JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned amicus curiae and learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. By the impugned judgment dated 20.01.2011, the sole appellant has been convicted for the charge under Section 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Trial Case No. 73 of 2007 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under section 302 of the I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 324 of the I.P.C. vide order of sentence dated 21.01.2011 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court- I at Chaibasa. 3. Fulmani Jatrama, informant is the mother of the deceased, four year old Rajani Jatrama upon whose fardbeyan recorded by A.S.I. Kerobri P.S. at 8.00 Hours on 28.10.2006, the formal F.I.R. being Kiriburu P.S. Case No. 36 of 2006 has been registered for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. As per the prosecution story narrated through the mouth of the informant, on Friday 27.10.2006 at around 4.00- 5.00 in the evening, she alongwith her minor daughter Rajni Jatrama aged four years (deceased) was going towards the house of Gopi Munda for asking some financial help in order to undertake the treatment of her daughter who was not well. As soon as she reached near the house of Gopi Munda and at his courtyard, suddenly the village priest Maita Tarkod (accused) son of late Sunia Tarkod came from behind, armed with a Dabli and tried to snatch away her daughter; in the process the informant and her mother-in-law Balema Jatrama aged about 60 years got injured in the bottom of her right leg and on the left palm respectively. The accused managed to snatch away her daughter and killed her in a manner that her neck was completely separated. Based upon these allegations and upon institution of the formal F.I.R., investigation was started by the police. 4. Upon conclusion whereof the sole accused was chargesheeted for the offence under Section 302/324 of the Indian Penal Code vide chargesheet no. 43 of 2006 dated 31.12.2006. After taking of the cognizance, the case was committed to the court of sessions where charges were framed under Section 302 and 324 of the I.P.C. against the sole accused. The charges were read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Trial commenced thereafter. 5. After taking of the cognizance, the case was committed to the court of sessions where charges were framed under Section 302 and 324 of the I.P.C. against the sole accused. The charges were read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Trial commenced thereafter. 5. Prosecution adduced eleven witnesses to support its case namely P.W. 1 Balema Jatrama is the grandmother of the deceased child and eye-witness, P.W. 2 Mukta Honhaga is a house wife to whose house the informant was going to seek financial help, P.W. 3 Birendra Munda is a co-villager who is a hearsay witness and had heard about the incidence lateron, P.W. 4 Gopi Munda and P.W. 5 Prakash Tiria were declared hostile by the prosecution but were cross-examined on behalf of the State, P.W. 6 is the informant Fulmani Jatrama and an eye-witness being the mother of the deceased, P.W. 7 Gono Honhaga is another co-villager who has also turned hostile, P.W. 8 Dr. Munna Kumar is the Medical Officer who has proved the injury reports of P.W. 1 and P.W. 6. P.W. 9 Dr. Sukanta Sheet is the Medical Officer who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the informant''s daughter and has proved the postmortem report. P.W. 10 Sahdeo Prasad is the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station, who has exhibited the seizure list describing the sharp cutting weapon Dabli as Exhibit- 5, blood stained soil as Exhibit- 6, the letter dated 17.11.2006 by which the blood stained soil and Dabli were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory as Exhibit- 6, Exhibit- 7 is the confessional statement of the accused Maita Tarkod recorded in his writing and signature on which the accused has given his thumb impression. According to this witness the Dabli was handed over by the accused consequent upon his confession as a weapon of offence. P.W. 11 Niranjan Baram is the Investigating Officer who has exhibited the fardbeyan as Exhibit- 8, the formal F.I.R. as Exhibit- 9, signature of Sub-Inspector Alakhdeo Singh on the fardbeyan as Exhibit- 8/1, the inquest report as Exhibit- 10. As such, the prosecution had adduced documentary evidence up to Exhibit- 12 all without objection which are enumerated hereunder: "Exhibit 1- Signature of Gopi Munda on seizure list. As such, the prosecution had adduced documentary evidence up to Exhibit- 12 all without objection which are enumerated hereunder: "Exhibit 1- Signature of Gopi Munda on seizure list. Exhibit- 1/1- Signature of Gopi Munda on arrest Memo Exhibit 1/2- Signature of Gopi Munda on Inquest Report Exhibit 2- Injury report of Fulmani Jatarma Exhibit 2/1- Injury report of Balema Jatarma Exhibit 3- P.M. Report of Rajini Jatarma Exhibit 4- Seizure list of dabli Exhibit 5- Seizure list of blooded dry soil Exhibit 6- Carbon copy of requisition for forensic examination Exhibit 7- Confessional statement of accused Maita Tarkot Exhibit 8- Fardbeyan Exhibit 9- Formal F.I.R. Exhibit 8/1- Endorsement on fardbeyan Exhibit 10- Carbon copy of Inquest report Exhibit 11- F.S.L. Report bearing no. 727/06 dated 09.06.08 Exhibit 12- Attested copy of F.S.L. Report bearing no. 727/06 dated 27.02.2008". The learned trial court found the prosecution story true and proved beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt primarily on the basis of the testimony of the informant P.W. 6, the mother of the deceased minor child and the grand mother P.W. 1, who had also sustained injuries on her palm while the girl was being snatched away from the lap of P.W. 6 by the accused. The learned trial court has found the statement of these witnesses corroborated by the evidence of the Medical Officer P.W. 9 who has proved the post-mortem report containing the ante mortem injuries found on the deceased. In his opinion injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death as a result of shock due to injury no. 1 caused by sharp cutting object. The post-mortem was conducted on 29.10.2006 and as per the opinion of the doctor, time since death was within 48 hours. The doctor has found injury no. 1 as "incised wound on the neck causing complete separation from body with blood clot on the wound and injury no. 2 as abrasion right knee 1" x 1" in front". P.W. 9 Dr. Munna Kumar in his deposition has proved the injury report as Exhibit- 2 and 2/1 on the body of P.W. 6 informant and P.W. 1 grand mother of the deceased child. They are as under: " Injury found on Fulmani Jatrama (P.W. 6): (i) Lascerated wound (contused) size 5 x 2 x 1 cm. right foot. P.W. 9 Dr. Munna Kumar in his deposition has proved the injury report as Exhibit- 2 and 2/1 on the body of P.W. 6 informant and P.W. 1 grand mother of the deceased child. They are as under: " Injury found on Fulmani Jatrama (P.W. 6): (i) Lascerated wound (contused) size 5 x 2 x 1 cm. right foot. Injury found on Balema Jatrama (P.W. 1): CLW 1 x 1/2 x 1/2 cm over left palm Third fourth and fifth finger base (left hand)" This medical witness has opined the nature of injury as simple but at the same time, he has stated that the type of weapon is Dabli. On the basis of the evidence on record, conviction has been recorded upon the sole accused/appellant herein. 6. Learned amicus curiae representing the appellant has laboured to create a dent in the entire prosecution story and placed the entire evidence before this court in support of the challenge to the impugned judgment. The sheet anchor of the case is that the manner in which the assault has been inflicted reflects an unsound mind of the accused. P.W. 3 in his statement during trial has made categorical reference to the previous mental instability of the accused at paragraph- 7 and 8. During the course of trial also the accused was sent for treatment to Ranchi Institute of Neuro-Psychiatry & Allied Sciences (RINPAS) as evident from the order dated 20.02.2010. It is pertinent to mention here that thereafter, he returned and his statement has been recorded under Section 313 CrPC as well after conclusion of the prosecution evidence on 20.11.2010. The entire material evidence had been put to him while recording his statement under Section 313 CrPC though he has not offered any explanation on his defence. Learned amicus curiae has also referred to the testimony of P.W. 2 in particular paragraph- 10 that the informant along with her daughter were sitting in her house immediately where after the accused had come to the place. It is submitted that the statement read in conjuction with the statment of the informant made in her fardbeyan and also during trial, the manner of occurrence is contradicted by the testimony of P.W. 2 as noted above. It is submitted that the statement read in conjuction with the statment of the informant made in her fardbeyan and also during trial, the manner of occurrence is contradicted by the testimony of P.W. 2 as noted above. P.W. 6 informant had described the act committed by the accused in a flash while they were standing or moving and that too near the courtyard of the person Gopi Munda, husband of P.W. 2 where she had gone to seek financial help. There is no motive attached to the crime. It is inexplicable as to why the accused should bear an intention to inflict such a brutal injury on a minor child of 3-4 years who does not have any grudge or enmity with him. The informant has also not alleged any previous enmity or dispute with the accused. On these submissions learned amicus curiae has sought interference in the judgment of conviction. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor forcefully supported the findings recorded by the learned trial court. He submits that the present matter is an open and shut case. The mother of the deceased, also an injured witness, P.W. 6 is the eye-witness whose testimony is unimpeachable. The grand mother of the deceased child P.W. 1, also an injured witness, was an eye-witness to the occurrence. The assault has been made in a sudden and grotesque manner by the accused with a sharp cutting weapon (dabli) resulting in complete separation of the head from the torso. This injury has been found during autopsy on the dead body of the minor girl by P.W. 9 who has proved the postmortem report as Exhibit- 3. There are no inconsistencies or contradictions in the statement of the vital prosecution witness even on comparison with the testimony of P.W. 2 on which reliance has been placed by the learned amicus curiae. There is no error in the impugned judgment, as such, the appeal being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have considered the submissions of the learned amicus curiae and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and have gone through the entire evidence on record and also perused the impugned judgment. The prosecution case set up by the informant is short and simple. 8. We have considered the submissions of the learned amicus curiae and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and have gone through the entire evidence on record and also perused the impugned judgment. The prosecution case set up by the informant is short and simple. The accused managed to snatch away the minor child from the lap of her mother P.W. 6 and in the process inflicted injuries on the foot of right leg of the informant as also on the left palm of the grandmother of the child P.W. 1. The minor child of the informant was snatched from her mother''s lap and he succeeded in severing the head of the child from the torso by means of a sharp cutting weapon dabli. This story has been duly proved by P.W. 6 without any embelishments or inconsistencies during trial and has also been supported by P.W. 1, the grandmother who was also present at the place of occurrence and had suffered the injuries caused by the appellant herein. The event has been narrated in a natural manner by these two witnesses. The defence has not been able to discredit their testimony in course of cross-examination. P.W. 2 who is the wife of Gopi Munda to whose house the informant had gone along with the child to seek financial help has also supported the prosecution story. She has stated in her deposition that the informant had come to her house during the evening at around 4.00 P.M. on Friday asking for some money when this accused armed with a dabli came and snatched away the minor child from the lap of the informant and in a flash cut her neck completely separating it from the rest of the body. We do not find any such major contradiction in her statement as referred to by learned amicus curiae at paragraph- 10 in the cross-examination. The place of occurrence as described by the informant was also at the courtyard of the husband of P.W. 2 where she had gone to ask financial help. We find from the evidence of the Investigating Officer that the weapon of assault dabli was recovered at the instance of the accused and in pursuance of his confessional statement which has been marked as Exhibit- 7. Such discovery of fact therefore becomes admissible in the light of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. We find from the evidence of the Investigating Officer that the weapon of assault dabli was recovered at the instance of the accused and in pursuance of his confessional statement which has been marked as Exhibit- 7. Such discovery of fact therefore becomes admissible in the light of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The Medical Officer P.W. 9 who conducted the autopsy on the dead body found the following injuries on body of the deceased child: "Rigor Mortis partially present upper limb lower limb- full (1) External Injury:- (i) Incised wound on the neck causing complete separation from body with blood clots on the wound (2) Abrasion right knee 1" x 1" on front On dissection meninges pale Heart empty, lungs pale, stomach contains semi digested food particles, other vesra N.A.D. Cause of death: Haemorrhage and shock due to injury no. 1 due to caused by sharp cutting object. Time since death within 48 hours. This post mortem report is in my pen and bears my signature marked Ext- 3." A mere perusal of the external injuries found during post-mortem show that there was complete separation of the neck from the body with blood clots on the wound injury no. 1 which led to haemorrhage and shock which was the cause of death. It was caused by a sharp cutting object and the time elapsed since death was within 48 hours. The incidence is of 27.10.2006 at around 4.00-5.00 P.M. in the evening and the post-mortem was conducted on 29.10.2006 at 8.10 A.M. There is complete corroboration of the prosecution case through the mouth of the medical evidence which we do not have any reason to doubt. Though, learned amicus curiae has tried to make out a case of unsoundness of mind to plead exception under section 84 of the Indian Penal Code but there is no evidence on record to show that the accused suffered from such unsoundness of mind at the time of occurrence, either prior to or thereafter, also, which rendered him incapable to know the nature of the act or that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law. A mere suggestion by P.W. 3 or his treatment during trial at RINPAS are not sufficient to accord the benefit of this exception of legal insanity in the light of the well settled M'' Naghten''s Principle. A mere suggestion by P.W. 3 or his treatment during trial at RINPAS are not sufficient to accord the benefit of this exception of legal insanity in the light of the well settled M'' Naghten''s Principle. Reliance is placed upon the following judgments: (1) Dahyabhai Chhanganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat, (1964) AIR SC 1563 (2) Francis alias Ponnan versus State of Kerala & Bhagwanta versus State of Maharashtra, (1975) 3 SCC 825 (3) Elavarasan vs. State Represented By Inspector Of Police, (2011) 7 SCC 110 . 9. As such, we do not find any holes in the prosecution story which could create a doubt in favor of the accused/appellant. Upon reappreciation of the evidence on record we do not find any error in law or misappreciation of evidence on the part of the learned trial court which deserves interference in the appeal. The impunged judgment is affirmed, appeal is dismissed. 10. Let the lower court record be sent along with a copy of this judgment to the court concerned, at once for necessary action. 11. While parting, this Court records its appreciation to the valuable assistance accorded by the learned Amicus Curiae during hearing of this case. The Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee shall bear the fee/legal admissible remuneration of the learned Amicus Curiae on production of a copy of this judgment along with an application within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt thereof.