about the occurrence. However in cross examination, he stated that the deceased told him that his wife sometime used to talk nonsense and the deceased thought of consulting doctor. 5. PW 4, Abu Hannan is the son of the appellant and the deceased. At the time of deposition on 21.12.11 he was 14 years old. He deposed that at about 8 pm on the date of occurrence while all were asleep his mother assaulted his father on his head by an axe. His sister was pulling his hairs and then he got up and informed the people. His mother was tied by the villagers. He has no knowledge why his mother killed his father. The neighbours called 108 vehicle and shifted his father to Hospital. His father died on the same night. In the cross examination he stated that previously the mental health of her mother was bad and she became all right but he does not know what happened thereafter. 6. PW 5, Paual Tapna is a reported witness. He stated that he was not present at home on the day and time of the occurrence. In the cross examination he stated that previously the mental health of her mother was bad and she became all right but he does not know what happened thereafter. 6. PW 5, Paual Tapna is a reported witness. He stated that he was not present at home on the day and time of the occurrence. He came to the place of occurrence on the next day at about 9/10 am. He was present at the time when the I/C was recording statement of deceased's son. The son of the deceased told him that his mother killed his father. The police seized a blood stained axe. He signed the seizure list as a witness. 7. PW 6 is also a reported witness. He came to the place of occurrence after hearing the hue and cry of the children of the accused. They told that their mother killed their father. He also stated that the villagers called for 108 vehicle and removed the injured to hospital but he died on the same night. In cross examination he stated that there was no quarrel between the deceased and the accused as husband and wife. PW 7, Abdul Hussain deposed in the similar way as deposed by PW-6. On being cross-examined he stated that he never knew or saw that the appellant was a mentally ill person. 8. PW 8 is Dr. Ruhini Kr. Borah who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 22.10.2010 at Lakhimpur Civil Hospital. On examination he found the following: (1)Average built male dead body, wearing a checked lungi only. Eyes and mouth closed. Rigor mortis is present on both upper and lower limbs. (2)The head was covered by bandage. After removal of the blood stained bandage the injuries as noted below are found:- (i) Incised wound in left occipital region measuring (5 x 2) inches cutting the left occipital bone. (ii) Incised wound (3 x 2)inches with cutting the underlying bone 2 cm below No. (i)wound. (iii) Incised wound (3 x 2 x 1)inches left occipital area 3 cm below No. ii wound. (3) Scalp: As described i.e. wound No. (i), (ii) and (iii). (4) Skull: Comminuted fracture of left occipital bone. (5) Brain: Brain exposed and lacerated left occipital lobe of brain. (iii) Incised wound (3 x 2 x 1)inches left occipital area 3 cm below No. ii wound. (3) Scalp: As described i.e. wound No. (i), (ii) and (iii). (4) Skull: Comminuted fracture of left occipital bone. (5) Brain: Brain exposed and lacerated left occipital lobe of brain. In his opinion the deceased died of shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries sustained in vital part like brain. All injuries mentioned were ante mortem and caused by sharp heavy weapon. He proved the post mortem report and his signature on it. In cross examination he further opined that as rigor mortis was present, the wound might be caused within 48 hours before the time of his examination. 9. PW 9, Nazrul Islam is a witness to inquest report and he stated that he saw injury on the head of the deceased. PW 10 Md. Safiul Hussain was the I/C of Silanibari Out Post at the relevant point of time. Having reported by VDP, he made GD Entry dated 20.2.2010. Having come to know that the accused was detained by the villagers, he came to the place of occurrence and after inspection drew a sketch map (Ext. 5) and also seized the axe by which the deceased was reportedly assaulted. He also held the inquest and arrested the accused and sent to jail Hazat. After collection of post mortem report he submitted charge-sheet against the accused under Section 302 IPC. In cross-examination he stated that he did not find the accused in an abnormal state nor was he informed by anybody that appellant was abnormal. He denied the suggestion that the accused was suffering from mental disorder. 10. In reply to question No. 13 put by the court during examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., she replied as under: Ans-It is correct that on the night of occurrence I was with my husband. My husband was sleeping and I was just sitting. No other person entered into our house. My husband was telling me something. But I did not cut my husband. 11. We have carefully gone through the evidence on record. It has been established by evidence on record that on the date and time of occurrence both deceased husband and accused wife were present in the house along with their children. There was no other person, except the family members in the house. But I did not cut my husband. 11. We have carefully gone through the evidence on record. It has been established by evidence on record that on the date and time of occurrence both deceased husband and accused wife were present in the house along with their children. There was no other person, except the family members in the house. The children were sleeping in other rooms while the deceased and the appellant were sleeping in a separate room. Nobody has seen the act of assault by the axe or any sharp weapon. The children made hue and cry when they have come to know that their father was lying injured. Villagers came to the place of occurrence, tied and detained the appellant and on being informed local police visited the place of occurrence. The IO seized an axe stained with blood in presence of the witnesses. The villagers removed the injured person to North Lakhimpur Civil Hospital by requisitioning 108 vehicle where he died on the same night. 12. We have heard Ms. A. Das, learned counsel as Amicus Curiae for the Appellant and also Mr. K.A. Majumdar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam for the Respondent-State. We have also gone through the post mortem report, particularly the injury report of the medical officer (PW-8). There are as many as three incised wounds and from the said injury report there is no doubt that the injuries were grievous in nature and they fit in the injuries that might be caused by a sharp heavy weapon like an axe. 13. The evidence on record is that the appellant was found at the place of occurrence inside the room. Nothing is found on record as to whether the appellant was behaving in an abnormal manner or talking irrelevant or nonsense when the villagers gathered at the place of occurrence or whether she tried to flee due to which the villagers had to tie her up. But one thing is sure that she did not try to conceal the crime weapon or destroy the evidence. She was not found aggressive or violent to anybody. She was not seen crying for her husband who was lying dead nor was she expressing regret for the death of her husband. She did not explain or narrate anything how her husband was found dead inside the room. She was not found aggressive or violent to anybody. She was not seen crying for her husband who was lying dead nor was she expressing regret for the death of her husband. She did not explain or narrate anything how her husband was found dead inside the room. It was rather stated in her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that her husband was sleeping and she was sitting by his side and no other person entered in the room. From the post crime behaviour and conduct of the appellant it does not appear that she was insane or of unsound mind just before, at the time of or immediately after the commission of offence. The appellant's above conduct and behaviour is not sufficient for prima facie coming to a conclusion that she was suffering from psychiatric problem, mental illness, unsoundness of mind etc unless her past medical history reveals so. For this purpose we have scanned the lower court records to find out any material if she was suffering from some mental/psychiatric problem before the occurrence took place. 14. The occurrence took place on 19.2.2010 and she was taken into custody, through the villagers, by the police on the same day. An application was made on 7.5.2010 for release of the appellant on bail stating that the accused was pregnant and she was suffering from mental illness/psychiatric problem since she became pregnant. The learned CJM concerned vide order dated 7.5.2010 called for a report from the jail doctor of North Lakhimpur District Jail on the health condition of the accused person. The medical report, as called for, was received. As per medical report dated 15.5.2010, the jail doctor found the accused carrying four months pregnancy and suffering from poor health, decreased appetite, animia with off and on vomiting and she was sent to North Lakhimpur Civil Hospital for antenatal check up in the months of March and April for monthly check up and she was undergoing regular medication as prescribed. She was granted the statutory bail on completion of 90 days. The record of the GR case corresponding to the Sessions Case was received on 9.9.2011 from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, North Lakhimpur, on committal and the charge was framed on 11.11.2011. An application was made on 15.10.2011 for release of the appellant on bail before the court of learned Addl. The record of the GR case corresponding to the Sessions Case was received on 9.9.2011 from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, North Lakhimpur, on committal and the charge was framed on 11.11.2011. An application was made on 15.10.2011 for release of the appellant on bail before the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), on medical ground by furnishing medical certificate dated 24.8.2011 issued by the Islampur Govt. Hospital. The Superintendent of District Jail, Nalbari by his letter dated 10.11.2011 requested the learned trial court for permission to send the accused to Lok-priyo Gopinath Bordoloi Regional Institute of Mental Health Tezpur for her psychiatric consultation. In the said letter it was stated that the accused was detained in jail since 15.10.2011 along with her breast suckling female child and she was advised for psychiatric consultation and treatment at LGBRI mental hospital, Tezpur. The said prayer was allowed by the trial court vide order dated 11.11.2011 and the appellant was allowed to go on bail. Besides, it is found that as per advice slip dated 26.10.11 of Nalbari Civil Hospital, the appellant was referred to Psychiatric or well equipped hospital for treatment of mental condition. But it may be noted that the application for bail was filed on 7.5.2010 i.e. after more than three months and the certificate dated 15.5.2010 which was submitted as called for by the court, does not mention about the psychiatric or mental problem of the petitioner rather there is mention of her poor health, decreased appetite etc. The jail authority, for the first time, on the basis of advice of the civil hospital, informed the court about the mental health of the appellant and sought permission to send her to mental hospital at Tezpur for psychiatric consultation and treatment. The said permission was sought after a period of about 9 months from the date of occurrence. The aforementioned medical report, advice slip etc has no mention that before the date of occurrence the appellant was suffering from psychiatric problem. There is also no mention in the report that, just after the occurrence she was suffering from mental or psychiatric problem. No other document evidencing the insanity or unsoundness of mind of the appellant in the past or at the time of or just after the occurrence was produced. 15. There is also no mention in the report that, just after the occurrence she was suffering from mental or psychiatric problem. No other document evidencing the insanity or unsoundness of mind of the appellant in the past or at the time of or just after the occurrence was produced. 15. As per law, medical insanity could be proved by adducing evidence and producing the medical prescriptions, certificate etc, but the law is not concerned with such proof inasmuch the law is concerned only with legal insanity. To prove the legal insanity the prosecution has to prove evidence of witnesses to know about the past history of the accused that he or she was in the past in the fit of mental disorder or insanity. In the present case at least two witnesses (PW 1 and 4) have testified that the appellant was suffering from mental disorder or illness. As stated earlier, PW-1 is the brother-in-law of the appellant and informant in this case, while PW-4 is the son of the appellant. As per evidence of PW-4, his mother (appellant) recovered from mental illness. From his deposition it is proved that the appellant was not in the fit of unsoundness of mind or mental disorder on the date of occurrence. PW-1 also stated that appellant was not mentally ill at the time of occurrence. Another prosecution witness (PW-3), in cross-examination, stated that the deceased often used to tell him that the appellant used to talk in an irrelevant manner. The aforesaid evidence on record is a sufficient proof that the appellant was not suffering from mental disorder or mental illness at the time of occurrence. 16. A brief survey on law of insanity and proof thereof may be made on the basis of cases decided by the Apex Court. In the case of Bapu @ Gujraj Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan; reported in (2007) 8 SCC 66 (paragraph 7) it is observed that Section 84 IPC lays down the legal test of responsibility in cases of alleged unsoundness of mind and there is no definition of unsoundness of mind in the IPC. The courts, however, mainly treated the expression unsoundness of mind as equivalent to insanity. The term insanity itself has no precise definition. The courts, however, mainly treated the expression unsoundness of mind as equivalent to insanity. The term insanity itself has no precise definition. It is a term used to describe varying degrees of mental disorder and so, every person who is mentally diseased, is not ipso facto exempted from criminal liability. A distinction is to be made between legal insanity and medical insanity. With this observation, the Apex Court held that the court is concerned with legal insanity, and not with the medical insanity and the burden of proof lies with the accused to prove his insanity by virtue of provision under Section 105 of the Evidence Act, 1972 and is not so onerous as that cast upon the prosecution to prove that the accused committed the act with which he is charged. Quoting from various authorities, the Apex Court observed that there are four kinds of persons who may be said to be non compos mentis (not of unsound mind), i.e. (i) an idiot (ii) one made non compos by illness, (iii) a lunatic or a mad man and (iv) one who is drunk. An idiot is one who is of non-sane memory from his birth by a perpetual infirmity, without lucid intervals; and those are said to be idiots, who can not count twenty, or tell the days of the week, or who do not know their fathers or mothers or the like. A person mad non compos mentis by illness is excused in criminal cases from such acts as are committed while under the influence of his disorder. A lunatic is one who is afflicted by mental disorder only at certain periods and vicissitudes, having intervals of reason. Madness is permanent. Lunacy and madness are spoken of as acquired insanity, idiocy as natural insanity. In another case, Siddhapal Kamala Yadav Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 2009 SC 97 (paragraph 8); it is held that under Section 84 IPC, a person is exempted from liability from 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 what he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law. The accused is protected not only when, on account of insanity, he is capable of knowing the nature of the act, but also he did not know that the act was wrong or that it was contrary to law, although he might know the nature of the act itself. With the above observations it was held therein: that the standard to be applied is whether according to the ordinary standard, adopted by a reasonable man, the act was right or wrong. The mere fact that an accused is conceited, odd irascible and his brain is not quite all right, or that the physical or mental ailments from which he suffered had rendered his intellect weak and had affected his emotions and will, or that he had committed certain unusual acts, in past or that he was liable to recurring fits of insanity at short intervals, or that he was subject to getting epileptic fits but there was nothing abnormal in his behaviour, or that his behaviour was queer, can not be sufficient to attract the application of this Section 17. The law regarding exemption from criminal liability in respect of an accused suffering from unsoundness of mind within the meaning of Section 84 IPC has been discussed elaborately in Surendra Mishra Vs. State of Jharkand; reported in (2011) 11 SCC 495 . In doing so, various decisions of the Supreme Court has been referred to after highlighting the facts and circumstances of the cases. In Surendra Mishra's case (supra) the accused, who was an owner of a Medical Hall, all of a sudden came with a country made pistol and fired at the point blank range at the deceased and ran away from the place of occurrence and threw the country made pistol in the well in order to conceal himself from the crime and when he was charge-sheeted, took the plea of unsoundness of mind to avail the benefit of general exceptions provided under Section 84 IPC. The trial court as well as the High Court in appeal, having found the accused not suffering from mental trouble/disease, rejected his plea. In the said case, to prove his mental disorder, the accused adduced evidence by way of producing medical prescriptions from doctors. The trial court as well as the High Court in appeal, having found the accused not suffering from mental trouble/disease, rejected his plea. In the said case, to prove his mental disorder, the accused adduced evidence by way of producing medical prescriptions from doctors. Even then the plea of mental disorder was not accepted because of the proved conduct of the accused that after he shot the deceased dead, the accused threatened his driver with dire consequences, ran away from the place of occurrence and threw the country made pistol in the well in order to conceal himself from the crime. The other reason for not accepting the plea is that the accused was running a medical shop and came to the place of occurrence and shot the deceased dead. It was observed that if the appellant was a person of unsound mind it would not have been possible for him to run a medical shop. It was, therefore, held that the accused has to prove legal insanity and not medical insanity and it has to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The fact that the accused ran away and threw the crime weapon in the well and concealed himself from the crime, proved that the accused though suffered from certain mental instability, knew that whatever he had done was wrong and illegal and on a balance of preponderance of probabilities, court can not infer that the accused did not know the nature of his act at the time of commission of the offence. 18. The case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Shera Ram @ Bishnu Dutta as reported in (2012) 1 SCC 602 , has a little bearing with the facts and law involved in the present case. In the said case, the accused hurled a stone on the head of a pujari who was in a temple, as a result of which he died instantaneously. The accused also damaged the idols and other properties of the temple unprovoked in presence of villagers. The witness was charged under Sections 302, 295 and 449 IPC and he denied the same and stood the trial. At the time of recording his statement under Section 313 CrPC the accused pleaded that his mental condition, right from the year 1992 to 1993, was not in good condition and occasionally suffered from fits of insanity and has been undergoing treatment for the same. At the time of recording his statement under Section 313 CrPC the accused pleaded that his mental condition, right from the year 1992 to 1993, was not in good condition and occasionally suffered from fits of insanity and has been undergoing treatment for the same. He stated that he was receiving treatment in the jail also and, thereby, he was entitled to defence of insanity under Section 84 IPC. The appellant in support of his plea of insanity, examined two witnesses but the trial court rejected the said plea. In appeal, however, the High Court accepted the plea of insanity and acquitted the accused. Against the said acquittal the State of Rajasthan preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The plea of insanity was accepted taking into consideration the evidence of attending doctors and the documentary evidence, namely prescriptions issued by the said doctors on the basis of which it was found that the accused was suffering from continuous mental sickness. In the result, the Apex Court set aside the conviction of the accused under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and the sentence of imprisonment for life, and instead convicted them under 304 Part-II IPC read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced each of the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for 5 (five) years. As regards the point of law it was held in the said case that burden of proof lies on the prosecution and it has to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. So also, a presumption of innocence and the right to fair trial are twin safeguards available to the accused under the required criminal justice system but once the prosecution has proved its case in the evidence led by it, in conjunction with the chain of events, as are stated to have occurred, if finds irresistible to the conclusion that the accused is guilty, the court can interfere with the judgment of acquittal. 19. Yet in Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale Vs. State of Maharashtra; reported in (2002) 7 SCC 748 , the law of unsoundness of mind and exemption of criminal liability as provided under Section 84 IPC has been dealt with. In that case, the accused/appellant was a police constable, he married the deceased in 1987. He killed his wife while they were living in the police quarter along with their daughter. In that case, the accused/appellant was a police constable, he married the deceased in 1987. He killed his wife while they were living in the police quarter along with their daughter. On the morning of 24.4.1994 there was a quarrel between the accused and his wife. While the wife was washing clothes in the bathroom, the appellant hit her with grinding stone. The accused appellant was immediately taken by the guard of the police quarter and his wife was shifted to the hospital where she died. After usual investigation, the appellant was charged for offence of murder of his wife. The accused took the plea that he was suffering from insanity at the time of alleged killing of his wife and he was entitled to benefit of general exception contained in Section 84 IPC. The prosecution, on the other hand, contended that the appellant killed his wife not because of insanity but on account of extreme anger which is different from insanity. The trial court disbelieved the case of insanity convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 302 IPC which was affirmed by the High Court in appeal. On further appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the order of conviction and sentence and set the accused at liberty. In the said case it was held, amongst other, that unsoundness of mind of the accused before and after the incident for which he underwent treatment in the hospital is a relevant fact and state of mind of the accused at the time of commission of offence is to be proved so as to get the benefit of the exception; the nature of burden of proof on the accused to prove the insanity, however, is no higher than that which rest upon a party to civil proceedings. 20. What is found undisputed in the present case is that the appellant simply denied the charge and she did not take the plea of unsoundness of mind or insanity. She has not led any evidence about her mental health, history of psychiatric problem or treatment taken by her to cure her illness before the date of occurrence. As she has not taken the plea of mental disorder or unsoundness of mind, the question of leading evidence in this regard may not be necessary or the appellant did not feel it necessary to lead any evidence. As she has not taken the plea of mental disorder or unsoundness of mind, the question of leading evidence in this regard may not be necessary or the appellant did not feel it necessary to lead any evidence. The appellant, if she desired so, could have led the evidence to prove her mental illness or unsoundness of mind easily inasmuch as the standard of proof is only preponderance of probabilities and not strictly beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant has refused to take the chance of proving her innocence by adducing any evidence on the standard of preponderance of probabilities. In this case, we find absence of proof of both medical and legal insanity to provide the benefit of exoneration from criminal responsibility under Section 84 IPC. We also find that the appellant failed to prove that she committed the offence in the fit of unsoundness of mind or mental disorder or insanity as contemplated under Section 84 IPC and the laws laid down by the Apex Court. The prosecution with the aforesaid evidence on record has been able to establish that the appellant was not in the fit of mental illness/disorder or unsoundness of mind at the time of occurrence. The prosecution has also been able to prove that the appellant has no history of psychiatric problem or mental illness not even immediately after the occurrence, so as to give her the benefit of exemption from criminal liability under Section 84 IPC. In (2002) 1 SCC 219 T.N. Laxsh-maiah Vs. State of Karnataka, it has been held that the court has to examine the accused's claim for exemption having regard to his entire conduct upto commencement of the proceedings before the trial court. In the said case the accused murdered his wife and son taking plea that he committed the crime under the spell of insanity so as to entitle him to the benefit of exemption under Section 84 IPC but he did not lead any evidence in support of his plea and having regard to the conscious conduct of the appellant along with other circumstances held the appellant's plea as unsustainable. In the present case the appellant has not claimed the benefit under Section 84 IPC. The ratio in the aforesaid case, in our considered view, is applicable to the present case. 21. In the present case the appellant has not claimed the benefit under Section 84 IPC. The ratio in the aforesaid case, in our considered view, is applicable to the present case. 21. The appellant failed to discharge her burden of proving the innocence by adducing evidence to derive the benefit of exception under Section 84 IPC by preponderance or probabilities. What we have observed is that the appellant committed the offence not in the fit of insanity and she, by not leading any evidence for exoneration of criminal liability, chose not to take the plea of innocence under the provision of Section 84 IPC. Having regard to conscious conduct of the appellant which is evident from the answers given by her during examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and also the circumstantial evidence, the appellant is liable to be convicted under Section 302 IPC. 22. As discussed earlier the circumstantial evidence also goes against the appellant as there is no denial of the fact that on the night of the occurrence she was inside the room with her husband and there was no other person except their children, although they have not seen the act of assault by axe, have witnessed their mother (appellant) sitting by the side of their father at the place of occurrence. There is no escape for the appellant from being convicted and sentenced under Section 302 IPC. We find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and order convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 302 IPC. We accordingly uphold the said conviction and sentence. The appeal fails and stands dismissed. We acknowledge the legal assistance rendered by Ms. A. Das, learned counsel as Amicus Curiae and direct the State Legal Services Authority to pay him an amount of Rs. 5000/- as her legal fee. Return the LCRs forthwith. Appeal dismissed