JUDGMENT : (A.V. Ravindra Babu, J.) The judgment, dated 18.11.2009, in Sessions Case No.64 of 2009 on the file of the Court of VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam (for short, ‘the learned Additional Sessions Judge’), is under challenge in the present Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant, who was the unsuccessful accused in the aforesaid Sessions Case. 2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial court, for the sake of convenience. 3. Sessions Case No.296 of 2006 arose out of the committal order in Preliminary Registration Case (PRC) No.2 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Anakapalli (for short, ‘the learned Magistrate’) pertaining to Crime No.3 of 2008 of Munagapaka Police Station, Visakhapatnam District for the offences under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’). 4. The State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Anakapalli Circle, filed charge sheet alleging the aforesaid offences. The case of the prosecution, briefly, according to the contents of the charge sheet, is as follows: (i) Accused and Dokka Samudram (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) are the residents of Ambedkar Colony, Munagapaka Village. They have been doing business in the animals and skins and they had grudges since long time. On 09.01.2008, at about 12:30 p.m., the accused picked up a quarrel with his wife and beat her black and blue and his wife complained the same to Yellabilli Gowresu (LW.4) and others. On seeing the misbehavior of the accused, the deceased and his wife Dokka Simha Laxmi (LW.2) intervened and tried to chastise the accused. Then, the accused revolted against the deceased and his wife and threatened them with dire consequences. The accused also caught hold of the tuft of LW.2, dragged her and banged her with hands. Then, her husband intervened and tried to rescue her. Then, the accused picked up a pen knife from his waist and stabbed the deceased on his stomach and also stabbed LW.2 and even made an attempt to kill her. The accused also caught hold of the tuft of LW.2, dragged her and banged her with hands. Then, her husband intervened and tried to rescue her. Then, the accused picked up a pen knife from his waist and stabbed the deceased on his stomach and also stabbed LW.2 and even made an attempt to kill her. Then, Dokka Bhogeswara Rao (LW.1), Yelaka Nookaraju (LW.3), LW.4, Dokka Krishna Veni (LW.5), Tambarica Samba Siva (LW.6), Dokka Modakondamma (LW.7), Vuppati Pydikonda (LW.8), Anakapalli Lakshmi (LW.9) witnessed the incident and immediately called 108 Ambulance and shifted both the injured to Area Hospital, Anakapalli and on their advice, they shifted them to King George Hospital (KGH), Visakhapatnam and on their way deceased died near Anakapalli. (ii) LW.1, son of the deceased, lodged a complaint at Munagapaka Police Station on the same day at about 03:30 p.m. to the SI of Police, Munagapaka. The Head Constable of Munagapaka Police Station registered the report as a case in Crime No.3 of 2008 for the offences under Sections 302 and 307 IPC, visited and examined the scene of offence in the presence of mediators and prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence and took the photos of the scene of offence. (iii) The In-charge Circle Inspector of Anakapalli took up investigation, held inquest over the dead body on the next day in the presence of panchayatdars and examined the witnesses, sent the dead body to NTR Government Hospital, Anakapalli for autopsy. He examined the witnesses, recorded their statements, arrested the accused on 10.01.2008 at 06:00 p.m. at the bye-pass road junction and recorded the confessional statement of the accused in the presence of mediators and in pursuance of the confession statement, recovered the blood stained pen knife at 09:20 p.m. on 10.11.2008 under a cover of mediators report and sent the accused for judicial custody. He also sent the material objects to RFSL, Visakhapatnam. After receipt of the post-mortem certificate and the wound certificate of LW.2 and the RFSL report, regular Inspector of Police, Anakapalli filed the charge sheet before the learned Magistrate. 5. The learned Magistrate, Anakapalli took cognizance of the case for the offences under Sections 302 and 307 IPC and numbered it as PRC No.2 of 2008. After receipt of the post-mortem certificate and the wound certificate of LW.2 and the RFSL report, regular Inspector of Police, Anakapalli filed the charge sheet before the learned Magistrate. 5. The learned Magistrate, Anakapalli took cognizance of the case for the offences under Sections 302 and 307 IPC and numbered it as PRC No.2 of 2008. After compliance of the necessary formalities under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C’) and exercising the powers under Section 209 Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate committed PRC No.2 of 2008 to the Court of Session and thereupon, it was numbered as S.C. No.64 of 2009 and made over to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, for disposal in accordance with law. 6. After appearance of the accused before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam, charges under Sections 302 and 307 IPC were framed and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. The prosecution, in order to establish the guilt against the accused, examined PWs.1 to PW.14 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-24 and MO.1. 8. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in by the prosecution, for which he denied the incriminating circumstances. During the course of 313 Cr.P.C examination, he put up a version that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is false and he did not stab them with MO.1 and MO.1 does not belong to him and it belonged to the deceased and further his mental condition was not normal at the time of alleged offence and he took treatment for his mental disorder. In furtherance of his defence, he further stated that he has defence witness and got examined DW.1 – Dr. M. Vijay Gopal, Psychiatrist, Government Mental Hospital, Visakhapatnam and through him Ex.D-1 case sheet Ex.D-2 outpatient record were marked. 9. In furtherance of his defence, he further stated that he has defence witness and got examined DW.1 – Dr. M. Vijay Gopal, Psychiatrist, Government Mental Hospital, Visakhapatnam and through him Ex.D-1 case sheet Ex.D-2 outpatient record were marked. 9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on hearing both sides and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 304 (Part-II) IPC as against the original charge under Section 302 IPC and further found him guilty of the offence under Section 326 IPC as against the original charge under Section 307 IPC and convicted him under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. After questioning him about the quantum of sentence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge sentenced the accused to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for 1 month for the offence under 304 (Part-II) IPC and to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for 1 month for the offence under 326 IPC and that both the sentences shall run concurrently. The remand period, if any, shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. Further, MO.1 was directed to be destroyed after Appeal time is over. 10. Felt aggrieved of the same, the un-successful accused filed the present Appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in convicting him under Sections 304 (Part-II) and 326 IPC. 11. At the outset, this Court would like to make it clear that as against the findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the prosecution could only make out the offence under Section 304 (Part-II) IPC, as against the original charge under Section 302 IPC, and Section 326 IPC, as against the original charge under Section 307 IPC, the prosecution did not file any Appeal. So, the scope of this Appeal is confined to the following two points: 1) Whether prosecution before the learned Additional Sessions Judge proved the fact that the accused caused the death of the deceased, which amounts to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and further the accused caused grievous injuries to PW.2, wife of the deceased, in the manner as alleged by the prosecution? 2) Whether the judgment is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment? POINT Nos.1 & 2: 12. This Court would like to further make a mention here that the accused got the sentence suspended at the time of admission of the Appeal on 03.12.2009 vide order in Crl.A.M.P. No.2760 of 2009. Subsequently, when he was not pursing the Appeal and there was no representation on his behalf, this Court after giving several opportunities to the accused, revoked the order, dated 03.12.2009, on 28.06.2023 and issued the Non Bailable Warrant against the accused with a direction to the Police to execute Non Bailable Warrant and produce the accused before the learned Additional Sessions Judge and on such production, conviction warrant shall be entrusted to carry out the sentence pending disposal of the Appeal. In pursuance of the Non Bailable Warrant issued against the accused, Police arrested the accused and produced him before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who entrusted the conviction warrant. So, as of now, the accused is in the Central Prison, Visakhapatnam undergoing imprisonment pending disposal of the Appeal. 13. The accused is defended by Sri Muthyala Sobhanadri Naidu, legal aid counsel. Learned legal aid counsel for the appellant would contend that the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not appreciate the evidence in proper perspective with reference to the evidence of DW.1 coupled with Exs.D-1 and D-2 as to the mental condition of the accused. Accused was laboring under a mental disorder at the time of offence. He took the plea of insanity and adduced cogent evidence before the trial Court. Learned Additional Sessions Judge erroneously held that the accused did not prove the plea of insanity, satisfactorily. The aforesaid finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is not tenable. Apart from this, with regard to the incident in question, it is the defence of the accused that the prosecution party threw chilli powder in his eyes and when he was rubbing the chilli powder, his hands came into contact with the hands of the deceased and by the time deceased was having knife in his hands and it had accidentally pierced into the stomach of the deceased. Even this part of the defence was not considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge properly. The prosecution only examined the interested witnesses. Even this part of the defence was not considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge properly. The prosecution only examined the interested witnesses. There is no corroboration to the testimony of the interested witnesses from independent source. Viewing from any angle, firstly, the prosecution did not prove the allegations against the accused. Even otherwise, the accused could prove the defence of insanity satisfactorily before the learned Additional Sessions Judge and as such benefit of doubt ought to have been extended to the accused. Learned legal aid counsel in support of his contentions would rely upon a decision of the Karnataka High Court in Sannatamma v. State of Karnataka, ILR 2004 KAR 2286 and a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Sita Ram v. State, 2010 SCC OnLine All 2681. By relying upon the aforesaid decisions, learned legal aid counsel would submit that the facts and circumstances in the above said cases are similar to the present case on hand and the accused can succeed basing on the preponderance of probabilities. As the accused adduced cogent evidence, he is entitled for acquittal by giving a benefit of doubt. 14. Sri N. Sravan Kumar, learned Special Assistant, representing learned Public Prosecutor, would contend that the contention of the accused that the prosecution could only examine the interested witnesses is not correct. Prosecution examined independent witnesses, who supported the case of the prosecution in all respects. Only one witness turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. The presence of the accused at the time of offence was not disputed. The motive for the offence is that as the accused was beating his wife, father of PW.1 questioned the accused and then the accused grew wild and challenged him that he would kill him and while he was going, attacked PW.2 and when the deceased intervened, he stabbed the deceased on his stomach. Accused was carrying the crime weapon in his waist. The crime weapon was recovered from the accused in pursuance of his disclosure statement in the presence of punch witnesses. The plea of defence of insanity was rightly negatived by the trial Court. Evidence on record does not reveal that as on the date of offence he was suffering with any mental disorder. The crime weapon was recovered from the accused in pursuance of his disclosure statement in the presence of punch witnesses. The plea of defence of insanity was rightly negatived by the trial Court. Evidence on record does not reveal that as on the date of offence he was suffering with any mental disorder. Mere fact that the accused had some problem with regard to his mental condition subsequent to the offence cannot be a ground to say that he was suffering with mental disorder as on the date of offence. The conduct of the accused is such that he was carrying a knife in his waist. So, he attacked the deceased with pre-meditated plan. Subsequently, he absconded from the scene of offence. In pursuance of the disclosure statement only the crime weapon was recovered from him. The conduct of the accused was not that of a person of an abnormal behavior at the time of offence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge scrutinized the evidence with care and caution and as the incident was occurred on a spur of moment, extended benefit to the accused by holding that the prosecution could only make out the offence under Section 304 (Part-II) and 326 IPC and even the learned Additional Sessions took out a lenient view and sentenced the accused to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for four years for the offence under Section 304 (Part-II) IPC and Rigorous Imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 326 IPC as such the Appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 15. PW.1 before the trial Court is no other than the son of the deceased and is an eye witness. 16. PW.2 is the wife of the deceased and mother of PW.1. She is the injured witness. 17. PW.3 is a neighbor to the house of accused and the houses of PW.1 and PW.2 and he supported the case of prosecution. 18. PW.4 is a witness who spoke about the incident by stating that he came to know about the offence in question subsequently. It is a different aspect that the prosecution got declared him as hostile and cross-examined him. 19. PW.5 and PW.6 are also the independent witness. 20. PW.7 is the mediator about the recovery of MO.1 pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the accused. 21. It is a different aspect that the prosecution got declared him as hostile and cross-examined him. 19. PW.5 and PW.6 are also the independent witness. 20. PW.7 is the mediator about the recovery of MO.1 pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the accused. 21. PW.8 is the photographer, who took the photographs of the dead body of the deceased. 22. PW.9 is an inquest panchayatdar with regard to the inquest conducted over the dead body of the deceased. 23. PW.10 is the Medical Officer, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued post-mortem report. 24. PW.11 is the Medical Officer who examined PW.2 and issued wound certificate. 25. PW.12 is the Head Constable, who registered the FIR basing on Ex.P-1 report, lodged by PW.1. 26. PW.13 is the then Inspector of Police, who conducted investigation. 27. PW.14 is the successor of PW.13, who laid the charge sheet in this case. 28. DW.1 is the Medical Officer, who was examined by the accused in support of his defence plea of insanity. 29. As seen from the evidence of PW.1, on material aspects, on 09.01.2008 at 12:00 noon, the accused was beating his wife at his house, adjacent to their house. His father, mother and maternal uncle of the accused interfered and questioned the accused as to why he was beating like that. Then, accused warned his father not to interfere in his affairs as both of them are inimical and that his father would be killed as there were disputes between him and his father about the skin business. Then, his father and mother were returning to their house. Then the accused caught hold of the tuft of hair of his mother and beat her. His father interfered to rescue his mother. Then the accused removed the knife from his waist and stabbed his father on stomach. Accused also stabbed his mother on the left side of the stomach with the same knife. He (PW.1) and LW.3 were present at the time of incident. Then, he, LW.3 and LW.6 took both his father and mother in a rickshaw to the NTR Government Hospital, Anakapalli through 108 Ambulance. Doctors therein advised him to shift his father and mother to KGH, Visakhapatnam as the condition of his father was very serious. His father succumbed to injuries on the way to KGH, Visakhapatnam at the outskirts of Anakapalli Town. Doctors therein advised him to shift his father and mother to KGH, Visakhapatnam as the condition of his father was very serious. His father succumbed to injuries on the way to KGH, Visakhapatnam at the outskirts of Anakapalli Town. Then, they brought back his father to NTR Government Hospital, Anakapalli and the doctor therein declared his father as dead. His mother was shifted to KGH, Visakhapatnam for treatment. Then, he gave a report to Munagapaka Police Station. Ex.P-1 is the report, he presented. Police registered the same. They visited the NTR Government Hospital, Anakapalli and held inquest over the dead body. They were present by then. The Police examined him. The Police visited the scene of offence. Accused stabbed his father keeping in view of the disputes. Accused stabbed his father with a knife used for removing the animals? skin. He can identify the knife and it is MO.1. 30. The evidence of PW.2, wife of the deceased, with regard to the incident in question, is that on 09.01.2008 Wednesday at 12:00 noon, accused beat his wife. Then, she and her husband intervened and questioned the act of the accused. Accused stated that her husband should not interfere because there were disputes between him and the deceased on account of the skin business. Then, they were returning to home. Accused came from her behind, caught hold of her hair and when he was beating her, her husband came to her rescue. Then, accused took out a knife from his waist and stabbed her husband on the right side of his stomach (abdomen). Then, she cried out saying ‘Amma Babo’. He stabbed her with the knife on the left side of the abdomen and below her chest. Then, PW.1, Yelaka Nookaraju (LW.3), Yellabilli Gowresu (LW.4) and Tambarica Sambasiva (LW.6) came there and took them in the rickshaw to the NTR Government Hospital, Anakapalli. Her husband died on the way. She was referred to KGH, Visakhapatnam. Later, she came to know about the death of her husband. She can identify the knife which is MO.1. 31. As seen from the evidence of PW.3, he supported the case of prosecution. He deposed that accused beat his wife (wife of the accused) on 09.01.2008 for which PW.2 questioned the act of the accused. The accused beat PW.2. Later, she came to know about the death of her husband. She can identify the knife which is MO.1. 31. As seen from the evidence of PW.3, he supported the case of prosecution. He deposed that accused beat his wife (wife of the accused) on 09.01.2008 for which PW.2 questioned the act of the accused. The accused beat PW.2. When the deceased interfered, accused threatened the deceased as to why he was interfering and said that he will kill the deceased. Then, accused took out a knife from his waist and stabbed on the right side of the abdomen. He removed the knife. The intestines came out from the abdomen of deceased. PW.2 went to rescue the deceased and she was also stabbed by the accused with a knife. Then, they took the deceased and PW.2 to the NTR Government Hospital, Anakapalli and the deceased died. 32. According the evidence of PW.4, accused now and then used to beat his wife. Samudram died about one year ago. On that day, wife of the accused came to him (PW.4) and complained that her husband i.e., accused was beating her and asked him to come to her rescue. He told her that he will come later. Later, by the time he went there, Samudram and his wife were there. Wife of the accused went to her house for taking shelter. He asked Pothuraju why he was beating his wife. Accused did not give any reply. As pointed out, PW.4 was cross-examined by learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the ground that he did not support the case of prosecution theory and during cross-examination he denied that he stated before Police as in Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-4. 33. PW.5 is another witness, who supported the case of prosecution. According to him, on the date of offence at 12:30 or 01:00 p.m., when he was going to the shop, there was a galata on another road in front of the house of accused. At that time, accused, his wife and the deceased and his wife were pushing each other. At that time, accused stabbed the deceased with a knife and deceased sustained bleeding injuries. Accused also stabbed PW.2 on the left side of her abdomen. Then, he telephoned to the Ambulance. PW.3 covered cloth bandage with towel to the deceased. At that time, accused, his wife and the deceased and his wife were pushing each other. At that time, accused stabbed the deceased with a knife and deceased sustained bleeding injuries. Accused also stabbed PW.2 on the left side of her abdomen. Then, he telephoned to the Ambulance. PW.3 covered cloth bandage with towel to the deceased. While they were taking the deceased and PW.2 to the NTR Government Hospital, Anakapalli, on the way 108 Ambulance came there. Both the injured were shifted into Ambulance and they were taken to Anakapalli. From there when they were going to KGH, Visakhapatnam, deceased died on the way. Later, PW.1 gave report to Police. 34. According to PW.6, on 09.01.2008 at 12:30 noon, deceased and his wife questioned the accused as to why he was beating his wife. Then, he also went there. Accused caught hold of the tuft of hair of PW.2 and pushed her down. Deceased interfered with the accused. The accused threatened the deceased not to interfere and took out a knife and stabbed the deceased, due to which the intestines came out from the stomach of deceased. When PW.2 interfered, she was also stabbed by the accused with a knife. After seeing the blood, he could not bear it. Later, both the injured were taken to NTR Government Hospital, Anakapalli and from there they were referred to KGH, Visakhapatnam. He identified the knife under MO.1 as the weapon. 35. The mahazar witness i.e., PW.7 supported the case of prosecution with regard to arrest of the accused by the Inspector of Police and his staff and that the accused made a disclosure statement that he kept the knife at Munagapaka and Inspector of Police took them including the accused and accused led to a sugarcane crop field, SC Colony, Munagapaka and showed the place where he buried the knife. Police removed the knife and recovered the knife. He can identify the knife and MO.1 is the knife recovered by the Police. Ex.P-5 is the confessional statement (admissible portion only) recorded by the Inspector of Police, Chodavaram. He signed on Ex.P-5. Ex.P-6 is the seizure report and he also signed on Ex.P-6. Signatures of the accused were taken on Exs.P-5 and P-6. Police also recovered the bloodstained cloth from the sugarcane filed. 36. Ex.P-5 is the confessional statement (admissible portion only) recorded by the Inspector of Police, Chodavaram. He signed on Ex.P-5. Ex.P-6 is the seizure report and he also signed on Ex.P-6. Signatures of the accused were taken on Exs.P-5 and P-6. Police also recovered the bloodstained cloth from the sugarcane filed. 36. PW.8 is the photographer, who spoke to the fact that on 09.01.2008 he was asked to come to NTR Hospital, Anakapalli, where he took the photographs of the dead body of the deceased under Exs.P-7 to P-18. 37. PW.9 is the inquest panchayatdar who supported the case of the prosecution by stating that at the time of inquest on 10.01.2008 at 10:30 a.m., he was present. Police conducted inquest in his presence and in the presence of other witnesses and he signed on Ex.P.19 – inquest report. 38. PW.10 is the Medical Officer, who spoke to the fact that on 10.01.2008, he conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and found a stab injury of 4 x ½ cm x abdominal cavity deep present on right front upper part of abdomen just below the inner 1/3 of right costal margin passing into anterior abdominal wall by cutting it and again enters into the inner part of right lobe of liver and passed into the diaphragm and penetrated into the right half of descending Aorta at diaphragmatic. On opening peritoneal cavity, it contained about 3 liters of blood and blood clots. Weapon used is sharp edged and the direction of the wound is inwards, downwards and upwards. Cause of death is due to haemorrhage and shock due to injury to liver and aorta due to stab injury. Ex.P-20 is the post-mortem report. 39. According to PW.11 – Medical Officer, she examined PW.2 and found stab wound of 4 CMs x ½ CMs of bone deep seen at left side of the lower part of chest extending to abdomen with fresh bleeding. She opined that the stab injury on upper abdomen and chest with home pomodoro left side is grievous in nature, which might have been caused by a sharp object. Ex.P-21 is the wound certificate of PW.2 issued by her. 40. She opined that the stab injury on upper abdomen and chest with home pomodoro left side is grievous in nature, which might have been caused by a sharp object. Ex.P-21 is the wound certificate of PW.2 issued by her. 40. PW.12 is the Head Constable in Munagapaka Police Station, who deposed about receipt of Ex.P-1 report from PW.1 on 09.01.2008 at 03:30 p.m. and that he registered the FIR as a case in Crime No.3 of 2008 for the offences under Sections 302 and 307 IPC. Ex.P-22 is the original FIR. He examined PW.1 at the Police Station, recorded his statement, visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, which is Ex.P-23 and got photographed the same. 41. PW.13 is the Investigating Officer, who took up investigation in this case and PW.14 is his successor who laid charge sheet. 42. PW.1 is the son of the deceased and PW.2 is the wife of the deceased, who claimed to have been present at the time of occurrence on 09.01.2008 at 12:00 noon. There is no dispute that the houses of PW.1, PW.2, PW.3 and accused are situated in a row. PW.2 is no other than the injured, who received injuries in the hands of the accused, according to the case of prosecution. The case of the prosecution is that when the accused was beating his wife, father of PW.1 (deceased) and PW.2 questioned the act of the accused for which he warned them and that he would kill the deceased and when his parents were returning to the house, accused attacked PW.2 and when the deceased interfered, accused stabbed the deceased and also caused stab injury to PW.2. The evidence of PW.2, injured witness, cannot be put on par with the evidence of partisan or inimical witness. PW.1 and PW.2 are the natural witnesses at the time of occurrence alleged against the accused. As evident from the cross-examination part of PW.3, he is a neighbor to the house of the accused and he is nothing but an independent witness. Even the evidence of PW.5 and PW.6 is also independent in nature. During the entire cross-examination of PW.3, PW.5 and PW.6 except suggesting them that they deposed false, no animosity or any interestedness is suggested to them as to how they can go to the extent of deposing false against the accused. 43. Even the evidence of PW.5 and PW.6 is also independent in nature. During the entire cross-examination of PW.3, PW.5 and PW.6 except suggesting them that they deposed false, no animosity or any interestedness is suggested to them as to how they can go to the extent of deposing false against the accused. 43. During cross-examination, PW.1 deposed that he used to reside with his father. He is an auto driver. On the date of incident, he did not take the auto for plying. He denied that he was not present at the time of incident and that had he been there, he would have prevented the incident. 44. During cross-examination, PW.2 denied that she is deposing false. It is to be noted that PW.1 is the person who lodged Ex.P-1 with the Police as if he is a witness to the occurrence. There are no circumstances elicited during the course of cross-examination of PW.1 to doubt his presence at the time of occurrence. So, there are no probabilities to doubt the presence of PW.1, who is no other than the son of deceased, and PW.2 injured at the time of occurrence. 45. The presence of accused, as evident from cross-examination of PW.1, is not at all in dispute. The defence of the accused before PW.1 is important to be noted here. During cross-examination, he got suggested to PW.1 that his mother sprinkled mirchi (chilli) powder into the eyes of the accused, when the accused and his wife were quarrelling and that accused on account of the chilli powder in his eyes withered away his hand, which hit the knife in the hands of the deceased and the said knife pierced into the abdomen of the deceased. PW.1 denied the above defence theory. Such a defence version was not suggested to PW.2, wife of the deceased. When it was alleged before PW.1 that his mother sprinkled mirchi (chilli) powder into the eyes of the accused, accused is not dare enough to put such a version before PW.2, mother of PW.1. During the cross-examination of PW.2, it is suggested to her that she went to the accused along with the knife to ward off him from beating his wife and accused did not stab her husband with knife much less with MO.1 knife. During the cross-examination of PW.2, it is suggested to her that she went to the accused along with the knife to ward off him from beating his wife and accused did not stab her husband with knife much less with MO.1 knife. She denied that her husband went to the accused with a knife and asked him not to beat his wife and the knife might have inflicted the deceased during the struggle when her husband tried to rescue the wife when the accused was beating. So, absolutely, accused did not put forth anything before PW.2 that she sprinkled mirchi (chilli) powder into the eyes of the accused. Needless to point out here such a crucial defence set forth before PW.1 during cross-examination was not set forth before PW.3, PW.5 and PW.6. So, by virtue of the above, presence of the accused at the time of offence was not in dispute. If the defence of accused before PW.1 that his mother sprinkled mirchi (chilli) powder into the eyes of the accused is true, accused would not have kept quiet without lodging any report with the Police. So, it is very clear that the very suggestion set forth before PW.1 is nothing but evasive. It is very difficult to accept the defence theory that when the accused withered away his hand to clear the mirchi (chilli) powder in his eyes, his hand hit the knife in the hands of the deceased and it pierced into the abdomen of the deceased. The above said defence set forth before PW.1 is nothing but baseless and accused miserably failed to probabilize his defence. 46. The evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 has corroboration from the evidence of PW.3, PW.5 and PW.6. PW.3, PW.5 and PW.6 are independent witnesses and they have no motive at all to depose false against the accused and in support of the case of prosecution. Further, the evidence of PW.1 has corroboration from Ex.P-1 report. No omissions or contradictions are elicited from the mouth of PW.1, PW.2, PW.3, PW.5 and PW.6. The evidence of PW.1, PW.2, PW.3, PW.5 and PW.6 reveals that accused made an attack on the deceased by stabbing on his abdomen and further made an attack on PW.2 by stabbing on her left side of abdomen. No omissions or contradictions are elicited from the mouth of PW.1, PW.2, PW.3, PW.5 and PW.6. The evidence of PW.1, PW.2, PW.3, PW.5 and PW.6 reveals that accused made an attack on the deceased by stabbing on his abdomen and further made an attack on PW.2 by stabbing on her left side of abdomen. As seen from the evidence of PW.10 – Medical Officer, his evidence supports the case of prosecution with regard to the nature of injuries received by the deceased. Accused did not dispute about the injury received by the deceased and the cause of death. So the findings of PW.10 that deceased appear to have died on account of haemorrhage and shock due to the injuries received by him is not in dispute. So, there is cogent evidence to show that death of the deceased was due to homicidal act. Apart from this, the ocular testimony of PW.2 has support from the evidence of PW.11 - Medical Officer, coupled with Ex.P-21 – wound certificate. So, the ocular evidence with regard to the homicidal death of the deceased has corroboration from the evidence of PW.10 coupled with Ex.P- 20 – post-mortem certificate and the injuries caused to PW.2 has also support from the evidence of PW.11 and Ex.P-21 – wound certificate. 47. There was prompt lodging of FIR under Ex.P-1 by PW.1. The report was lodged at about 03:30 p.m. The time of offence was around 12:00 noon. The prosecution party made an effort to save the life of the deceased by taking him to NTR Government Hospital, Anakapalli and from there to KGH, Visakhapatnam on the way he died. So, it is not the case of accused that there is any abnormal delay in lodging Ex.P-1. There is cogent evidence on record to prove that the accused attacked the deceased with MO.1 and further attacked PW.2 and caused grievous injuries to her. There is evidence of PW.9 in support of the case of prosecution that the Investigating Officer conducted inquest panchayat on 10.01.2008 under the cover of Ex.P-19. Apart from this, the evidence of PW.7 is that the Police caught hold of a person who is the accused and pursuant to his disclosure statement, Police seized MO.1. The evidence of PW.7 has support from the evidence of PW.13 – Investigating Officer. Apart from this, the evidence of PW.7 is that the Police caught hold of a person who is the accused and pursuant to his disclosure statement, Police seized MO.1. The evidence of PW.7 has support from the evidence of PW.13 – Investigating Officer. As pointed out above, the prosecution adduced cogent evidence to show that the accused attacked the deceased and caused his death and further caused grievous injuries to PW.2. 48. Now, the crucial defence of the accused before the trial Court is that he was suffering with insanity and that the evidence adduced by him i.e., DW.1 and Exs.D-1 and D-2 was not considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge properly. Now, I would like to appreciate the evidence in this regard. 49. Section 84 of the IPC runs as follows: “84. Act of a person of unsound mind – Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the Act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.” 50. A perusal of Section 84 of IPC makes it clear that nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of committing an act, on account of his 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. Now, in view of Section 84 of IPC, the crucial thing that is to be established by the accused is that at the time of alleged offences against him under Sections 302 and 307 IPC, he was laboring under a mental disorder and he was incapable of knowing what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law. To prove the defence of him, accused examined DW.1 and got marked Exs.D-1 and D-2. Now, it is appropriate to refer here the substance of the evidence of DW.1. 51. The evidence of DW.1 is that he is working as Professor of Psychiatrist in Government Mental Hospital, Visakhapatnam. He treated the accused from 21.01.2008 to 14.03.2008. Accused is suffering from the disease of Epilepsy with Psychosis. He was admitted in the Hospital for three times. Now, it is appropriate to refer here the substance of the evidence of DW.1. 51. The evidence of DW.1 is that he is working as Professor of Psychiatrist in Government Mental Hospital, Visakhapatnam. He treated the accused from 21.01.2008 to 14.03.2008. Accused is suffering from the disease of Epilepsy with Psychosis. He was admitted in the Hospital for three times. He was admitted in the Hospital on 07.07.1998 and was discharged on 14.09.1998 as a voluntary patient for the same disease for which he treated. For the second time, accused was sent to their hospital from 21.01.2008 and he was admitted in the hospital and was treated for the same disease. He was in the Hospital up to 14.03.2008. For the third time, he was sent from the Central Prison, Visakhapatnam on 10.04.2008 and he was treated in the Hospital till 05.08.2008. Accused was attending their Hospital as outpatient since 1998 till the last date. The accused lastly attended to their hospital on 07.07.2009. For an out patient a separate book will be with the patient and in case admission of such patient in their Hospital, they will maintain a case sheet. He brought the case sheet for three periods. He brought the attested copy of the whole case sheet, which may be retained for comparison. (The trial Court compared the certified copy of the case sheet with the original and returned the original case sheet). Ex.D-1 is copy of the case sheet and Ex.D-2 is copy of outpatient record. 52. During the course of his cross-examination by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, DW.1 deposed that he cannot assess the mental condition of the accused on 09.01.2008 basing on his examination of the accused on 21.01.2008. The accused is suffering from Epilepsy with Psychosis. Psychosis means mental disorder where the individual thinking is grossly disturbed and he will not have insight and it is like Schizophrenia disorder. He admitted that the accused patient was not kept in isolation and he was not chained and he was kept with other patients. He further admitted that there are no episodes of the accused patient attacking the co-patients or staff or the doctors. By virtue of the above answers spoken by DW.1 in cross-examination, absolutely, he was not able to say anything about the mental condition of the accused as on 09.01.2008, which was the date of offence. He further admitted that there are no episodes of the accused patient attacking the co-patients or staff or the doctors. By virtue of the above answers spoken by DW.1 in cross-examination, absolutely, he was not able to say anything about the mental condition of the accused as on 09.01.2008, which was the date of offence. Apart from this, there was no occasion for the Medical Officer to keep the accused in isolation and keep him under chain. There were no instances where the accused attacked the co-patients or the staff or Doctors in the Hospital. 53. Having regard to the above, I am of the considered view that, absolutely, the accused did not adduce any evidence, whatsoever, as to his mental condition as on the date of offence. What is criteria in the light of the language used in Section 84 of IPC is that his mental condition as on the date of offence. What was the mental condition of the accused at the time of commission of the offence is the thing that has to be established by the accused but that crucial evidence is missing in this regard. Basing on the evidence of DW.1, coupled with Exs.D-1 and D-2, by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be held that, as on the date of offence, the accused was laboring under a mental disorder and incapable of knowing what he was doing is either wrong or contrary to law. 54. Now, I would like to deal with the two decisions relied upon by learned legal aid counsel for the appellant. Coming to the decision of Karnataka High Court in Sannatamma (1st supra), absolutely, it was a case of insanity according to the evidence let in. The factual matrix in brief is that the deceased was no other than the mother of the accused. On the fateful day while PW.1 and his neighbors i.e., PW.2 and PW.3 were sitting in front of the house, on arrival of the accused when the deceased was about to serve him with a Tea, suddenly accused picked up a sickle lying nearby and gave a fatal blow on the neck of the deceased, who was his mother, and caused her instantaneous death. The Karnataka High Court having gone through the factual matrix and the evidence available on record held that there is sufficient material to hold that the act of the accused was for no reason and it was happened all of a sudden and it was an act of un-sound person. 55. Similarly, coming to the decision of Allahabad High Court in Sita Ram (2nd supra), the factual matrix is also such that the first informant Ram Swarup, who happens to be the real brother of accused by name Sitaram, was sitting at his door with his two daughters. At about 12:30 p.m. he heard shrieks of his father and he proceeded towards his father?s door and saw the accused, who was mentally challenged person, had an axe in his hand, which was soaked in blood. Certain blood drops had also sprinkled on him. He ran towards the first informant, who tried to hide but before he could save his son Dharamvir Singh, the accused assaulted him by the blood soaked axe in his hand and wielded axe blows on Pintu alias Mahesh, who died instantaneously. Apart from that, he also injured the first informant?s son very badly. Accused ran towards backside of the house, where his sister-inlaw was sitting with her niece and he also assaulted them by the same axe. One Maya died on the spot, sister-in-law Belpatiya fell down after receiving axe injuries. Later, he tried to run towards west of the house where he was apprehended. The accused also tried to attack one Pyare, son of Baldeo. 56. The Allahabad High Court in the light of the above factual matrix and in the light of the admissions made by PW.4 about the mental condition of the accused at the time of offence was of the view that the act of the accused was nothing but an act of insanity. 57. The aforesaid are the circumstances in which both the Karnataka and Allahabad High Courts upheld the plea of insanity in the light of the factual matrix and the evidence available on record. 58. Now, as pointed out already, Exs.D-1 and D-2 coupled with the evidence of DW.1 was of no use to the accused to explain as to what was his mental condition at the time of offence in question. 58. Now, as pointed out already, Exs.D-1 and D-2 coupled with the evidence of DW.1 was of no use to the accused to explain as to what was his mental condition at the time of offence in question. On the other hand, the evidence of PW.1, PW.2, PW.3, PW.5 and PW.6 proves the conversation between the prosecution party and the accused, when the accused was attacking his wife. Evidence further reveals that when the deceased and PW.2 interfered and questioned the accused as to why he was beating his wife, accused warned the deceased by stating that there was already enmity between them and when they were returning to home, accused attacked the deceased and PW.2. Apart from this, there is evidence of PW.7 and PW.13 – Investigating Officer that pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the accused, they proceeded to the place of recovery and where accused took out MO.1 – knife from the sugarcane crop field. 59. It is to be noted that in case of a plea of insanity, the important factors to be considered here are behavior of the particular accused immediately before the time of offence, at the time of offence and subsequent to the offence. This Court in a decision reported in Viswanadhapalli Mutyalamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 (2) ALD (Crl.) 49 (AP), had an occasion to consider as to the abnormal behavior, if any, of the accused who took the plea of insanity before the commission of offence, at the time of commission of offence and subsequent to the commission of offence. So, in a case of this nature, the behavior of the accused prior to commission of offence, at the time and subsequent to the commission of offence is important and the Court has to look into as to whether there was any abnormal behavior on the part of the accused at that particular point of time. Here is a case that the prosecution adduced cogent evidence to prove about the conversation between the accused at one hand and the deceased and PW.2 on the other hand. Accused threatened the deceased to kill him and when the deceased and PW.2 were returning to their home only accused attacked PW.2 and when the deceased interfered, he took up a knife from his waist and stabbed the deceased and PW.2. Accused threatened the deceased to kill him and when the deceased and PW.2 were returning to their home only accused attacked PW.2 and when the deceased interfered, he took up a knife from his waist and stabbed the deceased and PW.2. The evidence on record reveals that the accused also absconded from the scene and also hidden MO.1 - knife in a secluded place which was recovered by the Investigating Officer. Though the accused pleaded before PW.10 and PW.13 that the arrest alleged against him as fabricated and on the date of offence itself he was taken into custody, it is not probabilized in any way. 60. The direct evidence available on record means that conduct of the accused prior to the commission of offence, at the time and subsequent to the commission of offence was not that of an abnormal behavior of a human being. The medical evidence adduced by the accused does not favour his defence as it lacks what was his mental condition as on the date of offence. On the other hand, the direct evidence available on record reveals that his conduct, as above, was not that of a human being of an abnormal behavior. 61. The Hon?ble Supreme Court in Sheralli Wali Mohammed v. the State of Maharashtra, (1973) 4 SCC 79 dealing with the Appeal filed by the appellant against the concurrent findings of the Sessions Court as well as the High Court in convicting and sentencing the accused under Section 302 of I.P.C and dealing with the plea of insanity, disbelieved the case of the appellant that he was suffering with mental disorder at the time of offence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court looked into the standard of proof by relying upon a decision in Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. the State of Gujarat, (1964) 7 SCR 361 = AIR 1964 SC 1563 and held that the trial Court did not believe the defence theory that the accused was suffering with insanity and disbelieved the evidence of P.W.4, the brother of the accused. The Hon?ble Supreme Court held that there was no evidence to show that at the time of commission of the act, the accused was not in sound state of mind. While negativing the contention of the appellant, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that “the law presumes every person of the age of discretion to be sane unless the contrary is proved. While negativing the contention of the appellant, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that “the law presumes every person of the age of discretion to be sane unless the contrary is proved. It would be most dangerous to admit the defence of insanity upon arguments derived merely from the character of the crime. The mere fact that no motive has been proved why the accused murdered his wife and child or, the fact that he made no attempt to run away when the door was broke open, would not indicate that he was insane or, that he did not have the necessary mens rea for the commission of the offence. While holding so, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.”. 62. Having regard to the above, this Court is of the considered view that it is very difficult to uphold the contention of the appellant that he was suffering with any insanity at the time of offence. Having regard to the standard of proof with which accused has to probabilize the defence of insanity and as he miserably failed to probabilize such a theory, his contention that he was laboring under mental disorder is not at all tenable. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has analyzed the evidence on record in proper perspective and rightly believed the evidence of PW.1, PW.2, PW.3 and PW.5 and PW.6 and negatived the defence of the accused with regard to the plea of insanity. Apart from this, the sentence imposed against the accused is not at all harsh, looking into the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 63. Hence, I am of the considered view that the prosecution before the learned Additional Sessions Judge cogently proved the offences under Section 304 (Part-II) and 326 IPC against the accused for causing the death of deceased and causing grievous injuries to PW.2 respectively as such the prosecution has clearly proved the above offences beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the judgment in Sessions Case No.64 of 2009, dated 18.11.2009, is sustainable under law and facts and the Appeal is devoid of merits. 64. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant/accused in Sessions Case No.64 of 2009, dated 18.11.2009, on the file of the Court of VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam. 65. 64. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant/accused in Sessions Case No.64 of 2009, dated 18.11.2009, on the file of the Court of VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam. 65. The Registry is directed to take steps immediately under Section 388 Cr.P.C to certify the judgment of this Court including the trial Court record, if any, to the trial Court on or before 18.10.2023 and on such certification, the trial Court shall take necessary steps to forward a copy of this judgment to the appellant/accused, who is lodged in Central Prison, Visakhapatnam. A copy of this judgment be placed before the Registrar (Judicial), forthwith, for giving necessary instructions to the concerned Officers in the Registry. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.