Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 426 (GAU)

Bhoda Ram Boro v. State of Assam

2015-04-07

M.R.PATHAK, PRASANTA KUMAR SAIKIA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Prasanta Kumar Saikia, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10.12.2014 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonitpur in Sessions Case No. 231 of 2010 convicting one Budha Ram Boro, appellant herein (hereinafter referred to as the accused person) of offence u/s. 302 IPC and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) for the offence aforesaid. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, present appellant Sri Budha Ram Boro preferred this appeal from jail citing several infirmities in the judgment under challenge. 2. We have heard Mr. J. Payeng, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State. 3. The case projected by the prosecution in the FIR dated 21.04.2010 and in subsequent trial, in short, is that on 20.04.2010 at about 2 A.M., the accused person herein killed his 2 (two) children as well as another person, namely, Ranjit Basumatary by subjecting them to axe blows. An FIR to that effect on being lodged by one Rajen Boro, with I/C, Rakyashmari Outpost on 21.04.2010, I/C Rakyashmari Outpost made a GD. Entry on such FIR and forwarded the same to O/C Dhekiajuli PS to register a case in accordance with law. 4. On receipt of such FIR, O/C Dhekiajuli PS registered a case on the basis of aforesaid FIR, vide Dhekiajuli P.S. Case No. 120 of 2010 u/s.302 IPC and ordered one Sri B.R. Bora, SI of Police to investigate the case. Being so ordered, Sri Bora visited the place of occurrence, held inquest on the dead bodies, sent such bodies to the hospital for post mortem examinations, arrested the accused person, did other needful and on conclusion of investigation, he submitted charge sheet under Section 302 IPC against the accused person and forwarded him to the Court to stand his trial. 5. When the charge sheet was laid before the concerned Magistrate, he committed the case to the Court of Session, Sonitpur, Tezpur since the offence u/s. 302 IPC is exclusively triable by Court of Session. On receipt of the case on commitment, learned Sessions Judge, Sonipur, Tezpur, transferred the case to the file of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonipur, Tezpur for disposal in accordance with law. 6. On receipt of the case, on transfer, learned Addl. On receipt of the case on commitment, learned Sessions Judge, Sonipur, Tezpur, transferred the case to the file of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonipur, Tezpur for disposal in accordance with law. 6. On receipt of the case, on transfer, learned Addl. Sessions Judge heard the parties and framed charge u/s. 302 IPC against the accused person and charge so framed on being read over and explained, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During trial, the prosecution had examined as many as 8 (eight) witnesses including the informant, Medical Officer who conducted autopsy on the dead body as well as the I.O. of the case. 7. On the closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused person u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The plea of the accused was that he committed the offence but he did so under the influence of evil spirit which possessed him during the time in question and as such, he did not know what he had done on the night aforementioned. 8. However, on being required, he did not adduce any evidence in his defence. On conclusion of trial and on hearing the arguments, advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the Court below was pleased to convict the accused of offence u/s. 302 IPC and sentence him to punishment as aforesaid. It is that judgment which has been assailed in the present appeal. 9. The learned Amicus Curiae submits that on the materials on record, there cannot be any escape from the conclusion that on the night aforesaid, the accused had killed his 2 (two) children as well as one of his neighbour. However, his behavior during the period running to the date of incident, during the time under consideration and even thereafter are found to be enormously abnormal and such a state of affair is found well evident from the testimonies, tendered from the prosecution side. 10. According to him, there are indisputable materials on record to show that long before the date of incident, the accused has been suffering from mental illness requiring him to be hospitalized again and again. Even on the date of incident he was behaving very abnormally as is evident from the fact that when the neighbouring people came to his house, he did not allow anybody to come near to him, rather he threatened to kill anyone who dared to approach him. Even on the date of incident he was behaving very abnormally as is evident from the fact that when the neighbouring people came to his house, he did not allow anybody to come near to him, rather he threatened to kill anyone who dared to approach him. 11. Such evidence when read together with the fact that the accused showed no remorse for committing the gruesome offence as well as the fact that he did not make any attempt to flee the scene coupled with the averments made in the FIR that the accused committed the incident in question under the spell of insanity leaves no room for doubt that on the night in question, he committed the aforesaid crime for his suffering from insanity of highest degree. Being so, the accused needs to be given the protection of law as specified u/s. 84 of the Indian Penal Code instead of convicting and punishing him as aforesaid. 12. On the other hand, Mr. S. Jahan, learned Public Prosecutor submits that though there are some evidence on record to show that the accused had been suffering from some mental illness but there is also evidence on record to show that he did not suffer from such mental illness which could treated as legal insanity in order to give the benefit of Section 84 of the IPC. 13. She further submits that at no point of time, during trial, the accused pleaded his suffering from mental illness, much less his proving the same. It is a settled law that in order to get the protection of section 84 of the IPC, it needs to be established from materials on record that the accused had been suffering from such kind of insanity at the time of incident in question and as such, he was incapable of knowing the nature of his act or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. Unfortunately, the materials on record did not project such a state of affair in favour of the accused person. She, therefore, urges this Court to dismiss the present appeal on affirming the judgment of the Trial Court 14. We have considered the rival submissions, having regard to the evidence on record as well as the judgment under challenge. Before we proceed, let us consider the evidence of the Doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead bodies. She, therefore, urges this Court to dismiss the present appeal on affirming the judgment of the Trial Court 14. We have considered the rival submissions, having regard to the evidence on record as well as the judgment under challenge. Before we proceed, let us consider the evidence of the Doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead bodies. The Medical Officer who conducted such autopsies on the dead bodies was Dr. Dibakar Saikia and was examined as PW 2. 15. According to PW 2, on 24.02.2010, he was posted as SDM & HO in Kanaklata Civil Hospital, Tezpur. On that day, on police requisition in connection with Rakshmari OP GDE No. 319 dated 21.04.10, he conducted autopsy on the body of one Padmewar Boro. male, aged about 2 years and found the following:-- "A dead body of a male child aged about 2 years with eyes and mouth Rigor mortis present. Injuries: 1) Lacerated injury on the posterior part of the scalp (4 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm) 2) No fracture of the occipital bone. 3) Brain matter exposed due to the injury. 4. Sharp cutting injury on the right side of the eyes (2 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm) 5. Clotted blood present on the upper part of the body." Other organs are healthy. Injuries are antemortem. In his opinion, the cause of death is due to shock as a result of head injury." He proved the PM report as Ext. 7 where Ext. 7(1) is the signature. 2. On the same day, he held post-mortem examination on the dead body of one Askari Boro. female. 5 years of age and found as follows:-- "A dead body of a female child aged about 5 years with eyes and mouth closed. Rigor mortis present. Injuries: 1) Lacerated injury on the middle of scalp (8 cm x 2 cm x 2 cm) 2) Fracture of both parietal bones 3) Brain matter exposed 4) Sharp cutting injury on the right side of the face (2 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm) 5) Clotted blood in the brain cavity and on the upper part of the body." Other organs are healthy. Injuries are ante mortem. In his opinion, the cause of death is due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries sustained." He proved the PM report as Ext. 8 where Ext. 8(1) is the signature. 3. Injuries are ante mortem. In his opinion, the cause of death is due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries sustained." He proved the PM report as Ext. 8 where Ext. 8(1) is the signature. 3. On the same day, he also held post mortem examination on the dead body of one Lakhiram Boro. male 7 years and he found as follows: "A dead body of a male child aged about 7 years with eyes and mouth closed. Rigor mortis present. Injuries:-- 1) Clotted blood on the face and upper part of the body. 2) Lacerated injury on the left side of the forehead (8 cm x 2cm x 2cm) 3) Fracture of the frontal bone. 4) Fracture on the left parietal bone. 5) Clotted blood inside the brain cavity. Other organs are healthy. In his opinion the cause of death is due to shock as a result of head injury." He proved the PM report as Ext. 9 where Ext. 9(1) is the signature. 16. It is also in the evidence of PW 2 that on the same day, he held post mortem examination on the dead body of Rani it Basumatarv. male. 55 years and he found as follows: "4. A dead body of a male person aged about 55 years with eyes and mouth closed. Rigor mortis present. Injuries: 1) Lacerated injury on the middle of scalp (8 cm x 2 cm x 2 cm) 2) Fracture of left parietal bone 3) Brain matter exposed 4) Clotted blood present on the face and upper parts of the body." Other organs are healthy. He deposed that the cause of death is due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries sustained." He proved the PM report as Ext. 10 where Ext. 10(1) is the signature. 17. The evidence of the Doctor reveals that the all those persons died homicidal death on sustaining ante mortem injuries which were detailed by the Doctor in his reports, vide Ext.7 to Ext. 10. These aspects of the prosecution case were not disputed by defence either. 18. So situated, let us consider the evidence of other witnesses. PW 1, Sri Rajen Boro deposes that the accused is his own son whereas deceased Lakhi Ram Boro, 7 years, Askari Boro, 5 years and Padmashree Boro, 2 years are his grand children. The deceased Ranjit Basumatary is his neighbor. 18. So situated, let us consider the evidence of other witnesses. PW 1, Sri Rajen Boro deposes that the accused is his own son whereas deceased Lakhi Ram Boro, 7 years, Askari Boro, 5 years and Padmashree Boro, 2 years are his grand children. The deceased Ranjit Basumatary is his neighbor. According to him, he was not an eye witness to the incident in question since he resided at a place which is situated at some distance from the house of the accused person. 19. He came to the house of the accused person next day in the morning. On coming to know about such incident, he saw the accused sitting in the doorway of his house with a dao in his hand shouting that he would kill anyone who dared to come to him. So, he did not venture to approach the accused person. In the meantime, many villagers came there and saw the accused there. However, people gathered there somehow apprehended the accused person. 20. On being informed about the alleged incident, police came there, took the accused into its custody and conducted inquest on the dead bodies and prepared reports in that connection which were proved as Exts. 2, 3, 4 and 5. Police also seized an axe on the strength of seizure list. The said axe was proved as Mat. Ext. 6. In his cross-examination, he also admitted that the accused was treated in mental hospital since he had been suffering from lunacy from time to time. However, his ailment could not be cured. 21. PW 3, Sri Prakash Boro deposes that he knows the accused person. He also knew deceased Lakhi Ram Boro, Askari Boro, Padmeswar Boro who were children of the accused person whereas deceased Ranjit Basumatary was his neighbour. The incident took place one day at about 2 AM. On that night, the accused called the deceased Ranjit stating that he was feeling scared and so Ranjit should come to his house and stay with him. 22. Being so told, Ranjit went to the house of the accused person and slept in the house of the same. However, on that night at about 2 AM, the accused killed him with an axe. He also killed his 3 (three) children. On seeing it, his wife fled her house out of fear. 22. Being so told, Ranjit went to the house of the accused person and slept in the house of the same. However, on that night at about 2 AM, the accused killed him with an axe. He also killed his 3 (three) children. On seeing it, his wife fled her house out of fear. On hearing hue and cry he came to the house of the accused person and saw him sitting in the door step. On seeing PW 3, the accused told him "Don't come near I will kill anyone who comes near." 23. So no one dared to approach him. However, next day in the morning, the village people, gathered there, charged at him, caught him and snatched away the axe from his hand. The accused told them that he killed all those 4 (four) persons. In the course of investigation, police seized the axe on the strength of seizure list Ext. 6. He also identified such seized axe as Mat. Ext. 1. In his cross-examination, he stated that the wife of the accused came to his house around 2 AM, and informed them about the incident. 24. Village people, such as, Manes war Brahma, Manindra Basumatary, Rudra Basumatary, Sankar Basumatary and Chormo Basumatary too came there on getting the information about such incident. When they arrived at the house of the accused person, he saw him wearing a Gamosa yielding an axe in his hand. He admitted that the accused was not mentally sound since before the incident for which he was to be treated in a Mental hospital. 25. PW 4, Sri Arga Basumatary deposes that he knows accused Bhoda Ram Boro as well as the deceased. The incident took place at about 120' clock at night. On that night, wife of the accused came to his house and informed him that the accused killed her 3 (three) children. On being so informed, he went to the house of the accused person and saw him sitting in his house with an axe in his hand uttering that he would kill anyone who dared to approach him. The village people gathered there then chased him, caught him up and snatched away the axe from his hand. In the meantime, police was informed. 26. The village people gathered there then chased him, caught him up and snatched away the axe from his hand. In the meantime, police was informed. 26. Police came and apprehended the accused person and conducted inquests on the dead bodies and prepared reports in that connection which he proved as Ext. 2, Ext. 3, Ext. 4 and Ext. 5. Police also seized one axe from the place of occurrence on the strength of seizure list, Ext. 6. In his cross examination, he also states that his house is situated at a place not far away from the house of the accused person. 27. In his cross-examination, he further states that the wife of the accused person had called him to the place of occurrence. He further admitted that he did not hear any noise in the house of the accused person on the night in question since it was raining. According to him, the accused had been suffering from mental illness long before the incident in question which required him to be treated by Doctors. 28. PW 5, Sri Loda Basumatary deposes that he knows accused Bhoda Ram Boro as well as the victims, namely, Lakhi Ram Boro, Askari Boro, Padmeswar Boro and Ranjit Basumatary. According to him, the incident under consideration took place at about 1 AM. On that night, wife of the accused came to his house and informed them about the incident in question Being so informed, he immediately went to the house of the accused person and saw him sitting in his house with a dao in his hand. PW 5 also states that he heard the accused uttering "Don't come near I will kill anyone who comes near". 29. However, people, gathered there, charged at the accused person and were also successful in apprehending him. In the meantime, police came to such place, took the accused into custody, conducted inquests on the dead bodies, prepared reports in that connection which he proved as Ext. 2,3,4 and 5. Police also seized an axe. In his cross-examination, he deposes that wife of the accused informed him about the incident. He too states that the accused had been suffering from mental illness since before the incident under consideration. 30. PW 6, Smti Halashri Boro is the wife of the accused person. According to her, the accused is her husband whereas the deceased Ranjit was her neighbour. He too states that the accused had been suffering from mental illness since before the incident under consideration. 30. PW 6, Smti Halashri Boro is the wife of the accused person. According to her, the accused is her husband whereas the deceased Ranjit was her neighbour. The other ill-fated persons were her children. On the fateful night, she was sleeping in her bed with her children. Around midnight, she woke up from sleep since she was assaulted by the accused person forcing her to fell down on the ground from her bed. Being so beaten, she lost her consciousness. 31. As she regained sense sometime thereafter, she saw her 3 (three) children already being lynched. Seeing such horrible scene she ran away from her house and reported her neighbours as to what had happened in her house on that night Her neighbours came and tried to apprehend him. However, they could not do so since he was brandishing a dao at the people who wanted to come to him. However, in the long last, the villagers could apprehend him and then tied him to a post. 32. In her cross-examination, she deposes that it requires about 1 1/2 hour to come from the house to the house of her mother, that Ranjit was her brother, that she was married to the accused person for about 12 (twelve) years prior to the incident in question, that she was sleeping in her bed with her three children on that night and that she could not say whether the accused had been suffering from mentally illness since after his marriage with her. 33. In her cross-examination, she further admitted that at some point of time, the accused used to worship Bisahari (Goddesses Manasha - the Goddesses of Serpent) and he did so by offering poultry, cattle etc. However, the suggestion that she did not witness the incident under consideration and the suggestion that the accused did not kill the aforesaid persons were flatly denied by PW 6. 34. PW 7, Sri Maneswar Brahma is a cultivator by profession. He deposes that he knows the accused as well as the deceased. According to him, the incident under consideration took place about 2 (two) years before his rendering evidence in the Court. It occurred at night. 34. PW 7, Sri Maneswar Brahma is a cultivator by profession. He deposes that he knows the accused as well as the deceased. According to him, the incident under consideration took place about 2 (two) years before his rendering evidence in the Court. It occurred at night. On being informed about such incident, he went to the place of occurrence and saw 4 (four) persons lying dead in the premises of the accused person. He also found the accused there, armed with dao uttering that that he would kill anyone who dared to come to him. 35. However, people gathered there, charged at the accused person and succeeding in apprehending him. They also snatched away the axe from his hand. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he came to know about the incident towards the morning of the day which followed the night in question. He also states that he did not witness the accused committing the crime, aforementioned. 36. PW8, Sri Bolaram Borais the I/O of the case. According to him, on21.04.2010 he was posted as I/C, Rakyashmari Outpost under Dhekiajuli Police Station. On that day, he received the FIR from Rajen Boro. After doing the needful he sent the same to O/C Dhekiajuli Police Station for doing the needful. In due course, he was entrusted with the investigation of the case aforementioned. 37. Accordingly, he visited the place of occurrence, conducted inquests on the dead bodies, prepared reports in that connection which he proved as Ext. 2 to 5, arrested the accused person, seized an axe from him on the strength of Ext. 6, sent the dead bodies to the hospital for post mortem examination and on the conclusion of investigation submitted charge sheet u/s. 302 IPC against the accused person. 38. Above being the evidence on record, let us see how far such evidence makes out the allegations against the accused persona We have found that there is evidence on record to show that the accused had been suffering from mental illness since before the alleged incident and on the eventful night too, he behaved in a strange manner. 39. 38. Above being the evidence on record, let us see how far such evidence makes out the allegations against the accused persona We have found that there is evidence on record to show that the accused had been suffering from mental illness since before the alleged incident and on the eventful night too, he behaved in a strange manner. 39. The evidence of witnesses, examined from the side of prosecution very clearly establishes that on the night 20.04.2010 little after midnight, the accused had killed as many as 4 (four) persons out of which 3 (three) were his own young children aged between 7 (seven) years to 2 (two) years after planting blows on them with an axe. 40. The accused did not dispute his killing the aforesaid persons as his evident from his statement recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. Situation being such, there cannot be any escape from the conclusion that on the night aforesaid, the accused had killed his 3 (three) children and one 1 (one) neighbour. However, he claims that he killed those persons on being influenced by evil spirit. 41. In other words, he raised the plea of insanity. Being so, we find it necessary to know the law dealing with offence, committed by a person alleged to be suffering from insanity during the period when such offences are committed. In that connection, we find it necessary to have a look at the provision of law which deals with offences committed by a person suffering from insanity. For ready reference, said provision is reproduced below:-- "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." 42. In that context, we also find it necessary to have a look at the decision of this Court in the case of Girin Baruah v. State of Assam & Ors., Reported in 2014 (4) GLT 589. The relevant part is reproduced below- "(50) Orissa High Court too considered said question in the case of Raghu Pradhan v. State of Orissa reported in 1993 Crl. The relevant part is reproduced below- "(50) Orissa High Court too considered said question in the case of Raghu Pradhan v. State of Orissa reported in 1993 Crl. LJ 1159 (Orissa) and enumerated some other circumstances, which would help the court in deciding the questions of insanity raised by accused charged with crime(s). Those circumstances are: (a) motive; (b) deliberation and preparation; (c) desire for concealment; (d) conduct after commission of the crimes showing consciousness of guilt and effort to avoid detection; (e) offer of excuse of making statements which false; and (f) conduct before, at the time and after commission of offence. (51) This court in Manglu Kumar (supra) had the occasion to consider the conduct of the accused during the time running up to the commission of crime, such conduct when the incident in question was in progress and even thereafter and on considering various relevant factor, the court came to the conclusion that the conduct of the accused person who set up the plea of insanity as the defence to the charge, brought against him, has huge bearing in ascertaining the plea of insanity. (52) In that connection, the decision rendered in Raghu Pradhan (supra) was also considered. The relevant part of the judgment in Raghu Pradhan (supra) is reproduced below:-- "49. On a conjoint reading of the decisions, aforesaid, it would appear that the conduce of an accused who claims the protection of section 84 IPC needs to be considered from various angles and such conduct is to be considered at the stages more than one. They are: (a) pre-crime conduct (b) his conduct during the commission of crime and (c) his post crime conduct as well. In order to know how that accused herein behaved during the periods, aforesaid, we put the evidence on record to meticulous examination." (53) We have already noticed that learned counsel for the appellant arduously contends that prolonged alcoholism in the accused had caused him to suffer from a disease, called "delirium Tremens". He also claims that the person or persons suffering from such disease may have their cognitive faculty impaired so much so that they may suffer some kind of insanity which may be of such nature as it is contemplated in section 84 IPC." 43. In Jagdish v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2009) 9 SCC 495 , Supreme Court held as follows:-- 19. In Jagdish v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2009) 9 SCC 495 , Supreme Court held as follows:-- 19. We first examine the argument of the appellant's counsel based on Section 84 IPC. Section 84 reads as under "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." The benefit of this provision is available to a person who at the time when the act was done was incapable of knowing the nature of his act or that what he was doing was wrong or contrary to law. The implication of this provision is that the offender must be of this mental condition at the time when the act was committed and the fact that he was of unsound mind earlier or later are relevant only to the extent that they, along with other evidence, may be circumstances in determining the mental condition of an accuse on the day of incident. 20. We have gone through the status report filed by Shri V.K. Jain, Additional Superintendent of Police and find it based exclusively on the statements made by close family members of the applicant. It is significant that before the trial court as well as in appeal before the High Court, no plea with regards to the appellant's mental condition has been taken and it was only in this Court at the SLP stage when, shaken by the sheer brutality of the crime, this Court perhaps felt that only a person of unsound mind could commit such a horrendous crime, and it had thus been thought prudent to have THE MATTER RE-EXAMINED. We are of the opinion, however, that the statements in the status report and the affidavit do not advance the appellant's case whatsoever. 21. We find that the case against the appellant has been proved by the evidence of PW 1 Ramprasad, his brother; PW # Devilal and PW 11 Vinod, his neighbours, who had all seen the dead bodies with the appellant sitting beside them armed with a knife and he had in fact threatened that anyone else interfering would meet the same fate. It is also significant that Ramprasad had locked the door from the outside and it was in that condition that the appellant had been arrested by SI Karulal and his bloodstained domes and knife had been recovered. 22. It is true that in a case of circumstantial evidence motive does have extreme significance but to say that in the absence of motive, the conviction based on circumstantial evidence cannot, in principle, be made is not correct. It bears repetition that the appellant and the deceased family members were the only occupants of the room and it was therefore incumbent on the appellant to have tendered some explanation in order to avoid any suspicion as to his guilt. 23. The story that a thief was present in the room introduced by Ramprased at the stage of the trial was doubtless an attempt to help the appellant who was his brother. The medical evidence also supports the prosecution story in its entirety. The two doctors, R.K. Joshi and Dinesh Bansal who had conducted the postmortem examination on the dead bodies, concluded that the knife recovered at the instance of the appellant could have been used to commit the murders. 24. There is another extremely relevant circumstance pointing towards the appellant's involvement. The appellant, after arrest, was found with injuries on his person and was subjected to a medical examination by PW 5, Dr. K.C. Kothari. The doctor reported six superficial incised injuries on his person, some on the neck and the others on the fingers, and opined that they could all be self-suffered. This statement was further corroborated by the unrebutted testimony of PW 3 Devilal who testified that the appellant had told him that after killing his family he had attempted to commit suicide. 25. All the factors referred to above are undoubtedly circumstances, but they are so evidently categoric, that they constitute a chain even stronger than an eyewitness account, and do remind us of the cliche that men often lie, circumstances do not. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the conviction of the appellant on the charge of multiple murders is fully justified." 44. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the conviction of the appellant on the charge of multiple murders is fully justified." 44. A persual of the aforesaid provision of law reveals that a person who desires to take the benefit of Section 84 of the IPC is to establish that on the date of incident in question, he had been suffering from legal insanity as against medical insanity. We have also found from aforesaid decisions that such a person is under an obligation to probabilise the plea of insanity but then he can do so on the basis of materials available on record. It is also worth noting that conducts of such a person during the time under consideration, as well as his conducts before and after such incident are also equally relevant. 45. Coming back to our case, we have found from the testimony of PW 1, PW 3, PW 4, PW 5 and PW 6 that since before the incident in question, the accused person had been suffering from serious mental illness for which he was required to be treated in hospital. We have also found that on the eventful night, his behavior was enormously unnatural. Such unnatural behaviors during the period running upto date of incident and on the date of incident itself and even thereafter speak about the accused being not mentally sound on the night in question as well. 46. The fact that he killed his three children as well as one of his neighbours without any rhyme and reason again demonstrates that the accused was not mentally sound on the night in question. Such a conclusion draws more and more support from the fact that in the FIR it has specifically been stated that the accused committed the crime in question on the night aforesaid under the spell of insanity. 47. In his statement, recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. the accused had told the court that on the fateful night he was not in sense since he killed his children and one of his neighbours being possessed by evil spirit. It is worth noting here that PW 6, wife of the accused, too deposes that at some point of time, the accused used to worship Goddesses Manasha and used to propitiate her offering poultry and cattle. It is worth noting here that PW 6, wife of the accused, too deposes that at some point of time, the accused used to worship Goddesses Manasha and used to propitiate her offering poultry and cattle. Such revelation, in our opinion, is testimony to the fact that at the time relevant the accused was really suffering from serious mental illness. 48. We may note here that after killing the aforesaid persons in a very brutal manner, the accused did not leave his house, rather he remained in his house till he was captured by his villagers next day in the morning. We have also found that he threatened the people gathered there brandishing an axe at them. Such conduct is against the normal human behavior. 49. In normal circumstances, if a person kills a person with pre-mediation, he would do everything possible to wipe out his signature in the scene of crime. He would also try to leave such place at the earliest since his being there may also put him enormous danger. However, in our instant case, in-spite of killing as many as four persons and that too in a very brutal manner, he remained there at the place of occurrence behaving in a very abnormal way. Such revelation, in our opinion, strongly suggests that the accused was not mentally sound on the night in question. 50. Such evidence in our opinion, shows that during the time under consideration, the accused was suffering from insanity of serious nature which prevented him from knowing the nature of his act or he did not know what he was doing was against the law or wrong. Being so, in our opinion, the accused is entitled to protection u/s. 84 of the Indian Penal Code. 51. Accordingly, the accused is not liable to be convicted of offence u/s. 302 IPC. Resultantly, he is acquitted of offence aforesaid and ordered to be released forthwith if he is not required in connection with any other case. 52. Return the LCR. 53. Before we part with the record, we cannot but observe that an insane person when turns violent became a threat to the society, and he, therefore, becomes a liability to the society and State. 52. Return the LCR. 53. Before we part with the record, we cannot but observe that an insane person when turns violent became a threat to the society, and he, therefore, becomes a liability to the society and State. We have already found from materials on record that the accused suffered insanity of the highest degree during the period under consideration for which he committed act which entailed unimaginable consequences in terms of destruction of persons and properties. 54. We are worried over the fact that there is every possibility of his slipping to such a state of mind once again in near or future if he is not put on proper treatment and medication. We, therefore, direct that the Inspector General of Prison, Assam to make an investigation/cause an investigation to be made in association with the Director of Health Services, Assam to ascertain his present mental health condition of the accused preferably within a period of two weeks from today. 55. In the event of his being found still suffering from mental illness, we further direct the said authorities to refer the matter to the authority/authorities, created under the Mental Health Act, 1987 to deal with him in accordance of aforesaid Act to ensure that he does not cause any harm to person and property any more. We further call upon the aforesaid authorities to monitor his behavior periodically to see the accused does not become a threat to society in near or distant future.