JUDGMENT : MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by accused-appellant Zakir @ Rahimulla challenging judgment dated 15.09.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge(Fast Track), Tonk (for short ‘the trial court’) whereby the trail court convicted the accused-appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,00/-, in default whereof he was to further undergo two months simple imprisonment. 2. Facts of the case are that one Riyaj(P.W.1) son of Shri Fayyajuddin submitted a written report(Exhibit P-1) at Police Station, Kotwali, Tonk on 14.08.2009 alleging that on 14.08.2009 at about 10.30 A.M. his uncle Munna @ Imamudeen Luhar was working in his shop situated at Nayab Sahab Ki Nal, Tonk. Suddenly Rahimulla @ Zakir came there. He was having a knife in his hand. He inflicted blows on Munna’s chest, face and different parts of the body. Munna was taken to hospital where he was declared brought dead. On the basis of aforesaid written report(Exhibit P-1), regular FIR No. 252/2009 was chalked out at Police Station Kotwali, Tonk for offence under Section 302 IPC. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet under Section 302 IPC was filed against the accused-appellant in the competent court wherefrom the case was transferred to the trial court. 3. When the matter was fixed for farming of charges on 10.11.2009, defence counsel filed an application under Section 328 Cr.P.C. read with Section 84 IPC contending that accused was undergoing treatment for his mental disorder and he was not capable of defending himself. Prayer was made that the proceedings of the case be deferred. The trial court on hearing the arguments directed Chief Medical Officer, Saadat Hospital, Tonk to constitute a medical board of three doctors including one psychiatrist and one civil surgeon, to give the report about mental condition of the accused-appellant. The matter was deferred to be listed on 26.11.2009. It was thereafter that the matter remained adjourned till 09.02.2010, on which date, aforesaid medical board constituted by Chief Medical Officer, Saadat Hospital, Tonk submitted its report, which opined that the accused suffered from psychiatric disorder and he should be got examined from experts to determine his I.Q. level. The trial court, therefore, directed that the appellant should be referred to Psychiatry Centre of S.M.S. Hospital through it’s Superintendent and it’s report be produced. The trial court, therefore, directed that the appellant should be referred to Psychiatry Centre of S.M.S. Hospital through it’s Superintendent and it’s report be produced. The matter was thereafter again listed before the trial court on 30.03.2010 on the letter of In-charge of Psychiatry Centre of S.M.S. Hospital, who informed that the appellant would be required to be hospitalised as indore patient for his medical check up. The trial court, therefore, directed Superintendent, District Jail, Tonk to send the appellant to Psychiatry Centre, Jaipur in police custody and after having his check up again lodge him in District Jail, Tonk. The matter remained adjourned on 13.04.2010 and 20.04.2010. The matter was taken up by the trial court on 30.04.2010. It was conveyed on the basis of letter dated 12.04.2010 received from Superintendent, Psychiatry Centre, Jaipur attached to S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur, with which copy of medical board was also forwarded, wherein it was opined that the appellant was suffering from ailment known as Schizophrenia and his treatment has started and he was not capable of defending himself in the trial and cannot understand implications of the court proceedings. He requires further treatment. The trial court, therefore, directed that till further orders, appellant may be continued to be hospitalised in Psychiatric Centre, Jaipur for his treatment and progress report be sent to the court after one week. 4. It was further that the matter was listed before the trial court on 29.05.2010, 01.07.2010, 28.07.2010 and thereafter, on 06.08.2010, on which date, the trial court took note of the report of the Superintendent of Psychiatry Centre, Jaipur dated 17.07.2010, who conveyed that there is improvement in condition of the appellant and he was capable of looking after himself and would not cause any threat to others. He was able to understand the court proceedings, therefore, he was lodged with Central Jail, Jaipur on 15.07.2010. However, he requires continuous treatment for long time. The accused was then transferred to District Jail, Tonk. The trial court noted that condition of the accused has improved to a great extent and earlier when a question was put to him about allegations of the prosecution he admitted having committed offence, but now when same question was put to him, he denied having committed any such offence, which means that he understood implications of court proceedings. The trial court noted that condition of the accused has improved to a great extent and earlier when a question was put to him about allegations of the prosecution he admitted having committed offence, but now when same question was put to him, he denied having committed any such offence, which means that he understood implications of court proceedings. The trial court, therefore, concluded that there was no impediment now to reinitiate the trial and the trial court, therefore, resumed proceedings in accordance with Section 331 Cr.P.C. 5. Arguments on charges were heard and charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the accused-appellant. The accused-appellant denied the charges and claimed to be tried. When the matter was fixed before the trial court on 25.10.2010, statements of Riyazuddin(P.W.1) and Jamilurahman(P.W.2) were recorded and Public prosecutor gave up witness no. 3. Thereafter, the matter was fixed before the trial court on 26.10.2010 and statements of Kayamuddin(P.W.3), Moniuddin(P.W.4) and Aslam Hussain Chisthi (P.W.5) were recorded. Public Prosecutor thereafter gave up witness no. 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 21 and agreed to produce only witness no. 8, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18. The trial court fixed 19.11.2010 and 20.11.2010 as the dates for recording of statements of aforesaid witnesses. On 19.11.2010, statements of Om Prakash(P.W.6), Bihari Lal(P.W.7); Raja Ram(P.W.8); Faiyazuddin(P.W.9), Mohd. Ibrahim(P.W.10); Shappu Bhai(P.W.11) were recorded. On 20.11.2010, statement of Dr. Hamid Hussain(P.W.12) was recorded. Thereafter, the matter remained adjourned for awaiting other witness and finally, statement of Dungar Singh(P.W.13) was recorded on 06.01.2011. Examination of the accused-appellant was conducted on 11.01.2011 wherein the accused-appellant stated that he is not mentally fit and he was undergoing treatment since his lodgment in the jail. He is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. Thereafter, statements of Naved Khan(D.W.1) and Islam Mohammad(D.W.2) were recorded on 19.01.2011. On application of defence, Dr. R.K. Solanki and Dr. Pradeep Sharma were summoned. The matter remained pending for recording of statements of aforesaid witnesses on different dates. In between, statements of Rizwan(D.W.3) and Mohd. Yakub(D.W.4) were recorded on 04.02.2011. Statement of Dr. Pradeep Sharma(D.W.5) was recorded on 22.02.2011. However, Dr. R.K. Solanki failed to appear in response to summon, therefore, he was summoned by bailable warrant. Ultimately, statement of Dr. The matter remained pending for recording of statements of aforesaid witnesses on different dates. In between, statements of Rizwan(D.W.3) and Mohd. Yakub(D.W.4) were recorded on 04.02.2011. Statement of Dr. Pradeep Sharma(D.W.5) was recorded on 22.02.2011. However, Dr. R.K. Solanki failed to appear in response to summon, therefore, he was summoned by bailable warrant. Ultimately, statement of Dr. R.K. Solanki(D.W.6) was recorded on 19.05.2011 and on that very day, the trial court concluded evidence of the defence and fixed the case for final arguments on 24.05.2011. 6. That thereafter, on 24.05.2011, defence counsel moved fresh application under Section 328 Cr.P.C. for medical examination of the accused-appellant. Public prosecutor filed reply to that application on 25.05.2011 and matter was fixed on 27.05.2011. The trial court on 27.05.2011 directed Superintendent, District Jail, Tonk to inform whether during intervening period after 06.08.2010 any ailment was noticed in the appellant and whether he was provided any treatment. The matter was taken up on 06.06.2011. On 06.06.2011, after hearing arguments of the parties, the trial court observed that trial in the present case resumed only after report of the psychiatric experts from the Psychiatry Centre, S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur on 06.08.2010 that accused-appellant was capable of defending himself. The trial court, therefore, rejected the application of the defence. However, the accused who was present before the trial court on that day contended that he was not in a position to take sleep during last night. The trial court called for the report of the Superintendent, District Jail, Tonk and fixed the matter for on 15.06.2011. Since, the report was not received from the jail, the matter was again adjourned to 25.06.2011 on which date, the trial court was informed that accused-appellant has been referred to Psychiatry Centre, Jaipur. Matter was, therefore, adjourned on 12.07.2011, 26.07.2011, 17.08.2011, 12.09.2011, 23.09.2011, 14.10.2011, 11.11.2011, 01.12.2011, 16.12.2011, 11.01.2012, 31.01.2012. When the matter was fixed on 31.01.2012, report of Superintendent, Psychiatry Centre, Jaipur was received according to which the accused was found to be not capable of arranging his defence. The matter was therefore, again adjourned to 16.02.2012, 06.03.2012, 22.03.2012, 10.04.2012 to await the further report. When the matter was fixed on 31.01.2012, report of Superintendent, Psychiatry Centre, Jaipur was received according to which the accused was found to be not capable of arranging his defence. The matter was therefore, again adjourned to 16.02.2012, 06.03.2012, 22.03.2012, 10.04.2012 to await the further report. Finally, when the matter was fixed on 01.05.2012, the trial court took note of the fact that the accused-appellant was discharged from the Psychiatry Centre, S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur and sent to jail three months ago and as per report dated 30.01.2012, his condition has substantially improved, but it was stated that he was not capable of understanding the court proceedings. It was, therefore, advised that the Superintendent, Saadat Hospital, Tonk may arrange for his further treatment by appointing a Psychiatrist. When the matter was fixed before the trial court on 16.05.2012, the court perused the report of Junior Specialist, Psychiatrist, Saadat Hospital, Tonk, who opined that at present mental status of the appellant appears to be normal, however, he may be reviewed at Psychiatric Centre at Jaipur. The trial court ordered that specific report from the Psychiatric Expert be called for about the fact that whether accused-appellant was capable of understanding proceedings of the court and arranging his defence? The matter was then adjourned to 26.05.2012 and 01.06.2012. Thereafter, matter was listed before the trial court on 05.06.2012 and the trial court noted the fact that on 09.02.2010 it had directed for medical examination of appellant by expert whether he was capable of understanding implications of court proceedings and could arrange his defence in the trial court. The matter was referred to Psychiatric Centre, Jaipur on 25.06.2011. 7. As per report of Dr. Arvind Jinger dated 30.01.2012, the accused-appellant was not capable of arranging his defence. But thereafter, he was got examined from Psychiatric Centre attached to Saadat Hospital, Tonk which gave opinion about his fitness but then advised that his condition may be further reviewed from Psychiatric Centre, Jaipur. Defence prayed for summoning of Dr. Arvind Jinger as witness, which was opposed by the prosecution by filing reply to application. The trial court taking note of the fact that already two medical officers Dr. Pradeep Sharma(D.W.5) and Dr. R.K. Solanki(D.W.6) had been produced by the defence as psychiatric experts, there was no need to summon any third psychiatric expert. The application was rejected. Arvind Jinger as witness, which was opposed by the prosecution by filing reply to application. The trial court taking note of the fact that already two medical officers Dr. Pradeep Sharma(D.W.5) and Dr. R.K. Solanki(D.W.6) had been produced by the defence as psychiatric experts, there was no need to summon any third psychiatric expert. The application was rejected. The matter was then fixed for final arguments, but it was adjourned on four dates. On 05.07.2012, counsel for the defence again moved an application under Section 329 Cr.P.C. and the matter was adjourned for reply of Public Prosecutor, who filed reply to said application. The application was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 24.07.2012 and the matter was fixed for final arguments on 04.08.2012. The trial court, finally, vide judgment dated 15.09.2012 convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant in the manner as indicated above. Hence, this appeal filed by the accused-appellant. 8. Mr. S.S. Hasan, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the trial court has taken erroneous approach in convicting the accused-appellant, even though, he was able to establish defence of insanity with reference to Section 84 IPC, according to which 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. Otherwise, there was neither any motive of the occurrence, nor enmity between the appellant and the deceased. The genesis of the occurrence is also not clear and the evidence would show that the accused was patient of Schizophrenia. The deceased called him a mad person and he suddenly lost his mental balance and caused injuries to him. Riyazuddin(P.W.1) has admitted the fact that there was no enmity between the deceased and the accused-appellant. He also proved that the accused-appellant was a person of disturbed mind and the incident took place all of a sudden at the spur of moment. Jamilurahman(P.W.2) admitted the fact that accused was under treatment for his mental illness for last 10-15 years at Mental Hospital, Jaipur. Naved Khan(D.W.1) stated that the accused before the incident caught live electricity wire because of unsoundness of mind and that he was rescued by him. Islam Mohammad(D.W.2) also stated that the accused was mentally sick and was a person of unsound mind. Naved Khan(D.W.1) stated that the accused before the incident caught live electricity wire because of unsoundness of mind and that he was rescued by him. Islam Mohammad(D.W.2) also stated that the accused was mentally sick and was a person of unsound mind. He was under treatment for last 10-12 years at Mental Hospital, Jaipur. 9. Learned counsel argued that the trial court failed to appreciate statement of Rizwan(D.W.3), who clearly stated that the deceased was teasing the accused-appellant by repeatedly calling him a mad person. Similarly, Mohd. Yakub(D.W.4) also stated that the accused-appellant was under treatment of his mental disorder since 1991 at Mental Hospital, Jaipur. Dr. Pradeep Sharma(D.W.5) Professor of Psychiatry Centre, S.M.S., Hospital, Jaipur, clearly stated that he examined the accused, who was a person of unsound mind and was under treatment of such ailment. Dr. R.K. Solanki(D.W.6), who was Associate Professor and Head of Department of Psychiatry, S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur, also stated that accused was under his treatment since 1998. He remained admitted in mental hospital in ward no. 3, unit no. 3 of Dr. Pradeep Sharma. He also admitted that the accused-appellant was suffering from Schizophrenia, a serious mental disease since 1998. It is argued that symptoms of ailment were present in the accused-appellant not only before the incident, but at the time of incident and after the incident also because he was repeatedly referred to Saadat Hospital, Tonk and from there he was referred to Psychiatric Centre, S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur. This was opined by the doctor that the accused-appellant was not capable of defending himself, even then, the trial court committed grave illegality by proceeding with the trial, recording statements of the witnesses and the trial was itself vitiated and conviction recorded on the basis of such trial cannot be sustained. Learned counsel for the appellant, in support of his arguments relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Mohinder Singh, (1983) 2 SCC 274 ; Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 7 SCC 748 ; State of Rajasthan Vs. Shera Ram Alias Vishnu Dutta, (2012) 1 SCC 602 ; Division Bench Judgment of Jharkhand High Court in Saraswati Rani Vs. State of Jharkhand, 2016 CRI.L.J. 4877 and judgment of this Court at Principal Seat at Jodhpur in Vidhya Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2004 (2) R.C.C. 583. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 7 SCC 748 ; State of Rajasthan Vs. Shera Ram Alias Vishnu Dutta, (2012) 1 SCC 602 ; Division Bench Judgment of Jharkhand High Court in Saraswati Rani Vs. State of Jharkhand, 2016 CRI.L.J. 4877 and judgment of this Court at Principal Seat at Jodhpur in Vidhya Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2004 (2) R.C.C. 583. It is, therefore, prayed that the appeal may be allowed and conviction and sentence of the accused-appellant may be quashed and set aside. 10. Mr. R.S. Raghav, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State opposed the appeal and argued that judgment passed by the trial court is perfectly legal. The trial court on application filed by the defence under Section 328 Cr.P.C. passed detailed order on 10.11.2009 and referred the appellant to Chief Medical Officer, Saadat Hospital, Tonk for his examination by Medical Board consisting of three doctors, out of which one should be Psychiatrist and one civil surgeon. The accused-appellant was examined by the aforesaid Medical Board, which recommended that the appellant suffers from psychiatric disorder and his I.Q. test be conducted by a Psychiatric expert. It was, therefore, that the trial court vide order dated 09.02.2010 directed to refer the appellant to Superintendent, S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur to have him examined by the Medical Board constituted in Psychiatric Department of S.M.S. Medical College. For that purpose, the appellant was admitted in hospital. Superintendent, Psychiatric Centre, Jaipur vide its letter dated 12.04.2010 conveyed that the appellant was suffering from Schizophrenia and he requires treatment. Thereafter, the appellant was subjected to prolonged treatment, for which purpose, he remained hospitalised. It was thereafter that fresh report was sent by Superintendent, Psychiatric Centre, Jaipur on 17.07.2010 wherein it was opined that after appellant’s treatment, there is improvement in his condition and he was capable of looking after himself and he would not cause any threat to others. In this report, it was also mentioned that the appellant was able to arrange his defence during trial. The trial court, therefore, recorded its satisfaction and resumed the trial and vide order dated 06.08.2010 framed charge for offence under Section 302 IPC against the appellant. Statements of prosecution as well as defence witnesses were recorded at the time when the appellant was in fit state of mind. There was, thus, no infirmity in approach taken by the trial court. Statements of prosecution as well as defence witnesses were recorded at the time when the appellant was in fit state of mind. There was, thus, no infirmity in approach taken by the trial court. Subsequently, when the matter was fixed for final hearing, the defence again filed application for further and fresh medical examination of the appellant for which purpose, the defence filed application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling Dr. Arvind Jinger. The trial court rejected that application vide order dated 05.06.2012. Subsequent application filed by the defence under Section 329 Cr.P.C. on 05.07.2012 was nothing but an attempt to delay the completion of proceedings. Once the appellant was found to be fit to face the trial and arrange his defence, subsequent application was meaningless and the trial court was perfectly justified in rejecting that application and thereafter, convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC. 11. Learned Public Prosecutor referred to statements of prosecution witnesses, especially Riyazuddin (P.W.1), who categorically proved that accused inflicted blows of scissor on different parts of body of the deceased. Mere fact that the in written report(Exhibit P-1), he has mentioned weapon of offence as knife, but eventually in the improved version, he mentioned it to be scissor, would not make any dent to credibility of his evidence, particularly when scissor has been recovered vide Exhibit P-11. Mohd. Ibrahim(P.W.10) and Shappu Bhai(P.W.11) are the motbir witnesses of recovery of scissor. Mere fact that they did not support recovery of scissor does not rule out factum of recovery of scissor, which is otherwise proved by statement of Dungar Singh(P.W.13), Investigating Officer. Scissor was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, which has been found positive for the presence of human blood. Human blood was also found on the pant, vest and shirt of the deceased. Guilt of the accused appellant is, thus, fully proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is argued that the appellant even though has taken defence of insanity, but he has not been able to prove whether such insanity or ailment of Schizorphrenia disease was active at the time of incident or not. It is, therefore, prayed that this appeal may be dismissed. 12. We have given out anxious consideration to rival submissions and perused the record and carefully studied the judgment cited by learned counsel for the appellant. 13. Adverting to evidence in the present case. It is, therefore, prayed that this appeal may be dismissed. 12. We have given out anxious consideration to rival submissions and perused the record and carefully studied the judgment cited by learned counsel for the appellant. 13. Adverting to evidence in the present case. Riyazuddin(P.W.1), informant has alleged that accused-appellant suddenly emerged from Nal wali Gali and uttered that he will sent Immamuddin @ Munna (him) to heavens and put him to death and started causing stabbed wounds by use of scissor in stomach, chest, shoulders, hands and different parts of the body. When he (this witness) started making hue and cry, Jamil Bhai, Habib Bhai, Pappu Bhai, Moin Bhai, Aslam, Azhar assembled there and took the deceased to the hospital. This witness stated that on the previous day on 13.08.2009, accused-appellant came to his house with in-laws of this witness at 8.30 P.M. and broke his Almirah and took some items. Owing to this enmity, he has committed murder of his uncle. Accused happens to be cousin of his wife Heena. In cross-examination, when a question was put to this witness that whether he ever heard that accused-appellant caught hold of live electric wire and he was suffering mental ailment and undergoing treatment, he denied the same for want of knowledge. In cross examination, he denied suggestion that on the previous day before the incident, the accused caught live electric wire passing from the roof of Ram Krishan Temple and he also denied suggestion that the accused was suffering from mental disease for past 1-2 days. He also denied suggestion that his family members were about to take him to Mental Hospital, Jaipur on 14.08.2009. He also denied suggestion that he made mistake by mentioning weapon of offence as knife in the written report(Exhibit P-1). 14. Jamilurahman(P.W.2) has also made similar statement. In cross-examination, he admitted that Ram Krishan Temple was situated opposite his shop and an electric wire was passing above the roof of that shop. Accused had caught hold of live electric wire and he learnt about this on following day. He also heard that other people helped him in disengaging from electric wire. He heard this fact from Naved Bhai. Accused had caught live electric wire on the roof of Naved Bhai. Kayamuddin(P.W.3) has also made the statement similar to one made by Riyazuddin (P.W.1) and Jamilurahman(P.W.2). He also heard that other people helped him in disengaging from electric wire. He heard this fact from Naved Bhai. Accused had caught live electric wire on the roof of Naved Bhai. Kayamuddin(P.W.3) has also made the statement similar to one made by Riyazuddin (P.W.1) and Jamilurahman(P.W.2). In cross-examination he denied the suggestion that people used to call the appellant as a mad person(‘pagal’). He also denied that whether the deceased had called the accused-appellant as mad person(‘pagal’) on the day of the incident. 15. Moinuddin(P.W.4) has stated that on the fateful day at about 10.00-10.15 A.M., he was sharpening edges of scissor at his shop and the accused-appellant was sitting by his side. Thereafter, he went into adjoining street. After few minutes he returned back and saw the accused-appellant going towards of the shop of the deceased. He then heard hue and cry and when he went towards the shop of the deceased, he saw the accused appellant inflicting blows of scissor into his body. In the cross-examination, he denied the suggestion in the cross-examination that whether people used to call the accused-appellant mad person and that he was undergoing treatment for his mental ailment. Aslam Hussain Chisti(P.W.5) has also made similar statement and denied suggestion in the cross examination that accused-appellant caught live electric wire and stated that he did not see the accused ever catching live electric wire. In response to a query, this witness stated that he cannot say with certainty that accused-appellant was undergoing treatment of his mental ailment. 16. Mohammad Ibrahim(P.W.10), who has been cited as attesting witness for recovery of scissor vide memo(Exhibit P-11), stated that scissor was recovered from the house of Karimulla, who is father of the accused-appellant. At the time of recovery, Rahimulla was not present. On request of the Public Prosecutor, this witness was declared hostile. He in cross-examination stated that the accused-appellant was half mad and suffering from acute mental disease. He gets fits of madness and sometimes he becomes normal and transacts his work properly, but when he get fits of madness, he loses his mental balance. He was undergoing treatment of his ailment. Shappu Bhai(P.W.11) has also made similar statement and was declared hostile. In cross examination, this witness also stated that accused-appellant was suffering from mental ailment and he was undergoing treatment of Psychiatric Centre. He was undergoing treatment of his ailment. Shappu Bhai(P.W.11) has also made similar statement and was declared hostile. In cross examination, this witness also stated that accused-appellant was suffering from mental ailment and he was undergoing treatment of Psychiatric Centre. It was during that period that once he caught live electric wire. 17. Dr. Hamid Hussain(P.W.12) has proved post mortem report(Exhibit P-14) of the deceased, who sustained six injuries, out of which five injuries were incised wounds. Cause of death of the deceased according to him was syncope(shock) due to excessive hemorrhage caused hyporolamic shock leading to syncope and death because of cutting left bradnial artary and left bradnial vein. Dungar Singh(P.W.13), Investigating Officer proved different stages of investigation. In the cross examination, he stated that he could not say why Riyazuddin(P.W.1) mentioned weapon of offence as knife in the written report(Exhibit P-1). He also admitted that in his investigation it was not proved whether the accused had any pre-plan to murder the deceased and further that the incident took place all of a sudden. 18. The accused-appellant in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. took a specific defence that he was suffering from mental ailment and he was undergoing treatment for the same and he was subjected to such treatment even while in jail. He was innocent person. In order to prove this defence, six witnesses were produced by the accused-appellant. 19. Naved Khan(D.W.1) has stated that he was having a shop of motor binding in the premise of Ram Krishan Temple. An electric wire was passing above the roof of that temple. In August, 2009 itself, the accused-appellant was caught live electric wire. In the process of saving him, his brother also got entangled with live electric wire. Both brothers were found stuck to the electric wire. While accused-appellant was caught live electric wire, but his brother was trying to disengaging Rahimulla. This witness hit brother of Rahimulla by kick to disengage him from the appellant and thereafter, the appellant. He further stated that the appellant was suffering from mental disorder and was undergoing treatment and his mental condition was not good. In cross-examination, he stated that once Rahimulla, the appellant even slapped him. Islam Mohammad(D.W.2), maternal uncle of the accused-appellant stated that the appellant was undergoing treatment for his mental ailment for the last 10-12 years. He further stated that the appellant was suffering from mental disorder and was undergoing treatment and his mental condition was not good. In cross-examination, he stated that once Rahimulla, the appellant even slapped him. Islam Mohammad(D.W.2), maternal uncle of the accused-appellant stated that the appellant was undergoing treatment for his mental ailment for the last 10-12 years. He also accompanied him twice to Mental Hospital, Jaipur where he got electric shocks. Although he did not remember dates when he went with him to Jaipur, but this was about eight years ago. He denied suggestion that the appellant was in fit state of mind and he was making false statement only because of his relations. 20. Rizwan(D.W.3) stated that at 10.30 A.M. on 14.08.2009, while he was passing through the shop of the deceased, he heard deceased Munna Bhai teasing the accused appellant by calling him mad(‘pagal’). He forbade the deceased from doing so, but the deceased did not pay any heed to his advice. Then he (this witness) went to his house. Mohammad Yakub(D.W.4) stated that the accused-appellant was undergoing treatment of his mental ailment since 1995. He and his brother had accompanied him to Jaipur for treatment. They took him to Dr. Solanki and lastly Dr. Solanki examined him in May/June, 2009. He has also received electric shocks twice. This witness produced prescription of treatment of the accused appellant (Exhibit D-6 to D-16). He in cross-examination stated that the accused-appellant received electric shocks in 1996, 1997 and 1998. Prescriptions of the treatment of the appellant, which he produced were of the period 2004. He stated that sometimes the appellant behaved normally, but some other times, his behaviour became quite abnormal. 21. Dr. Pradeep Sharma(P.W.5) stated that he was posted as Professor in Psychiatric Centre, S.M.S. Hospital, Jaiupur on 29.03.2010. The appellant was sent to said centre with Laxman, ASI from District Jail, Tonk. The appellant was admitted in the hospital for observation and after his examination for about ten days, he found that the appellant was suffering from Schizophrenia and was not capable of understanding the court proceedings. In the Medical Board, which examined the appellant also included Dr. Anil Tambi, Associate Professor and Dr. R.K. Punia, Associate Professor, Forensic Medicine Department. Admission card of the appellant was Exhibit D-17 and report of Medical Board was Exhibit D-18. In the Medical Board, which examined the appellant also included Dr. Anil Tambi, Associate Professor and Dr. R.K. Punia, Associate Professor, Forensic Medicine Department. Admission card of the appellant was Exhibit D-17 and report of Medical Board was Exhibit D-18. In cross-examination he stated that attendants of the appellant, i.e. his relatives informed that the appellant was under the treatment of Dr. R.K. Solanki earlier. Documents relating to his treatment are present on record of the case. Such prescriptions covered period from 23.08.1998 to 17.07.2004. It was evident from all the documents that the accused-appellant was suffering from a serious mental ailment. Even though for some intervening time, from 17.07.2004 to 29.03.2000, prescriptions of his treatment were not produced, but in totality what was informed by his relatives, it appears that symptoms of the ailment were present with the accused-appellant. He has stated that a high level of mental standard was required to understand court proceedings and the accused was lacking in that. Dr. R.K. Solanki(D.W.6), Associate Professor, Head of Department cum Superintendent of Psychiatric Centre, S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur has stated that the accused-appellant was under his treatment since he was 18 years old. He was first brought to him on 23.08.1998, thereafter on 13.09.1998, 04.10.1998, 01.08.1998, 04.08.1998, 07.06.1998, 26.07.1998, 06.12.1998, 02.09.2002, 13.09.2002, 02.09.2003, 18.06.2004, 17.07.2004, 29.06.2004, 26.04.2005. All the prescriptions produced on record were his hand written, which were Exhibit D-6 to Exhibit D-16. Appellant was suffering from a serious mental ailment. This witness also produced bed rest ticket of the hospitalization of the appellant from 29.03.2010 in Ward No. 3 Unit No. 3. At that time also, he was suffering from Schizophrenia, which was a serious mental disease. His discharge ticket was also produced vide Exhibit D-22. 22. Evidence produced on record by the prosecution as well as the defence, proceedings of the trial court on different dates, frequent medical examinations of the accused-appellant by Psychiatric Expert, Saadat Hospital, Tonk and Psychiatric Centre attached to S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur even after the incident, under the directions of the trial court, clearly proves the fact that the accused-appellant was suffering from acute Schizophrenia and this mental ailment was active not only prior to incident, but also on the day of incident, which is evident from the fact that a day before the incident, the accused-appellant was caught live electric wire and was rescued by Naved Khan(D.W.1) and others. This ailment remained active even after incident, which is evident from the various documents on record. Section 84 IPC is one of the provisions in Chapter IV IPC, which deals with “general exceptions”. That section provides that 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 burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within the purview of Section 84 lies upon the accused under Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act. When this question is examined in totality of circumstances and the nature of evidence available in the present case, it is evident that accused was indeed suffering from Schizophrenia. 23. The Supreme Court in Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 1563 held that 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 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 and in that case the court would be entitled to acquit the accused on the ground that the general burden of proof resting on the prosecution was not discharged. The burden of proof on the accused to prove insanity is no higher than that rests upon a party to civil proceedings which, in other words, means preponderance of probabilities. The Supreme Court held as under: "The doctrine of burden of proof in the context of the plea of insanity may be stated in the following propositions: (1) The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed the offence with the requisite mens rea; and the burden of proving that always rests on the prosecution from the beginning to the end of the trial. (2) There is a rebuttable presumption that the accused was not insane, when he committed the crime, in the sense laid down by Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code: the accused may rebut it by placing before the court all the relevant evidenceoral, documentary or 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 and in that case the court would be entitled to acquit the accused on the ground that the general burden of proof resting on the prosecution was not discharged." 24. As to crucial point of time for ascertaining the existence of circumstances bringing the case within the purview of Section 84 IPC, the Supreme Court in Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar(supra) further held as under: "When a plea of legal insanity is set up, the court has to consider whether at the time of commission of the offence the accused, by reason of unsoundness of mind, was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law. The crucial point of time for ascertaining the state of mind of the accused is the time when the offence was committed. Whether the accused was in such a state of mind as to be entitled to the benefit of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code can only be established from the circumstances which preceded, attended and followed the crime." 25. Whether the accused was in such a state of mind as to be entitled to the benefit of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code can only be established from the circumstances which preceded, attended and followed the crime." 25. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has stated the legal position regarding the burden of proof in the context of plea of insanity in the following propositions: “(i) The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed the offence with the requisite mens rea; and the burden of proving that always rests upon the prosecution from the beginning to the end of the trial; (ii) There is a rebuttable presumption that the accused was not insane, when he committed the crime, in the sense laid down in Section 84; the accused may rebut it by placing before the Court all the relevant evidence-oral, documentary or circumstantial, but the burden of proof upon him is no higher than that which rests upon a party to civil proceedings, that is, to prove his defence by a preponderance of probability; (iii) 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 and in that case of the Court would be entitled to acquit the accused on the ground that the general burden resting on the prosecution was not discharged.” 26. The Supreme Court in Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 7 SCC 748 while dealing with a question what is paranoid schizophrenia, when it starts, what are its characteristics, in para 10 and 11 of the judgment held as under: “10. What is paranoid schizophrenia, when it starts, what are its characteristics and dangers flowing from this ailment? Paranoid schizophrenia, in the vast majority of cases, starts in the fourth decade and develops insidiously. Suspiciousness is the characteristic symptom of the early stage. Ideas of reference occur, which gradually develops into delusions of persecution. Auditory hallucinations follow, which in the beginning, start as sounds or noises in the ears, but are afterwards changes into abuses or insults. Paranoid schizophrenia, in the vast majority of cases, starts in the fourth decade and develops insidiously. Suspiciousness is the characteristic symptom of the early stage. Ideas of reference occur, which gradually develops into delusions of persecution. Auditory hallucinations follow, which in the beginning, start as sounds or noises in the ears, but are afterwards changes into abuses or insults. Delusions are at first indefinite, but gradually they become fixed and definite, to lead the patient to believe that he is persecuted by some unknown person or some superhuman agency. He believes that his food is being poisoned, some noxious gases are blown into his room, and people are plotting against him to ruin him. Disturbances of general sensation gives rise to hallucinations, which are attributed to the effects of hypnotism, electricity wireless telegraphy or atomic agencies. The patient gets very irritated and excited owing to these painful and disagreeable hallucinations and delusions. Since so many people are against him and are interested in his ruin, he comes to believe that he must be a very important man. The nature of delusions thus may change from prosecutory to the grandiose type. He entertains delusions of grandeur, power and wealth, and generally conducts himself in a haughty and overbearing manner. The patient usually retains his money and orientation and does not show signs of insanity, until the conversations is directed to the particular type of delusion from which he is suffering. When delusions affect his behaviour, he is often a source of danger to himself and to others. (Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology 22nd Edn.) 11. Further, according to Modi, the cause of schizophrenia is still not known but hereditary plays a part. The irritation and excitement are effects of illness. On delusion affecting behaviour of patient, he is source of danger to himself and to others.” 27. The Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Mohinder Singh, (1983) 2 SCC 274 was dealing with a case wherein the accused was examined before as well as after the occurrence by two doctor and was found to be schizophrenic. Evidence of both the doctors corroborated by each other. Abnormal behaviour of the accused therein was also apparent from the evidence on record. The Supreme Court held that acquittal of the accused by the High Court was just and proper. 28. The Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Evidence of both the doctors corroborated by each other. Abnormal behaviour of the accused therein was also apparent from the evidence on record. The Supreme Court held that acquittal of the accused by the High Court was just and proper. 28. The Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Shera Ram alias Vishnu Dutta, (2012) 1 SCC 602 held that thinking of faculty of accused impaired to such an extent that intention/knowledge requisite to constitute an offence cannot be imputed to him, which would absolve him of culpability. It was further held that the respondent therein killed deceased while in state of insanity induced by epileptic fit and, therefore, he was rightly acquitted. The Supreme Court in para 17 of the judgment held as under: “17. To commit a criminal offence, mens rea is generally taken to be an essential element of crime. It is said furiosus nulla voluntuas est. In other words, a person who is suffering from a mental disorder cannot be said to have committed a crime as he does not know what he is doing. For committing a crime, the intention and act both are taken to be the constituents of the crime, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. Every normal and sane human being is expected to possess some degree of reason to be responsible for his/her conduct and acts unless contrary is proved. But a person of unsound mind or a person suffering from mental disorder cannot be said to possess this basic norm of human behavior.” 29. Jharkhand High Court in Saraswati Rani Vs. State of Jharkhand was dealing with a case wherein the accused appellant allegedly committed murder of her son. Plea of insanity with reference to Section 84 IPC was set up by the defence. It was held by the Supreme Court that benefit of Section 84 IPC is available to a person who, at the time when the act was done was incapable of knowing the nature of his/her act or that what he/she was doing was wrong or contrary to law. It was held by the Supreme Court that benefit of Section 84 IPC is available to a person who, at the time when the act was done was incapable of knowing the nature of his/her act or that what he/she was doing was wrong or contrary to law. The implication of this provision is that the offender must be of such mental condition at the time when the act was committed and the fact the he/she 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 accused on the day of incident. In that case, mention was made about mental condition of the accused in the FIR itself and then subsequently, she was admitted to the hospital for treatment and was referred to higher centre for further treatment and remained hospitalied for quite some time. All these aspects were held to be relevant factors while deciding question of her mental condition at the time of incident. 30. The Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat at Jodhpur in Vidhya Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2004 (2) R.C.C. 583 was dealing with a case where the accused-appellant was also suffering with Schizophrenia and was convicted under Section 302 IPC on allegation of murder of her own husband by inflicting multiple injuries with axe. It was held by Division Bench of this Court that the appellant therein proved the existence of circumstances bringing her case within the purview of Section 84 IPC namely (i) furious and violent at the time of committing murder, controlled with difficulty, laboruing under defect of reason; (ii) further developments, clearly reveal that she was a patient of schizophrenia (one of the forms of insanity); (iii) Hospitalisation for treatment continuously for three years, twice sent back to hospital by court after it found her abnormal; (iv) Schizophrenia existed before and after the occurrence, therefore, defence of insanity proved. In view of above discussion, the appellant must be held to have been suffering from disease of Schizophrenia not only before the incident, but also at the time of incident as also subsequent to incident and thus, entitling him to the benefit of exception carved out in Section 84 IPC. 31. In the result, present appeal deserves to succeed and is accordingly allowed. 31. In the result, present appeal deserves to succeed and is accordingly allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 15.09.2012 passed by the trial court is set aside. The accused appellant Zakir @ Rahimulla is acquitted of the charge for offences under Sections 302 IPC. He be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. 32. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant, namely, Zakir @ Rahimulla is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount, before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months, undertaking that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment or on grant of leave, he, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.