JUDGMENT : Sadhana S. Jadhav, J. 1. Heard. Appellant herein is convicted for offence punishable under section 307 of Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months, he is also convicted for offence punishable under section 324 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for two months in Sessions Case No. 33 of 1996 by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur vide Judgment and Order dated 13/09/1996. Hence, this appeal. Such of the facts necessary for the decision of this appeal are as follows. 2. On 17/01/1996, annual gathering of K.I.T. College was going on. After the scheduled programme Vinodkumar Thakur, Dhananjay Jadhav and Kirtikumar Shah were chit-chatting in front of Vishnupant Niwas. It is alleged that at that time, present appellant suddenly appeared on the scene and enquired as to who is Vinodkumar Thakur from Himachal Pradesh. The other two friends had pointed out. Soon thereafter, appellant had stabbed Dhananjay Jadhav in his abdomen. Vinodkumar Thakur started fleeing from the spot, present appellant chased him, accosted him and caused injury to him. Both the injured were taken to the hospital. It was noticed by the doctor that the said persons had sustained contused lacerated wounds etc. It was clear that it was a medico legal case. During the pendency of the trial, learned Magistrate was pleased to refer the accused/appellant to psychiatrist in order to ascertain his mental health. Report was received that the appellant is a subject of 'Paranoid Schizophrenia' and that he needs to be taken care of. In the meanwhile, report was lodged and the appellant was taken into custody. Since he was taken into custody, he had disclosed that he has lost his mental equilibrium. In the month of April 1996, learned Sessions Court had referred him to the psychiatrist and the said report confirmed that he is the victim of 'Paranoid Schizophrenia'. On the basis of report of Kirtikumar Shah, crime No. 5 of 1996 was registered against the accused for offence punishable under section 307 of Indian Penal Code. Investigation was completed and charge-sheet was filed. Case was committed to the court of sessions and registered as Sessions Case No. 33 of 1996. On the basis of report of Kirtikumar Shah, crime No. 5 of 1996 was registered against the accused for offence punishable under section 307 of Indian Penal Code. Investigation was completed and charge-sheet was filed. Case was committed to the court of sessions and registered as Sessions Case No. 33 of 1996. Prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused. 3. D.W. 1 Dr. Shivaji Patil was examined as a defence witness. He was giving treatment to the present appellant for 'Paranoid Schizophrenia'. 4. P.W. 1 & 2 are the panchas for scene of offence panchanama and cloth seizure panchanama. 5. P.W. 3 Kirtisagar Shah happens to be eye witness. He has deposed before the court that on the relevant day, after the annual gathering of K.I.T. College was over, they were chit-chatting in front of Vishnupant Niwas. Appellant had suddenly come, enquired about Vinodkumar Thakur and thereafter, stabbed Dhananjay Jadhav. It is specifically stated that accused had inflicted as many as 5 to 6 blows of the knife on the person of Vinodkumar Thakur. Thereafter, P.W. 3 had rushed Vinodkumar Thakur to the hospital. Accused had fled from the spot. Injured were treated as indoor patients. Witness, P.W. 3 then lodged a report at C.P.R. Hospital. P.W. 3 has proved the contents of the F.I.R. which is marked as 29. 6. It is elicited in the cross-examination that at the time of incident, accused/appellant had enquired about Vinodkumar Thakur. P.W. 3 had pointed out Vinodkumar, but then suddenly accused had drawn the knife from his pocket and attacked Dhananjay Jadhav in the first instance. It is specifically elicited in the cross-examination that at the relevant time, his speech was not coherent. He was indulging into irrelevant talks. The facial expressions of the accused were also not normal. Accused had chased Vinodkumar for some distance. 7. P.W. 4 Bayana Katke happens to be resident in front of the house of the accused. That Dhananjay Jadhav and Vinodkumar Thakur were residing as tenants of P.W. 4 she had learnt that accused was serving in Himachal Pradesh. She has deposed before me court that the relevant time on 17/01/1996 she was preparing tea in her house. She heard some commotion and she had also heard that some persons were quarreling. That Dhananjay Jadhav and Vinodkumar Thakur were residing as tenants of P.W. 4 she had learnt that accused was serving in Himachal Pradesh. She has deposed before me court that the relevant time on 17/01/1996 she was preparing tea in her house. She heard some commotion and she had also heard that some persons were quarreling. When she came out of the house, she saw that Kirtikumar Shah, Vinodkumar Thakur and Dhananjay Jadhav were quarreling with the accused. There was verbal altercation between them and at the time accused had inflicted the blow of knife on the stomach of Dhananjay Jadhav. He then followed Vinodkumar Thakur and assaulted him. The defence could not create any dent in her testimony in the course of cross-examination. 8. P.W. 5 Dr. Anil Shinde was attached to C.P.R. Hospital at the relevant time. He has examined Vinodkumar Thakur on 17/01/1996. According to him, Vinodkumar Thakur had sustained two contused lacerated wounds on his chin. An incised wound admeasuring 1 c.m. X 1 c.m. in the 6th and 7th costal space. Incised wound bone deep left parietal region. Incised wound Axilla, right lumbar region, superficial injury at the neck level of thyroid cartilage . Incised wound on left cheek. In all Vinodkumar Thakur had sustained about 7 incised wounds. He had also examined Dhananjay Jadhav who had sustained one incised wound 5 c.m. X 3 c.m. X 1 c.m. on the abdominal region. He had issued certificate which is at Exhibit 34. 9. P.W. 6 Dr. Vishwanath Gaikwad was also resident of Jawaharnagar area. He had seen the accused stabbing a school by. He has asked his son to take them to the hospital. He has further deposed that Vinodkumar Thakur was assaulted by the accused after he had fallen on the ground. P.W. 6 happens to be an eye witness to the incident. 10. P.W. 7 Rajendra Gaikwad is also resident of the same area. He has been declared hostile by the prosecution. 11. P.W. 8 Anil Satale is a witness to the fact that son of P.W. 6 had carried the injured to the hospital. 12. P.W. 9 Dhananjay Jadhav is the injured witness. He has deposed before the court on 17/01/1996 when he was standing in front of Vishnupant Niwas along with his friends Vinodkumar Thakur and Kirtikumar Shah, accused had questioned him as to who is Vinodkumar Thakur from Himachal Pradesh. 12. P.W. 9 Dhananjay Jadhav is the injured witness. He has deposed before the court on 17/01/1996 when he was standing in front of Vishnupant Niwas along with his friends Vinodkumar Thakur and Kirtikumar Shah, accused had questioned him as to who is Vinodkumar Thakur from Himachal Pradesh. Other friends had pointed out Vinodkumar Thakur and at that time accused has stabbed firstly Dhananjay Jadhav and then Vinodkumar Thakur. In the cross-examination it is elicited that he had not disclosed the name and identity of the accused in his previous statement but had disclosed to the police that one unknown person had stabbed him as well as Vinodkumar Thakur. His statement was recorded by Special Executive Magistrate. Witness has volunteered in the cross-examination that on the very next day of the incident he was shifted to private hospital where the accused had come. 13. P.W. 10 is another injured witness Vinodkumar Thakur. His evidence corroborates the testimony of P.W. 9. 14. P.W. 11 Vijay Sagaonkar was a panch for scene of offence panchanama. 15. P.W. 12 Sitaram Kamble is the first investigating officer in the present case. 16. P.W. 13 P.I. Mohanrao who has completed the investigation and filed report. 17. The defence of the accused is not of a total denial but the accused has taken the defence under section 84 of Indian Penal Code. According to the appellant he is highly educated person. He has done his M.Phil. in Germany. He was serving as a lecturer in Himachal Pradesh. It appears from the records that accused hailed from a disturbed family and felt in secured. That during the pendency of the trial without there i.e. after framing of charge accused was referred to psychiatrist Dr. Shivaji Patil of C.P.R. Hospital, Kolhapur. After recording the history of the accused from his family members and after interviewing the accused, defence witness No. 1 was of the firm opinion that accused is a subject of 'Paranoid Schizophrenia'. He has deposed before to that effect. He has specifically deposed before the court that a person suffering from 'Paranoid Schizophrenia' cannot be termed as insane or a lunatic. The said person appears to be normal but suffers from dilated mental equilibrium at certain basis. 18. He has deposed before to that effect. He has specifically deposed before the court that a person suffering from 'Paranoid Schizophrenia' cannot be termed as insane or a lunatic. The said person appears to be normal but suffers from dilated mental equilibrium at certain basis. 18. Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code contemplates as follows: "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." 19. Statute requires that at the time of commission of the offence, a person must have been a victim of unsoundness of mind. That a person must have had lost his mental equilibrium and understand the nature of the act or, consequences of the act committed by him. 20. Upon perusal of the evidence of defence witness it is clear that learned Sessions Judge had also observed that accused was not behaving in a normal manner and therefore felt it necessary to refer him to psychiatrist. It can be said that learned Sessions Court had taken a judicial note of the abnormal behavior of the accused and therefore had referred him to psychiatrist. However, learned Sessions Judge was of the opinion that accused has taken a plea of insanity and that he was not insane at the time when he attempted to commit murder of Vinodkumar Thakur and Dhananjay Jadhav. 21. The manner in which the incident had occurred speaks for itself. There is nothing on record to indicate that accused had any motive to cause homicidal death of Vinodkumar Thakur or to cause any such injury to him which would result into his death. In fact, Dhananjay Jadhav and Vinodkumar Thakur only knew the accused as a person residing in the vicinity. Accused happens to be a highly qualified person. It appears that he was disturbed with some event that had occurred when he was serving in the State of Himachal Pradesh and therefore, was suffering from hallucinations. He apprehended that there may be some danger to his life from any person who hailed from Himachal Pradesh and upon learning that Vinodkumar Thakur was the native of Himachal Pradesh wanted to cause some injury to him. He apprehended that there may be some danger to his life from any person who hailed from Himachal Pradesh and upon learning that Vinodkumar Thakur was the native of Himachal Pradesh wanted to cause some injury to him. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that appellant herein had committed an offence under section 307 of Indian Penal Code as he had no cognition of the act committed by him or the result of the act. In view of the above discussion, appellant herein deserves to be acquitted of the offence under section 307 of Indian Penal Code. However, his conviction under section 324 of Indian Penal Code is maintained. Hence, following order. ORDER (i) Appeal is partly allowed. (ii) Appellant is acquitted of the offence punishable under section 307of Indian Penal Code. (iii) Conviction of appellant for offence punishable under section 324of Indian Penal Code is maintained. (iv) He is sentenced to the period already undergone. (v) Bail bonds of the appellant stand cancelled. (vi) Appeal stands disposed of.