JUDGMENT : The appellant was put on trial on the accusation of committing murder of his wife Chercheri Devi. The court having found the appellant guilty for the said charge convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 302, vide its judgment dated 18.5.2005 and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life, vide its order dated 19.5.2005. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 25.7.2002 while the appellant was taking liquor in his house, his wife Chercheri Devi (deceased) asked him not to consume liquor.Upon it, the appellant started inflicting chhura injuries upon his wife. When his son Mannu Singh, the informant (P.W.6) tried to rescue his mother, he was also inflicted with injury. On account of injuries being inflicted over the chest and abdomen, wife of the appellant died. Thereupon the appellant digged earth in the same room and put earth on the dead body. Meanwhile, when alarm was raised, persons residing in the neighbourhood assembled and then caught hold of the appellant. 3. Meanwhile, Md.Rustam, ASI of Lapung Police Station received information that one woman has been killed in village Champadih. He entered the said information in the station diary and proceeded for village Champadih. Upon coming to the place of occurrence, he recorded Fardbeyan (Ext.4) of Mannu Singh (P.W.6), son of the deceased. Upon it, a formal first information report (Ext.7) was drawn. Md. Rustam (P.W.8) himself took up the investigation during which he recovered the dead body from the room and also seized knife, sickle etc. under seizure list (Ext.6) . He held inquest on the dead body and prepared an inquest report (Ext.1). Thereupon he sent the dead body for post mortem examination which was conducted by Dr.Tulsi Mahto (P.W.7), who on holding autopsy on the dead body did find the following injuries; 1. Abrasions- (i) 3 cm x 2 cm over the left elbow back. (ii) 2 cm x 2 cm over the right elbow back. 2. Incised Wound - (i) 7 cm x 2 cm x bone deep over the left side of chest front upper part situated 4 cm left to midline placed downwards cutting the left clavicle partially and 2nd and 3rd ribs completely and underlying lungs partially. There was presence of blood and blood clot in the left side of chest. 2. Incised Wound - (i) 7 cm x 2 cm x bone deep over the left side of chest front upper part situated 4 cm left to midline placed downwards cutting the left clavicle partially and 2nd and 3rd ribs completely and underlying lungs partially. There was presence of blood and blood clot in the left side of chest. (ii) 7 cm x 2 cm x cavity deep over the upper part of abdomen situated 2 cm right midline and placed downwards cutting the abdominal wall, portion of xiphysternum and underlying liver partially. There was presence of blood and blood clot in abdominal cavity. 4. Doctor issued post mortem examination report (Ext.3) with an opinion that death was caused due to shock, as a result of above noted injuries. 5. Meanwhile, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses. On completion of investigation when charge sheet was submitted, the court took cognizance of the offence against the appellant and committed the case to the court of sessions where the appellant was put on trial. 6. During trial, the prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as eight witnesses. Of them, P.W.1, Anil Sahu is the witness, who on hearing halla came to the place of occurrence and saw the appellant making an attempt to flee from there but when found persons assembled, he came inside the room and bolted the door. Later on, it was found that he had digged the earth for hiding the dead body over which he had put earth. When the police came, he found knife, sickle etc. there and seized it. The earth smeared with blood was also seized. P.W.2, Tejnath Singh though has been declared hostile but he has testified that when the police came and got the door opened the dead body was found over which earth had been put in. P.W.3, Pitamber Singh has also testified to that effect that when the police came, he recovered the dead body and also seized knife, spade etc. P.W.4, Budhnath Singh, P.W.5, Somar Singh are hearsay witnesses, who came to know that the appellant has killed his wife. P.W.6, Mannu Singh is the informant who has testified almost in the same manner as he had made statement in the Fardbeyan. P.W.4, Budhnath Singh, P.W.5, Somar Singh are hearsay witnesses, who came to know that the appellant has killed his wife. P.W.6, Mannu Singh is the informant who has testified almost in the same manner as he had made statement in the Fardbeyan. According to him, while his father was taking liquor, his mother asked him not to consume liquor, upon which he started inflicting injuries upon his mother. When he tried to rescue her, he was also inflicted with injury. When alarm was raised, several persons assembled, on account of which the appellant could not flee from there, rather he digged the earth in the room for hiding the dead body. His father was caught hold and was handed over to the police when the police reached over there. 7. After closure of the prosecution case, when the appellant was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure over the incriminating evidences, he denied and took the plea that his wife, who was suffering from epilepsy fell down and received injuries. 8. The trial court after placing its reliance the testimony of the informant, Mannu Singh and also other circumstances appearing in the case did find the appellant guilty and accordingly, recorded the order of conviction and sentence which is under challenge. 9. Mr.Sunil Agrawal, learned counsel appointed as Amicus Curiae submits that P.W.1, Anil Sahu and P.W.6, Mannu Singh have testified that the appellant was the person of unsound mind and thereby he was not capable to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing and thereby he does have a protection of the provision as contained in Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code whereof the appellant is not liable to be punished for the offence committed by him. 10. Further it was submitted that only eye witness is P.W.6, Mannu Singh, son of the deceased whose evidence remains uncorroborated by other witnesses and hence, the trial court should have been centious in accepting the testimony of the P.W.6 but the trial court does not seems to have taken into account all these aspects of the matter in right perspective and hence, committed illegality in recording the order of conviction and sentence which is fit to be set aside. 11. 11. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that though the witnesses have said that the appellant was a person of unsound mind but the facts and circumstances appearing in the case are as such which do indicate that he was quite conscious about the act done and thereby protection as enshrined under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code is not available to him and hence, the trial court has rightly rejected the contention of the appellant. 12. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, we do find that the case of the prosecution as has been testified by the informant Mannu Singh (P.W.6) is that while the appellant was consuming liquor in his house, his wife Chercheri Devi (deceased) asked him not to consume liquor, upon which the appellant inflicted injuries on the person of his wife, as a result of which, she died. When alarm was raised, persons residing in the neighbourhood did assemble over there, as a result of which, the appellant, who had made an attempt to flee from there, could not escape from there, rather he got himself closed in a room. In the room, he digged earth with a view to hide the dead body over which even earth had been put in. Meanwhile, the police when came, arrested the accused and recovered the dead body from the room. The police also seized knife, sickle, spade etc. from that room. The testimony of P.W.1 finds corroboration from the medical evidence whereby the Doctor did find injury over the chest and abdomen which, according to P.W.6, had been inflicted by the appellant. Thus, the prosecution has been able to establish the case beyond all reasonable doubt. 13. Now the question does arise as to whether the appellant will have protection of the provision as enshrined under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code which reads as follows: “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. “ 14. 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. “ 14. From its perusal it appears that to establish a defence on the ground of insanity it must clearly be proved that at the time of committing an act,the accused was labouring under a defect causing unsoundness of mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or, if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong or contrary to law. But in the instant case the things are quite contrary to such circumstance which makes the person immune from being prosecuted on account of being a man of unsound mind. 15. In this regard it be noted that when the deceased asked the appellant not to consume liquor, he inflicted chhura injury upon his wife. In that course, when the informant (P.W.6) tried to rescue his mother, he was also inflicted with injury. Thereafter the appellant made an attempt to flee from there but on account of the fact that the persons had assembled, he put himself inside the room and then in order to hide the dead body he even digged earth of the room and put the earth over the deadbody which could have only purpose that the person may not find the dead body. 16. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellant was having disease of the mind which had deprived him from the understanding as to what he is doing or what he did was wrong or contrary to law, rather the circumstances stated above go to establish otherwise that he was quite conscious as to what he did and thereby protection of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code is never available to the appellant. 17. Under the circumstances, we do not find any illegality with the order of conviction and sentence and thereby it is hereby affirmed. 18. In the result, this appeal stands dismissed.