JUDGMENT 1. - The accused-appellant Rawata in this appeal has challenged veracity of the judgment dated 27.02.2007 which was passed in Sessions Case No.84(2005 (35/2005) titled as State of Rajasthan v. Rawata by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sirohi. That court by the impugned judgment had convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant Rawata as follows:- Section 302 IPC : Life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one year additional SI. Section 324 IPC : Three years SI with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one month additional SI. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently by the trial court. 2. In this appeal, it has been argued by the accused-appellant that he was insane at the time of the alleged offence and so by giving benefit under section 84 of Indian Penal Code, he should have been acquitted by the trial court. In the alternate, he has argued that the trial court has convicted and sentenced him against the facts and against the law. It has been argued that the trial court has wrongly relied upon the sole witness Praga Ram, PW7 and it has ignored the fact that PW2 Manara, PW 9 Roopa Ram, PW3 Deva Ram, PW4 Dana Ram and PW6 Lavgi have not supported the prosecution story. It has also been argued that the trial court has unnecessarily ignored the statement of DW1 Dr. Rajesh Malviya and misinterpreted the statement of PW5 Dr. Krashan Bihari Malap. 3. We have heard the arguments. The learned Public Prosecutor has strongly opposed the arguments of the appellant's counsel and it has been argued on behalf of the Public Prosecutor that the judgment of the trial court suffers from no infirmity and also that the proof of insanity was not tendered by the accused-appellant in the trial court. It has also been argued that even if there is some discrepancy in the medical evidence then too the case of murder is proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused-appellant so the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. 4. It has also been argued that even if there is some discrepancy in the medical evidence then too the case of murder is proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused-appellant so the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. 4. The accused-appellant has cited the following rulings in support of his arguments:- (1) Shanker v. State of Rajasthan 2013 (3) WLC (Raj.) 791 :- In this case, this court found that the accused was provoked when the exorcist tried to tie thread against his will and so he killed the exorcist with a sword which was available in the home. There was no pre-meditation to kill. Two blows were not repeated in the incident, conviction was altered from section 302 IPC to section 304 Part-I of IPC and the accused was sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment. (2) Sheo Shankar Singh v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. 2011 (1) WLC (SC) Criminal 567 :- In this case, the death sentence of accused was altered to life imprisonment looking to the facts of the case. How this case is relevant in the present controversy, it has not been elicited during the arguments. (3) Kilash v. State of M.P. 2007 (1) WLC (SC) Criminal 94 : In this case, there was contradiction between the medical evidence and ocular evidence. Abuses were hurled by both the sides, genesis of occurrence was not proved, quarrel must have been sudden and only one blow given with blunt side of axe, the case of sudden provocation without pre-meditation, the Apex Court altered the conviction from section 302 IPC to that of section 304 Part-II IPC and the accused was sentenced by 07 years rigorous imprisonment. 5. First of all, we will deal with the argument about insanity of the appellant. Law presumes every person to be sane unless the contrary is proved. The burden of proving insanity lies upon the accused who claims to be an insane and in Dahayabhai v. State of Gujrat AIR 1964 Supreme Court 1563 , it was held that:- (1) Prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence. (2) Presumption that the accused was not insane when he committed the crime is rebutted in the sense laid down in section 84 IPC. (2) Presumption that the accused was not insane when he committed the crime is rebutted in the sense laid down in section 84 IPC. The accused may rebut it by placing before the court all the relevant evidence, oral, documentary as well as circumstantial but the burden of proof upon him is no higher than that rests upon a party to civil proceedings. (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 in that case, the court would be entitled to acquit the accused on the ground that general burden of proof resting on the prosecution has not been discharged. 6. Thus, it can be said that the fact of insanity is to be decided on preponderance of probability. Insanity is not to be proved beyond reasonable doubt to get acquittal. 7. Now in the case in hand, some of the witnesses have said that some times, Rawata used to behave like an insane person but at the time of the incident, he was not suffering from insanity. PW3 Deva Ram in his cross examination states that it is wrong to say that Rawata is insane. PW4 Dana Ram also says in his cross examination that it is wrong to say that Rawata is suffering from some disease though he admits that Rawata is an eccentric person and usually he speaks little and also remains absent minded. No question has been asked about alleged insanity of Rawata from PW6 Smt. Laxmi. PW7 Praga Ram is a younger brother of accused-appellant Rawata. He says that though previously Rawata's mind was slightly disturbed but his disease was cured after treatment and then he used to earn for himself. He says that before the incident, if Rawata used to behave like insane person then they used to take him to the dispensary. Only on the basis of this much evidence, it cannot be said that Rawata was an insane at the time of commission of the alleged crime. He says that before the incident, if Rawata used to behave like insane person then they used to take him to the dispensary. Only on the basis of this much evidence, it cannot be said that Rawata was an insane at the time of commission of the alleged crime. No doctor had examined him regarding his insanity and thus, it can be said that the requirement of giving benefit under section 84 of IPC are not fulfilled in this case by the accused-appellant Rawata and so his first argument regarding his alleged insanity is not acceptable to this court. 8. Then comes act of killing. Rawata Ram had been charged that on 14.09.2005 at about 4:00 PM, he had intentionally killed his Bhabhi Smt. Ganga with the help of an axe by causing a sharp edged fatal injury on her neck. Dr.Krashan Bihari Malap had been examined as PW 5 by the prosecution and he has stated that he had conducted the postmortem of Smt. Ganga on 14.09.2005 in the capacity of a Medical Officer at PHC Mandar and he found the following injuries on her body:- (1) incised wound bone deep 3cm x ½ cm on left ear. (2) Incised wound 6 cm x ½ cm x 2 cm muscle deep on right ear. (3) Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm on left side of neck. (4) Incised wound 2 cm x ½ cm on left wrist. (5) Lobe on left ear was also partially cut down. 9. The Doctor further states that Smt. Ganga appeared to have died because of excessive bleeding because of the aforesaid injuries. The postmortem report was exhibited by him. He further states that the injury No.3 which was on neck of Smt. Ganga was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death of Smt. Ganga. In his cross examination, he admits that had Smt. Ganga been treated timely then she could have been saved. 10. To discredit the statement of PW5 Dr. Krashan Behari Malap, defence had examined DW1 Dr.Rajesh Malviya. He says that Dr. Malap was not an experienced doctor and he had no experience of conducting postmortem in particular. He states that had the injury of neck been superficial then it could not have caused excessive bleeding and for this reason, Smt. Ganga could not have died. Thus, in general, it apepars that DW1 Dr. He says that Dr. Malap was not an experienced doctor and he had no experience of conducting postmortem in particular. He states that had the injury of neck been superficial then it could not have caused excessive bleeding and for this reason, Smt. Ganga could not have died. Thus, in general, it apepars that DW1 Dr. Rajesh Malviya has shown nothing but his professional rivalry with Dr. Malap and nothing substantial has come out from his statement which could have discredited the testimony of Dr. Malap and it can safely be said that by perusal of the statement of these two doctors, it is quite clear that there were about 5 incised wounds on the body of Smt. Ganga and all these wounds could have been caused by a sharp edged weapon like an axe and because of excessive bleeding from injury No.3 in particular which was on her neck, she succumbed. 11. Now, the question arises, if the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that these injuries were caused by no one else than accused-appellant Rawata. 12. In this regard, statement of PW7 Praga Ram is most important statement. He is husband of deceased Smt. Ganga and he is also younger brother of the accused-appellant Rawata. He states that in the said evening his wife Smt. Ganga was coming from a Well after taking the water and in the way, the accused -appellant Rawata attacked upon her with the help of an axe and he caused fatal injury on the neck of Smt. Ganga. He says that when Smt. Ganga cried for help then he rushed towards his wife and tried to save his wife but the accused-appellant caused two injuries with the help of an axe on his head and on his palms. He says that he ultimately snatched the axe from the hands of the accused-appellant and then he threw it in the nearby grass. He says that thereafter Dana and Deva reached the spot and they all three were able to control Rawata and they had tied down accused Rawata. He further states that then he took his wife to Mandar Hospital where doctor declared her dead. In his cross examination, he has refuted the fact of insanity of accused Rawata though he has not alleged any motive against accused-appellant for killing his wife Smt. Ganga. 13. He further states that then he took his wife to Mandar Hospital where doctor declared her dead. In his cross examination, he has refuted the fact of insanity of accused Rawata though he has not alleged any motive against accused-appellant for killing his wife Smt. Ganga. 13. PW3 Deva Ram and PW4 Dana Ram have supported the story narrated by Praga Ram and both of them state that it was only the accused-appellant who had killed Smt. Ganga and that too for no reason with the help of a sharp edged axe. Both of them state that Praga Ram had narrated about the incident to them and then three of them were able to control and tied down Rawata and then they took Smt. Ganga for treatment to a nearby Hospital where she was declared dead. 14. PW6 Smt.Lavagi is real sister of Smt. Ganga but she has been declared hostile. She also states that for no reason, Rawata had killed Smt. Ganga. She says that Rawata was mentally weak but there was no evidence of medical treatment of him. She says that she had seen Rawata being tied down by Praga and others. She further states that Praga was saying that Rawata had killed Smt. Ganga. 15. The police witnesses have alleged that they had recovered the axe also from possession of the accused-appellant though Motbirs of recovery have denied the aforesaid recovery. 16. In the circumstances of the case, we are of the firm opinion that the accused-appellant Rawata has put not a single plausible defence. His defence of insanity is not acceptable to us. His alternative argument for conversion of his conviction from 302 IPC to 304 Part-I of Indian Penal Code is also not acceptable to us because he has not been able to make out any case to bring his offence within the expression mentioned in Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code and thus, it can be said that the charges of section 302 IPC for murder of Smt. Ganga and of 324 of Indian Penal Code for causing simple injury by a sharp edged weapon to Praga Ram have been fully proved against him so his appeal is bereft of any force and it is hereby dismissed. Two copies of this judgment be sent to the concerned Jail authorities where the accused-appellant is serving the sentence. Two copies of this judgment be sent to the concerned Jail authorities where the accused-appellant is serving the sentence. Out of these copies, one copy be provided to the accused-appellant and another copy be used by the jail for office purpose. The record of the trial court be returned along with a copy of this judgment.Appeal Dismissed. *******