JUDGMENT : M. S. SONAK, J. 1. Heard Mr. R. D. Hajare, learned Counsel appointed under the Legal Aid Scheme for the appellant and Mr. T.A. Mirza learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.11.2017 made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Chandrapur in Sessions Case No.84/2014 convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentencing him accordingly. 3. The prosecution version is that, on 19.04.2014 between 9.30 p.m. and 10.30 p.m., the appellant assaulted his two brothers Chandu and Gosai with an axe when they were sleeping on the terrace of the house along with several others. As a result of the assault, Chandu sustained grievous injuries to his head and died of the same. Gosai also sustained grievous injuries but survived. The appellant with the same axe inflicted injuries on himself and ultimately proceeded to the Police Station and surrendered. 4. Mr. Hajare, learned Counsel for the appellant appointed under the Legal Aid Scheme, based on the evidence on record accepted that the injuries sustained by Chandu were homicidal. He also did not seriously dispute that the appellant was the author of the injuries inflicted on his two brothers Chandu and Gosai. He, however, submitted that this was a fit case where the appellant was entitled to the protection under Section 84 I.P.C. because there is ample evidence on record that establishes that the appellant, by reason unsoundness of mind, was incapable of knowing the nature of his act at the time of doing it. He pointed out the evidence on record on this aspect and even relied on certain decisions in support of his contention. He submitted that even though, the burden of proving the people of insanity may be on the accused, such burden has to be discharged not beyond a reasonable doubt, but only by applying the standards of a preponderance of probabilities. He submits that since this aspect has not been properly appreciated by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the appellant is entitled to be acquitted of the charges leveled against him. 5. Mr. He submits that since this aspect has not been properly appreciated by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the appellant is entitled to be acquitted of the charges leveled against him. 5. Mr. Hajare, learned Counsel for the appellant also submitted that the provisions of Chapter - XXV of the Criminal Procedure Code have not been properly followed in this matter and this is also a reason for interfering with the impugned judgment and order. 6. Mr. T. A. Mirza, learned Additional Public Prosecutor defended the impugned judgment and order based on the reasoning reflected therein. He submitted that the burden of proving the ingredients of Section 84 of I.P.C. was squarely on the appellant and this burden, the appellant, has failed to discharge. He submits that from the conduct of the appellant, particularly the conduct by which he inflicted injuries on himself and surrendered to the Police Station, it is more than evident that the appellant was aware of what he was doing. He submitted that this was sufficient to negate the plea of insanity as contemplated by Section 84 of the I.P.C. He submitted that the appellant, to succeed had to establish legal and not mere medical insanity, which the appellant has miserably failed. He submits that the two Doctors that were examined in this matter also do not support the plea of legal insanity. He, therefore, submits that this appeal may be dismissed. 7. The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 8. In this case, even though, the learned Counsel for the appellant has not challenged the findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the appellant was beyond a reasonable doubt, the author of the injuries sustained by his brother Chandu and Gosai, we have ourselves perused through the evidence on record, both oral as well as documentary and satisfied ourselves that the prosecution has indeed established this aspect beyond a reasonable doubt. 9. 9. The prosecution, in this case, examined Nita Chaudhary (PW-1)-the wife of deceased Chandu, Gosai (PW-6)-the appellant’s brother whom the appellant assaulted with the same Axe after inflicting fatal injuries on Chandu, Sagar (PW-8) -the son of Chandu, who was sleeping next to Chandu, when appellant assaulted him with the axe and the testimonies of these witnesses are more than sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that it was the appellant who was the author of the injuries sustained by deceased Chandu and Gosai. 10. Even Panchafulabai (DW-1)-the appellant’s wife deposed that on the fateful night she heard some noise from the terrace and when she woke up and came out of her room, she saw the appellant stepping down from staircase having an axe in his hand. She deposed that the appellant then inflicted axe blows to his head and caused injuries to himself. There is medical evidence as well as forensic evidence to link the Appellant with the assaults on Chandu and Gosai. Therefore, even we are quite satisfied that the appellant was the author of the injuries sustained by his brothers Chandu and Gosai on the fateful night of 19.04.2014. 11. The only question that remains for determination, therefore, is whether the appellant, at the time of the commission of the aforesaid acts of assault, by reason of unsoundness of mind, was incapable of knowing the nature of his act or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law. In short, therefore, the only question which falls for serious determination is whether the appellant, based on the evidence on record, has made good the plea of insanity as contemplated by Section 84 of the I.P.C. 12. Since, Section 84 of I.P.C. constitutes a defence to a criminal charge, the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within the purview of Section 84 I.P.C. lies upon the accused having regard to the provisions of Section 105 of the Evidence Act, 1872. However, it is quite well settled that the accused is not required to discharge this burden beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden in such case is not higher than that which is raised upon a party in civil proceedings and such burden can be discharged by applying the standard of preponderance of probabilities. 13. In Devidas Loka Rathod Vs. However, it is quite well settled that the accused is not required to discharge this burden beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden in such case is not higher than that which is raised upon a party in civil proceedings and such burden can be discharged by applying the standard of preponderance of probabilities. 13. In Devidas Loka Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2018) 7 SCC 718 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court by reference to its earlier decision in Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar Vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1964 SC 1563 has held that the law undoubtedly presumes that every person committing an offence is sane and liable for his acts, though in specified circumstances such presumption may be rebuttable. Section 84 of the I.P.C. carves out an exception, that an act will not be an offence, if done by a person, who at the time of doing the same, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or what he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law. But this onus on the accused, under Section 105 of the Evidence Act is not as stringent as on the prosecution to be established beyond all reasonable doubts. The accused has only to establish his defence on a preponderance of probability, after which the onus shall shift on the prosecution to establish the inapplicability of the exception. 14. But, it is not every and any plea of unsoundness of mind that will suffice. The standard of test to be applied shall be of legal insanity and not medical insanity. Further, the crucial point of time for considering the defence plea of unsoundness of mind has to be about the mental state of the accused at the time the offence was committed collated from evidence of conduct that preceded, attended, and followed the crime. If from the materials placed on record, reasonable doubt is created in the mind of the Court about the mental condition of the accused at the time of occurrence, he shall be entitled to the benefit of the reasonable doubt and consequent acquittal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court relied on Vijayee Singh vs. State of U.P., (1990) 3 SCC 190 in support of the last proposition. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court relied on Vijayee Singh vs. State of U.P., (1990) 3 SCC 190 in support of the last proposition. 15. In Dahyabhai Thakkar (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has explained the doctrine of the burden of proof in the context of the plea of insanity at paragraph 7, (AIR Page 1568) in the following terms. “(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 Penal Code: 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 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.” 16. The evidence on record, in this case, will have to be, therefore, evaluated applying the aforesaid principles explained in Devidas Rathod (supra) and Dahyabhai Thakkar (supra) to determine whether the appellant, in this case, has succeeded in making good his plea of insanity under Section 84 of the I.P.C. or at least succeeded in creating reasonable doubt about his mental condition at the time of the occurrence to be entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt and consequent acquittal in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijayee Singh (supra). 17. Nita (PW-1) - wife of deceased Chandu, deposed to that part of the incident which she witnessed and stated that she saw and heard the appellant saying “these two have joined hands, I will kill both of them”. 17. Nita (PW-1) - wife of deceased Chandu, deposed to that part of the incident which she witnessed and stated that she saw and heard the appellant saying “these two have joined hands, I will kill both of them”. She also deposed that the appellant came down from the terrace and started hitting his head with the axe. In the cross-examination, Nita denied that in the year 2009, the appellant’s wife and his two brothers i.e. deceased Chandu and Gosai used to take the appellant to Chandrapur to Dr. Shivji for psychiatric treatment or that the appellant used to say that he hears strange sounds and just leave the home without any intimation. She denied that Chandu and Gosai used to search the appellant and bring him home or that every Pornima would take him to persons conducting black magic. 18. Nita admitted that there were no specific disputes or altercation between the appellant and Chandu and Gosai, but stated that the appellant used to quarrel intermittently. Nita admitted that on the date of the incident, no quarrel or altercation are taken place with the appellant, but deposed that 8 days before the incident, a quarrel had taken place. Nita claimed that she had stated this fact to the police when they recorded her statement but was unable to explain why the police has failed to record the same. Finally, she denied the suggestion that the appellant was afflicted by a mental disorder and it is due to this fact that he attacked Chandu and himself. 19. Gosai (PW-6) - the appellant’s brother whom he assaulted with the same axe with which he killed Chandu deposed that the appellant and Chandu used to quarrel with each other under the influence of liquor and it is he who would counsel both his brothers time and again. He also stated that he has informed the Tahsildar and Police about quarrels between the appellant and Chandu under the influence of liquor, but he was unable to explain why this was not recorded in his statement. This witness was confronted with his statement in which he has clearly stated that there were no disputes between the brothers. Gosai, however, stated that this was not correct. Gosai also denied the suggestion that the appellant was behaving like a lunatic since 2009. This witness was confronted with his statement in which he has clearly stated that there were no disputes between the brothers. Gosai, however, stated that this was not correct. Gosai also denied the suggestion that the appellant was behaving like a lunatic since 2009. He denied that he or the wife of the appellant used to take the appellant to the hospital of Dr. Shivji - Psychiatric or that the appellant was taken for such treatment till 24.02.2012 or even thereafter. 20. Gosai in his further cross-examination denied having stated in his statement to the Tahsildar that the appellant was having a mental disorder or was a lunatic. The portion where Gosai had stated so, was read over to him but he stated that this was not correct. Finally, Gosai denied the suggestion about the appellant being a lunatic and assaulting his brother as well as himself in the fit of such lunacy. 21. At this stage, it is also necessary to refer to the statement given by Gosai under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Though this statement is styled as “Dying Declaration”, this statement cannot be considered as a dying declaration because ultimately Gosai did not succumb to the injuries sustained by him. In his statement, Gosai clearly stated that there were no quarrels between the brothers and that the appellant was a mental case. When Gosai was confronted with this statement in cross-examination, he was unable to offer any cogent explanation as to why at the earliest instant, he had said these things in his so-called dying declaration or rather the statement under Section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code. 22. Sagar (PW-8) - son of deceased Chandu, who was sleeping right next to Chandu when the appellant assaulted Chandu with an axe deposed to the incident. In his cross-examination, he admitted that their relations with the appellant and his family were cordial. He claimed that he did not know as to whether the people from the village used to call the appellant insane. 23. Uma (PW-9) - the wife of Gosai (PW-6) deposed to the incident that took place on their terrace on 19.04.2014 between 9.30 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. In her cross-examination, she admitted that the appellant was taken to the hospital of Dr. Shivji in the year 2009 as he was having a mental problem. 23. Uma (PW-9) - the wife of Gosai (PW-6) deposed to the incident that took place on their terrace on 19.04.2014 between 9.30 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. In her cross-examination, she admitted that the appellant was taken to the hospital of Dr. Shivji in the year 2009 as he was having a mental problem. She also admitted that the appellant assaulted himself on his head with the axe and went away. 24. Now, before coming to the medical evidence or the defense evidence, we must say that even the initial reaction of the close relations of deceased Chandu and Gosai was that there was some mental problem with the appellant and further, that the relationship between the brothers was quite cordial. This is evident from the statements given by these witnesses soon after the incident. However, in the course of their deposition in the Court, these witnesses tried to deny that there was any mental problem with the appellant or that the relationship among the brothers was quite cordial. The contradictions and omissions were, therefore, duly marked after confronting the Investigation Officer - Dhanpal (PW-12) with the same. 25. Uma (PW-9) expressly admitted that the appellant was taken to the hospital of Dr. Shivji in the year 2009 as he was having a mental problem. Sagar (PW-8) expressly admitted that the relations between the family members and the appellant were quite cordial. Gosai (PW-6) attempted to make improvements but was unable to explain why the matters which he was now deposing were not stated in the statement recorded by the police or by the Tahsildar. He was also unable to explain why the statement before the police and the Tahsildar referred to the mental condition of the appellant and the absence of any quarrel between the brothers. Thus, based on the evidence of relatives of Chandu and Gosai, it can be said that there were some issues of mental disorders with which the appellant was affected, and further, the relations between the brothers were quite cordial. 26. The prosecution, in this case, examined Dr. Lahu Kudmethe (PW-10) since he conducted the postmortem of Chandu, examined the injuries sustained by the Gosai as well as the appellant. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he cannot say whether a person who was having mental disorders can inflict injuries with the axe to himself. 26. The prosecution, in this case, examined Dr. Lahu Kudmethe (PW-10) since he conducted the postmortem of Chandu, examined the injuries sustained by the Gosai as well as the appellant. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he cannot say whether a person who was having mental disorders can inflict injuries with the axe to himself. This was in the context of injuries sustained by the appellant on himself with the very axe with which he killed Chandu and injured Gosai. 27. The prosecution also examined Dr. Sachi Bang (PW-2) - a Psychiatrist mainly in the context of determining whether the appellant was fit to stand trial. P.W.-2 deposed that the appellant was admitted to the hospital for about 12 days and his behavior was observed. She deposed that the medical history revealed that the appellant was suffering from mental illness since 2009 as he reported to the private hospital. She deposed that the current complaint of the appellant was headache, restlessness, sleep disturbances, and mild depression. However, she found that the appellant was well oriented and well behaved, co-operative, sound mind though he was restless most of the time and there was mild depressive cognition. She deposed that his social judgment was intact. She verified the contents of her report at Exh.31. 28. Dr. Sachi (PW-2) was cross-examined and she admitted that the treatment of the appellant was continued even after the appellant was in jail and since 09.05.2014 and it was related to mental illness. She admitted that the documents issued by the private hospital of Dr. Shivji show that the appellant was taking treatment in respect of mental illness and schizophrenia. She deposed that the appellant was previously suffering from schizophrenia but was now OK though he was having some mild depression. She accepted the suggestion that the patient with schizophrenia can attack others or get himself injured. She also admitted that schizophrenia can be reduced and can turn into a mild depression in some patients. 29. In the Psychiatric Assessment Report (Exh.31) there is a reference to the appellant suffering from mental illness since 2009, characterized by fearfulness, hearing unreal voices, and wandering away from home. She also admitted that schizophrenia can be reduced and can turn into a mild depression in some patients. 29. In the Psychiatric Assessment Report (Exh.31) there is a reference to the appellant suffering from mental illness since 2009, characterized by fearfulness, hearing unreal voices, and wandering away from home. The report states that the appellant during his ward stay, was treated with the following medications and he showed improvement overtime on this treatment : T. Olanzapine 5 mg/day T. Escitalopram 10 mg/day T. Lorazepam 1 mg/day T. Clonazepam 0.5 mg/day 30. The Psychiatric Assessment Report (Exh.31) concludes the following : 1. The above named patient, Mr. Rajendra Chaudhary, suffers from Schizophrenia, currently in remission, with mild depressive episode with somatic symptoms (ICD-10) 2. He is of Sound mind at present and fit to undergo trial, in my opinion. 3. Currently, patient has to be maintained on medications with regular follow-ups to the Psychiatry OPD in my opinion. 31. Thus, even the prosecution witness Dr. Sachi Bang (PW-2) accepts that the appellant has a history of mental illness since 2009 that was characterized by fearfulness, hearing unreal voices, and wandering away from home, for which he was taking medical treatment. The Psychiatric Assessment Report referred to the medications that were given to the appellant and concludes that the appellant suffers from Schizophrenia, currently in remission, with a mild depressive episode with somatic symptoms. PW-2 admitted that Schizophrenia can cause the patient to attack others or injure themselves. 32. By way of defence, Panchafulabai (DW-1) - the wife of the appellant, and Dr. Imran Shivji (DW-2) deposed in this matter inter alia on the issue of the appellant’s insanity plea. 33. Panchafulabai (DW-1) firstly deposed that the brothers and their families were having a cordial relationship. She deposed that the appellant used to earlier behave well until he turn insane. She deposed that the appellant was used to murmuring that the people are coming to kill him or that police are coming to catch him. She deposed that they took the appellant to Dr. Shivji Hospital at Chandrapur. She deposed that even Gosai had accompanied them to this hospital. She deposed that the appellant was admitted to this hospital for treatment. She deposed that the treatment continued about 1 ½ years. She deposed that they took the appellant to Dr. Shivji Hospital at Chandrapur. She deposed that even Gosai had accompanied them to this hospital. She deposed that the appellant was admitted to this hospital for treatment. She deposed that the treatment continued about 1 ½ years. She deposed that on the date of the incident, the appellant complained that he was shivering and required her to provide a blanket. She deposed that she provided two blankets. She deposed that after she heard some noise on the terrace, she came out of her room and noticed that the appellant stepped down from the staircase with an axe to his hand. She deposed that the appellant inflicted axe blows to his head and caused injuries and then ran away. 34. In her cross-examination Panchafulabai (DW-1) admitted that the appellant used to drink liquor, but denied that there was any quarrel between the appellant and deceased Chandu. She denied the vague suggestion about property disputes. She denied the suggestion put to her that her statements in the chief examination were false. Panchafulabai (DW-1) specifically produced the medical case papers concerning the appellant, which includes several reports, prescriptions, medical bills, etc. concerning the medical treatment of the appellant. There were no challenges to all these and the perusal of the same suggests that from the year 2009, the appellant was taking medical treatment from a Psychiatrist and Neuro Psychiatrist concerning his medical condition. This documentary evidence refers to the line of treatment and medication that the appellant was taking from the year 2009 for his medical condition. 35. Dr. Imran Shivji (DW-2) also deposed in this matter. He stated that the appellant was brought to his hospital on 30.07.2009 by his brother-in-law and nephew, complaining that he was hearing voices of police wireless or that police would arrest him or that people would attack and kill him due to which he was not sleeping at night and he was even walking into the forest. DW-2 deposed about the history of convulsion since last 10 years of approximately three epileptic episodes per year. He deposed that the appellant was treated with anti-epileptic drugs, neuroleptic drugs, and after he was recovered, he was discharged. DW-2 deposed to the various prescriptions E.E.G. Report, C.T. Scan Report, Discharge Report concerning the appellant. DW-2 deposed about the history of convulsion since last 10 years of approximately three epileptic episodes per year. He deposed that the appellant was treated with anti-epileptic drugs, neuroleptic drugs, and after he was recovered, he was discharged. DW-2 deposed to the various prescriptions E.E.G. Report, C.T. Scan Report, Discharge Report concerning the appellant. DW-2 also deposed that the appellant visited his hospital even thereafter for treatment, which has evident from the various prescriptions that were put to him. He deposed that even as of 2012, he treated the appellant because he was complaining of hearing voices of police wireless, etc. 36. Dr. Shivji deposed that he was appointed as a psychiatrist by the Government on an honorary basis and he visited the jail once in 15 days. He deposed that the appellant was under his supervision from 09.05.2014 to 19.08.2016 and during this period he has examined and treated him about 18 times. He also deposed that the appellant thereafter did not follow the treatment. He deposed that the appellant was being treated for schizophrenic disorder and he confirmed that the prisoner in the docket is indeed the appellant, who he used to treat. In his cross-examination, DW-2 admitted that the medicines prescribed by him can also be prescribed to a patient, who drinks heavily. DW-2 denied the suggestion that the appellant was not suffering from any psychic problem but was only a heavy drinker. 37. Now, based on the medical evidence on record, including in particular the evidence of Dr. Sachi Bang (PW-2) and Dr. Imran Shivji (DW-2), we think that the case has been made out by the appellant that he was suffering from legal insanity at the time when he inflicted the axe injuries on his brothers Chandu and Gosai. There is ample evidence on record that the appellant was taking treatment for a mental disorder or schizophrenia right from the year 2009. His mental disorder involved inter alia hearing of voices that people or police are coming to catch him or kill him. There were instances of epileptic episodes, there were instances of the appellant wandering in the forest. There is medical evidence about the line of treatment and medication that the appellant was taking. 38. His mental disorder involved inter alia hearing of voices that people or police are coming to catch him or kill him. There were instances of epileptic episodes, there were instances of the appellant wandering in the forest. There is medical evidence about the line of treatment and medication that the appellant was taking. 38. All the above pieces of evidence are to be considered with the evidence that there were no disputes or serious quarrels between the brothers over any issues and yet the appellant on the fateful night of 19.04.2014, assaulted his two brothers who were sleeping on the terrace along with several others with an axe. The appellant soon thereafter neither tried to conceal the axe nor flee from justice. He even assaulted himself with the same axe and it is the prosecution case that the appellant then walked to the police station and surrendered himself to the police. The evidence of the relatives as also the defence evidence of Panchafulabai (DW-1) also establishes at least by a preponderance of probabilities that, the appellant was suffering from mental disorder i.e. schizophrenia and therefore, the inference can legitimately be drawn that the appellant was, on account of unsoundness of his mind, incapable of knowing the nature of his act or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. 39. In this case, simply because the appellant injured himself or surrendered to the police soon after the incident, it cannot be concluded that the appellant was aware of what he was doing and therefore, the plea of insanity was not available to the appellant. There is evidence that even after the incident, the appellant was taking treatment from the Psychiatrist and was on medication. There is overwhelming evidence that the appellant was under treatment for almost 4 to 5 years before the date of the occurrence and was taking treatment for mental disorder/schizophrenia. The prosecution has been unable to establish any motive. The attempt to make out some cases of property disputes between the brothers has failed. There is no clinching evidence on this aspect. Rather, the prosecution witnesses suggest that there were no disputes or altercations between the brothers and the relations were quite cordial. 40. The appellant, in this case, has to only prove his defence by applying the standard of preponderance of probabilities and not beyond all reasonable doubts. There is no clinching evidence on this aspect. Rather, the prosecution witnesses suggest that there were no disputes or altercations between the brothers and the relations were quite cordial. 40. The appellant, in this case, has to only prove his defence by applying the standard of preponderance of probabilities and not beyond all reasonable doubts. Applying this test, we think that the appellant, in this case, has at least succeeded in creating reasonable doubt about his mental condition at the time of the occurrence and therefore, the appellant, in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Devidas Rathod(supra) and Vijayee Singh (supra)would be entitled to the benefit of the reasonable doubt and consequent acquittal. 41. This is a case, where even the prosecution witnesses at the earliest opportunity accepted that the appellant was suffering from a mental disorder or that there were no serious disputes or quarrels between the brothers inter se. In the course of evidence, these prosecution witnesses tried to depose to the contrary, but not with much success. The medical evidence produced by the prosecution also, to a great extent, supports the appellant’s defence by applying the standard of preponderance of probabilities. The Psychiatric Assessment Report deposed to by PW-2 at the highest suggests that the appellant at the time of issuance of this certificate on 20.12.2016 was fit to undergo trial. This report certainly does not say that the appellant was not legally insane at the time of the occurrence. Rather this very certificate concludes that the appellant suffers from schizophrenia with mild depressive episodes and somatic symptoms. The certificate speaks about the medical treatment and the effect which the same has had on the appellant’s mental condition. Now, this certificate has to be considered along with certain admissions given by PW-2 and most importantly the evidence of Dr. Shivji (DW-2). All these material, if cumulatively considered and evaluated, does create a doubt about the mental condition of the appellant at the time he assaulted his two brothers without their being any provocation or apparent cause on the night of 19.04.2014. 42. In Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale vs State Of Maharashtra reported in (2002) 7 SCC 748 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court was concerned with a case of a quarrel between the accused and his wife. 42. In Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale vs State Of Maharashtra reported in (2002) 7 SCC 748 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court was concerned with a case of a quarrel between the accused and his wife. Ultimately, while the wife was washing clothes in the bathroom, the accused hit her with a grinding stone on her head. The learned Sessions Court and learned High Court convicted the accused of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The Hon’ble Supreme Court on consideration of the totality of the circumstances accepted the case of the accused that he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and as a result, was incapable of knowing the nature of the act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court granted the accused the benefit of Section 84 of I.P.C. by rejecting the contention of the State that this was not a case of insanity, but rather, the accused acted on an account of extreme anger, which is different and distinct from legal insanity. 43. The Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that there was a history of psychiatric illness in the family of the accused. The Hon’ble Supreme Court then discussed what is paranoid schizophrenia by referring to Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (22nd Edn.) by observing that “10.………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. 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.” 44. The Hon’ble Supreme Court thereafter, held that the state of mind of the accused at the time of the commission of offence is to be ordinarily inferred from the circumstances. Further, the nature of burden of proof on the accused is no higher than that which rests upon a party to civil proceedings. Applying these principles, the Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that the accused had a family history of psychiatric illness; that when the cause of illness is not known, the hereditary plays a part; the accused was treated for unsoundness of mind since 1992 and had been diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia; within a short span, he had to be taken for treatment of ailment several times to the hospital; that the accused was under regular treatment for the mental ailment. 45. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also put into account the following two circumstances:- a] The weak motive for killing the wife i.e. she being opposed to the idea of the accused resigning as Police Constable; b] Killing in daylight and no attempt to hide or run away. 46. Based upon the aforesaid, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the accused had proved the existence of circumstances as are required by 105 of the Evidence Act to get the benefit of Section 84 of the I.P.C. There was a reasonable doubt that at the time of the commission of the crime, the accused was incapable of knowing of the nature of the act by reason of unsoundness of mind, and thus, he was entitled to the benefit of Section 84 of the I.P.C. 47. Applying the principles adopted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shrikant Bhosale(supra) to the fact as borne out from the evidence in the present case, we note that even in this case, there is ample evidence on record that the appellant was being treated for mental illness from the year 2009 and had been diagnosed as a schizophrenic. There is evidence about the medication that was being administered to the appellant from the year 2009. There is evidence that even after the occurrence, the appellant was being treated for his mental ailment. Further, in this case, as well, the prosecution has failed to establish any motive. The acts committed by the appellant were also on the terrace of the house where his two brothers, the wife of one of the brothers, and the son of the other brother were sleeping. After the act, there is no evidence that the appellant tried to run away rather it is the case of the prosecution that the appellant surrendered to the police. Before that, the appellant, with the very same axe, injured himself. 48. Having regard to all these circumstances, we are satisfied that the appellant has at least succeeded in creating a reasonable doubt that at the time of the commission of the acts in question, he was incapable of knowing the nature of such acts or that such acts were wrong. The case is therefore made out to the extent, the benefit of Section 84 of the I.P.C. to the case of the present appellant. 49. In Suryakant J. Gawde Vs. State (Through Ponda Police Station) report in 2020 ALL M.R. (Cri) 1680, the accused was charged with murdering his mother by crushing her head with a stone. The prosecution was unable to establish any motive, there was no evidence about any strained relationship with the mother, there was no evidence of preparedness or pre-arrangement, there was no attempt by the accused to run away from the scene of murder and there was some evidence that the accused was taking treatment at the mental hospital, sometime in the past. Based on all these materials and upon taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shrikant Bhosale(supra), the Division Bench extended the benefit of Section 84 of I.P.C. to the accused. 50. Based on all these materials and upon taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shrikant Bhosale(supra), the Division Bench extended the benefit of Section 84 of I.P.C. to the accused. 50. In Suryakant Gawde (supra), the Division Bench referred to the Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence, 25th Edition, by Modi, in which the learned Author has elaborately explained what is delusion, psychosis, and neurosis murder. The learned author has also noted that the medical officer who examined such an accused - patient must consider the following points before deciding whether the murder was a result of unsoundness of mind:- (1) Personal History of the Murderer. (2) Absence of Motive - Not only does a mentally ill person commit murder without any motive but also often kills his nearest and dearest relations, for eg, his wife and children. It must, however, be difficult to trace a motive though there may be one. (3) Absence of Secrecy - The murderer, if he happens to be mentally ill, does not try to conceal the body of his victim, nor does he attempt to evade the law by destroying evidence of his crime or by running away from the scene of the murder. (4) Multiple Murders - A sane person usually murders only one person with whom he has a grievance. On the other hand, a mentally ill person may kill several persons, mostly his friends and relatives, for whom he has great regard and affection. (5) Want of Preparedness or Pre-Arrangement - A mentally ill person does not make any pre-arranged plan. (6) Want of Accomplices - A mentally ill person has no accomplice in the criminal act. 51. The evidence in the present case establishes the history of mental illness in the appellant; the absence of motive. In this case also the appellant has killed his two brothers, who are his near relatives; the absence of secrecy; this is also a case of multiple murders most importantly, there is no evidence of pre-arranged plans or that the appellant had any accomplices. 52. In the case of Kamala Bhuniya Vs. In this case also the appellant has killed his two brothers, who are his near relatives; the absence of secrecy; this is also a case of multiple murders most importantly, there is no evidence of pre-arranged plans or that the appellant had any accomplices. 52. In the case of Kamala Bhuniya Vs. State of West Bengal reported in 2006 CR.L.J. 998, the Calcutta High Court held that where a plea of insanity has been raised in connection with the murder of close relation of the accused, motive always assumes much importance and if there is no evidence indicating motive of the murder, a conclusion will certainly follow in favor of the plea of insanity. In this case, the Calcutta High Court was concerned that a case where the accused killed her husband with an axe and was ultimately apprehended by the police standing near the dead body of her husband with the axe in her hand. 53. In Ramchandra S/o. Shenfadu Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2021 AllMR (Cri) 906, the Division Bench of this Court on a detailed analysis of the legal position about the plea of insanity under Section 84 of the I.P.C., extended the benefit of Section 84 to the accused, who brutally assaulted and killed his mother. The Division Bench held that, “13…….. if an accused, at the time of commission of the offence/ act, by reason of unsoundness of mind, was incapable of knowing the nature of his act or understanding what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law, he would have the benefit of such unsoundness of mind. If the material before the Court in the form of oral and documentary evidence satisfies the test of a prudent man, the accused can be said to have discharged his burden. If the judge has a reasonable doubt, he has to acquit the accused. It was further concluded that the Court should not feel helpless and would not be legally bound to convict an accused when there is a genuine and reasonable doubt in it's mind that the accused did not have the intention of causing the death of a person for which he has been charged. It was then held that the burden of adducing evidence of the delusion lay on the accused. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt, not only the actus reus but the mens rea. It was then held that the burden of adducing evidence of the delusion lay on the accused. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt, not only the actus reus but the mens rea. If this burden is discharged, the accused would be entitled for an acquittal.” 54. The Division Bench in Ramchandra Patil(supra) noted that the accused was taking treatment for his mental ailment for some years before the occurrence and such treatment was continued even during his incarceration after conviction by the learned Sessions Court. The Division Bench took cognizance of the medical report concerning the accused and the fact that no motive was established by the prosecution. Based on this material, the Division Bench extended the benefit of Section 84 of I.P.C. to the accused before it. 55. In Dahyabhai Thakkar (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has 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 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 to prove resting on the prosecution was not discharged. 56. According to us, the evidence on record was more than sufficient for discharge of the onus on the appellant, and thereafter, it was for the prosecution to lead further evidence in rebuttal. The prosecution, in this case, has admittedly not led any such evidence by way of rebuttal. Based on the cumulative consideration of the evidence led by both the prosecution as well as the defence, we are satisfied that this is at least a case where the material on record creates a reasonable doubt about the mental condition of the appellant at the time of the occurrence. The prosecution has failed to establish mens rea or for that matter, the prosecution has failed to explain why the appellant would act in this manner, in the absence of any history of violence or enmity between the brothers. The contradictions, omissions, and improvements on the material aspects of quarrels have been duly proved after the Investigating Officer was confronted with the same. The contradictions, omissions, and improvements on the material aspects of quarrels have been duly proved after the Investigating Officer was confronted with the same. Therefore, having regard to all these factors, we think that the appellant, in this case, is entitled to the benefit of the doubt and consequent acquittal. 57. For all the aforesaid reasons, we allow this appeal and make the following order : a] The impugned judgment and order and the conviction recorded against the appellant and the sentence imposed upon him are all hereby set aside; b] Though we are setting aside the appellant’s conviction and sentence, we direct the respondent/competent authority to comply with the procedure prescribed in Section 338 and 339 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the appellant is actually released from prison. c] The respondent/competent authority must file the necessary compliance report before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in the file of Sessions Case No.84/2014 in the aforesaid regard. If any directions are necessary in this regard, the learned Additional Sessions Judge is at liberty to give them 58. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order for costs. 59. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. 60. Mr. R.D. Hajare, learned Counsel was appointed under the Legal Aid Scheme to represent the appellant. We thank him for his able assistance. His fees to be paid in terms of the Rules.