JUDGMENT : C.S. Sudha, J. This jail appeal under Section 383 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused in S.C.No.375/2016 on the file of the Court of Session, Mavelikkara, challenging the conviction entered and sentence passed against him for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 2. The prosecution case as stated in the charge sheet is as follows - The accused was in inimical terms with Bhasurangi, his mother, due to the disputes relating to the partition of their family property and as she had filed a case against the accused and obtained an order evicting him from her house. Due to this enmity, the accused with the intention of murdering her, on 23/10/2015 at 6 a.m., hacked her twice with an axe on the back of her head and below the neck, because of which her neck was severed from her body, resulting in her death. The incident took place near the well situated in the compound of her house bearing No.282 situated in Ward No.VI, Alam Panchayat. Hence the accused is alleged to have committed the offence punishable under the above-mentioned Section. 3. Based on Ext.P1 FIS of PW1, Crime No. 2626/2015, Chengannur Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was registered, i.e., Ext.P18 FIR, by PW14, Junior Sub Inspector of the aforesaid Station. PWs.13 and 14 are the investigating officers in this case. PW14 verified the investigation conducted by PW13 and submitted the charge sheet before the court. 4. On the final report being submitted, the jurisdictional Magistrate, after complying with the statutory formalities, committed the case against the accused to the Sessions Court concerned, which court took the case on file as S.C.No.375/2016. On the appearance of the accused before the Court of Session, he was furnished with copies of all the prosecution records. On 08/06/2017, the trial court framed a charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, which was read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 14 and got marked Exts.P1 to P18 and MO1 to MO4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. regarding the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution. The accused denied all those circumstances and maintained his innocence. 5. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 14 and got marked Exts.P1 to P18 and MO1 to MO4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. regarding the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution. The accused denied all those circumstances and maintained his innocence. 5. As the Sessions Court did not find it a fit case to acquit the accused under Section 232 Cr.P.C., he was asked to enter on his defence and adduce evidence in support thereof. DW1 to DW3 were examined and Exts.D3 and D4 were marked on behalf of the accused. Exts.D1 and D2 are the contradictions brought out in the testimony of PWs.1 and 2. 6. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, the trial court by the impugned judgment found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and hence sentenced him to imprisonment for life and to a fine of ?10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. It was held that in the event of an order under Section 433A Cr.P.C. by the competent authority, the accused would be entitled to set off for the period from 23/10/2015 to 18/05/2018, the period during which he was under detention pending investigation, inquiry, and trial in the case. 7. In the appeal memorandum, it is alleged that the impugned judgment is based on assumptions and presumptions. The court below failed to consider the mental illness of the appellant/accused though he had taken up a defence under Section 84 IPC. Due to his mental illness, the appellant had no mens rea, which element, the prosecution was bound to prove. The evidence on record shows that the accused had been suffering from mental illness for quite a long time and that he had undergone treatment at various hospitals. Due to his mental illness, he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act done by him or what he was doing, was either wrong or contrary to law. Despite overwhelming evidence available on record to show the mental insanity of the accused at the time of commission of the offence, the trial court failed to notice the same and therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be interfered with. 8. Despite overwhelming evidence available on record to show the mental insanity of the accused at the time of commission of the offence, the trial court failed to notice the same and therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be interfered with. 8. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the conviction entered, and sentence passed against the accused by the trial court is sustainable or not. 9. Heard Sri.K.K.Rajeev, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and Smt.Sheeba Thomas, the learned Public Prosecutor. 10. As stated earlier, the prosecution case is that the accused had hacked his mother with MO1 axe causing her death. PW6, Medical Officer, Forensic Medicine Department, Government TD Medical College, Alappuzha conducted postmortem examination on the body of the deceased and noted the following injuries in Ext.P5 postmortem certificate which reads- “Injuries (Ante-mortem) 1. Incised chop wound 9cmx2cm, bone deep on the back of neck, oblique across the midline; its left end was 4cm outer to midline, 12cm below occiput. Its left upper end was sharp and right lower end was blunt. 2. Incised wound chop 7.5cmx2.5cm, bone deep, and horizontally oblique on the right side of back of neck, its back end was placed 4cm outer to midline 8cm below occiput. Its upper front end was blunt and lower back end was sharp with a tailing of 3cmx0.3x0.2cm. 3. Incised curvilinear chop wound 8cmx1cm, bone deep on the right side of back of head with its convexity directed upwards. Its inner lower end 4cm out of midline, 8cm below occiput. 4. Incised chop wound 13.5cmx2cmx1.5cm on the back of head across midline, 4cm below occiput. It's left end was 6cm outer to midline raising a skin flap 6cmx8cm. There was a beveling 9cm from its left end. 5. Incised chop wound 7cmx0.2cm; bone deep on the left side of front of neck, horizontally oblique, its front lower end which was sharp was 3cm outer to midline, 1cm below left angle of jaw. Its back end was blunt. 6. Incised chop wound 4cmx.5cm, bone deep horizontal on the left side of neck. Its front end which was sharp was 5cm outer the midline, 1cm below the left angle of jaw. Its back end was blunt. 7. Incised wound 3cmx0.5cmx1cm, horizontal on the left side of neck, 1cm below and parallel to the above injury. 8. 6. Incised chop wound 4cmx.5cm, bone deep horizontal on the left side of neck. Its front end which was sharp was 5cm outer the midline, 1cm below the left angle of jaw. Its back end was blunt. 7. Incised wound 3cmx0.5cmx1cm, horizontal on the left side of neck, 1cm below and parallel to the above injury. 8. Incised chop wound 2cmx1cm, bone deep, horizontal, right side of cheek 10cm outer to midline, 3cm below right ear. Flap dissection of neck was done in a bloodless field. All the muscles of the back of the neck were irregularly cut into multiple pieces. The 3rd to 8th cervical vertebrae were seen fractured into multiple chip pieces with transeciton of spinal cord at C3 level. Internal carotid artery and internal jugular veins were seen transected on both sides. 9. Incised wound 7cmx1cm, bone deep, sagital on the left side of top of head, its front end 4cm outer to midline, 13cm above eyebrow. 10. Incised wound 3cmx1cm, bone deep on the left side of top of head 3cm outer to and parallel to the above injury. On dissection there was depressed fracture 8cmx1cm of the left parietal bone beneath. Dura was seen sharply cut beneath the injury. There was sub arachnoid hemorrhage of the left parietal lobe over an area 5cmx5cm. Brain showed a laceration 3cmx1cmx1.5cm in the left parietal lobe. 11. Abrasion, 3.5cmx0.5cm, horizontal left side of neck just outer to midline 3cm above suprasternal notch. 12. Lacerated wound 2.7cmx2cm, bone deep, vertically oblique on the right side of forehead 2cm outer to midline 3cm above eye brow. 13. Lacerated wound 6cmx2cm, bone deep, horizontal on the left side forehead 2cm outer to midline, above and over the left eye brow. 14. Lacerated wound 2cmx0.5x0.5cm, vertical on the left side of face with surrounding abrasion 4cmx3cm, 8cm outer to midline, 5cm above angle of jaw. 15. Abraded contusion 2.5cmx6cmx.3cm, horizontal, left side of face involving the lower eyelid and adjoining area 1.5cm outer to midline. 16. Abraded contusion 3cmx1.5cmx.3cm vertical on the bridge of nose. 17. Abrasion 1cmx7cm, horizontal, left side of face, 1cm outer to midline, 1cm above the border of lower jaw. 18. Abrasion 1cmx1cm left side of face, just in front of tragus of left ear. 19. Abrasion 8cmx1cm vertical back of Right forearm, just below elbow. 20. Abrasion 2cmx5cm horizontally oblique, inner aspect of right below. 21. 17. Abrasion 1cmx7cm, horizontal, left side of face, 1cm outer to midline, 1cm above the border of lower jaw. 18. Abrasion 1cmx1cm left side of face, just in front of tragus of left ear. 19. Abrasion 8cmx1cm vertical back of Right forearm, just below elbow. 20. Abrasion 2cmx5cm horizontally oblique, inner aspect of right below. 21. Multiple small abrasions over an area 6cmx3cm on the front inner aspect of right knee. 22. Abrasion 1cmx1cm front inner aspect of left knee. 23. Abrasion 1cmx.5cm front inner aspect of left leg 5cm below knee. 24. Incised wound 4cmx2cm,bone deep, amputating the left thumb 4.5cm above its tip. The thumb was seen attached to the hand by a skin tag 0.5cm thick. 25. Contusion 5cmx4cmx1.5cm on the back outer aspect of let upper arm 4cm above elbow. 26. Abrasion 10cmx1.5cm, vertically oblique on the left side of back of trunk, its upper inner end 2cm outer to midline 5cm below root of neck. 27. Abrasion 0.5cmx6.5cm horizontal right side of back of trunk its inner end, 5cm outer to midline, 7cm below root of neck. 28. Abrasion 1cmx7cm horizontal right side of back of trunk 7cm out of midline, 4cm below top of shoulder. 29. Abrasion 0.5cmx5cm, horizontal back outer aspect of left side of hip, 16cm outer to midline 6cm below hip prominence.” 11. PW6 has opined that death was due to multiple chop wounds sustained on the head and neck. According to him, injury no.1 to 10 noted in Ext.P5 certificate could be caused by MO1 axe. Injury no. 11 to 23 and 25 to 29 could be caused by a fall on a rough surface. He also stated that injury No.24 could have been caused by a sharp weapon like MO1. Ext.P2, inquest report prepared by PW12 and attested by PW3 also notes the injuries seen on the body of the deceased. The testimony of PW6 has not been discredited in any way. Hence, we can conclude that the death of Bhasurangi was in fact a homicide. 12. The place of occurrence is stated to be the cemented surface/floor on the western side of the well situated in the compound of the house of the deceased and PW11, her husband. As per Ext.P7 certificate issued by PW8, the then Secretary, Ala Grama Panchayat, building bearing No.VI/282 (old No. IV/377) stands in the name of Sreedharan (PW11). 12. The place of occurrence is stated to be the cemented surface/floor on the western side of the well situated in the compound of the house of the deceased and PW11, her husband. As per Ext.P7 certificate issued by PW8, the then Secretary, Ala Grama Panchayat, building bearing No.VI/282 (old No. IV/377) stands in the name of Sreedharan (PW11). PW10, Village Officer, Ala, prepared Ext.P9 site plan. Ext.P10 scene mahazar prepared by PW12 has been proved through PW7, the attestor to the said mahazar. The aforesaid evidence has also not been discredited. Hence the scene of occurrence also stands proved. 13. Now coming to the evidence relied on by the prosecution to prove that it was the accused who had committed the matricide. PW1, the brother of the accused and son of the deceased gave Ext.P1 FIS. In Ext.P1 FIS given on 23/10/2015 at 07.00 a.m., PW1 states thus – he is residing one kilometer away from the residence of his parents. His parents and his elder brother, Premachandran (the accused herein), were living together. His two sisters have been married off. Premachandran's wife passed away two years back. Premachandran does not have any children. His 75-year-old father (PW11) always harbored doubts/suspicions about his mother, due to which there were constant fights between the two. The family house was in the name of his mother. As insisted by his father, during the period 2006-’07, the said property was transferred in the name of his father and the property in the name of the latter, transferred in the name of his mother. Both the title deeds were in the possession of his father. One day, last March, while his mother was sleeping, Premachandran, with a chopper cut/chopped her on the back of her head, relating to which incident, a case is pending. It was after the said incident; he had shifted his residence from the family house to the house of his wife situated nearby. Today at 06.00 a.m, while he was asleep, he was woken up by his wife, who told him that one Renjith, staying near his family house, had come to inform them that some commotion was taking place in his parents' house. He immediately went to his family house in the bike of Renjith. When he reached there, he saw a crowd in front of the house. He immediately went to his family house in the bike of Renjith. When he reached there, he saw a crowd in front of the house. When he entered the compound of the house, he saw his father standing near the well situated in the compound of their house. His mother drenched in blood was lying on the ground with her face down. His mother had a gaping wound on the back of her neck. When he inquired about the matter to his father (PW11), the latter told him that in the early hours of the day, there was a quarrel among all the three and that Premachandran with an axe (MO1) had hacked his mother to death. His father had seen the incident which took place in front of the well. When he inquired about his brother, his father told him that he had gone somewhere with the axe. In Ext.P1, it is also stated that Premachandran had mental illness from the time he was about 40 years old. Premachandran was under treatment in a hospital at Thiruvalla. His brother for the last 20 years, has been working as a Masdoor in BSNL, Thiruvalla. His brother attended the office only once after the incident in March. His father is a retired employee of BSNL (P&T, Thiruvalla). During the quarrels between his parents, his brother always used to take the side of their father. Premachandran due to his enmity towards his mother and due to his mental illness, has murdered their mother. 14. PW1 when examined, stands by his case in Ext.P1. He also deposed that his mother had filed a case alleging domestic violence, in which case, she had obtained an order of injunction restraining the accused from residing or entering her residence. It was when the said order was in force, his brother had stayed in the parents' house. On the night prior to the date of the incident, his brother pursuant to a quarrel went out of the house and hid in the cattle shed . In the morning, when his mother stepped out of the house, his brother hacked her. PW1 identified MO1 axe, the weapon of assault, which according to him is usually kept in the cattle shed. The dress worn by his mother and his brother were identified by PW1 and marked as MO2 and MO3 respectively. In the morning, when his mother stepped out of the house, his brother hacked her. PW1 identified MO1 axe, the weapon of assault, which according to him is usually kept in the cattle shed. The dress worn by his mother and his brother were identified by PW1 and marked as MO2 and MO3 respectively. MO4 is the gold earrings worn by his mother at the time of the incident. PW1 also stated that his mother's property had not been partitioned and that his brother had demanded the entire property of his mother. PW1 in the cross examination stated that it was after the death of his brother's wife, the latter had started showing signs of mental illness. According to PW1, it was not the mental illness of his brother which prompted the latter to assault/attack their mother in the earlier incident. It was a planned attack. See page 18 of his deposition). His brother always wanted to keep others under his authority. See page 18 of his deposition). PW1 when asked whether his brother had the habit of wandering around, he answered that after the incident in this case, his brother used to wander around to show others that he has mental illness. See page 18 of his deposition).PW1 denied having stated in Ext.P1 that his brother was always taking sides with his father during quarrels between their parents and that his brother had murdered his mother due to this enmity towards her and due to his mental illness. This contradiction has been marked as Ext.D1. He asserted that he had seen his brother walking away with MO1 axe. PW1 also deposed that his father (PW11) is now staying in an institute by name, Snehadhara, which is a place for treatment of people with mental illness. 15. PW2, the sister of PW1 and the accused, like PW1 came to the house on being informed of the incident. She also supports the case as deposed by PW1. In the cross examination PW2 was asked whether the accused during the time of his mental illness did things without realizing whether it was right or wrong, to which she answered in the negative. See page 11 of her deposition). She denied having stated to the police that her brother had mental illness and that her father had taken him for treatment. This contradiction has been marked as Ext.D2. See page 11 of her deposition). She denied having stated to the police that her brother had mental illness and that her father had taken him for treatment. This contradiction has been marked as Ext.D2. After she reached home, she had not seen the accused. 16. PW3 is an attestor to Ext.P3 inquest report prepared by PW12. PW4, a neighbor is an attestor to Ext.P3 seizure mahazar prepared on the very same day at 1 p.m. when MO1 axe was seized. He identified MO1 as the axe taken by the accused from the pond situated on the eastern side of the house where the incident had occurred and had handed it over to the police. He had seen the accused sometime between 07:00 and 07.30 a.m. He was then asked whether the police were also present at that time, to which he answered that himself and a policeman got the axe taken from the pond and had handed it over to the police (7 -7.30 police police station See pages 4 & 5 of his deposition). To a further question as to whether the accused due to his mental illness was hysterical/in a state of frenzy answered in the affirmative See Page 3 of his deposition). To a court question as to who had entered the pond and taken out the axe, PW3 answered that it was the accused. To a further question as to the time at which the axe was taken by the accused from the pond, he answered that it was 09:00 a.m. 17. PW5, Junior Consultant, Government Mental Health Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, was examined to prove that as per the direction of the magistrate who remanded the accused soon after his arrest, the latter had been examined and treated by him. The accused was referred to him by the Psychiatrist of the District Hospital, Mavelikkara, through the jail Superintendent. The accused as an inpatient underwent treatment at the Government Mental Health Centre. According to PW5, going by Ext.P4 certificate issued by him, the accused was fit to stand trial. As on the date of Ext.P4, the accused was an inpatient. The accused was suffering from Psychosis not otherwise specified (NOS). When PW5 was asked whether the accused was suffering from schizophrenia, he answered that he is unable to say so. According to PW5, going by Ext.P4 certificate issued by him, the accused was fit to stand trial. As on the date of Ext.P4, the accused was an inpatient. The accused was suffering from Psychosis not otherwise specified (NOS). When PW5 was asked whether the accused was suffering from schizophrenia, he answered that he is unable to say so. He deposed that as per Ext.P4, the accused had attained improvement which would mean that at the time of admission, he was suffering from some sort of mental illness. 18. PW11 is the husband of the deceased and father of the accused and PWs.1 and 2. PW11, the sole eye witness to the incident, supports the prosecution case. PW11 deposed that on the date of the incident, he along with his wife and the accused were at home. The accused from their cattle shed called out to his wife saying that two load of bricks had arrived in a lorry and that if no one was present, someone might take them away. Hearing this, his wife, Bhasurangi, stepped out of the house. He along with his wife were standing in the courtyard (?(cid:4)?(cid:14)). The accused then with MO1 knife hacked his wife behind her head. He does not know the reason which prompted his son to do so. After the incident, the accused threw MO1 axe into the pond and walked away. In the cross examination, to a question whether his wife had refused to give her property to the accused, he answered that he does not remember. Thereafter, he answered that she might have said so. PW11 admitted that the accused had slight mental problems/issues. He also admitted that the accused had been taken to hospitals for treatment of his mental illness. According to PW11, during the night preceding the date of incident at about 11 p.m., there was a quarrel between his wife and the accused. On the next day, it was when the accused called out to her that the lorry had arrived, his wife had stepped out of the house. He followed her. He also deposed that he saw the accused throwing MO1 into the pond. PW11 pleaded ignorance when he was asked whether the accused was suffering from serious mental illness at the time of incident See Page 15 of his deposition). 19. He followed her. He also deposed that he saw the accused throwing MO1 into the pond. PW11 pleaded ignorance when he was asked whether the accused was suffering from serious mental illness at the time of incident See Page 15 of his deposition). 19. PW7, Scientific Assistant, DCRB, Alappuzha on 23/10/2015 at 12.00 noon examined the scene of occurrence. She collected blood samples from the blood stains seen at the place of occurrence. She is a signatory to Ext.P6, the report relating to the examination of the scene of crime. She conducted benzidine test on MO1 axe to find out the presence of blood, which weapon was shown to her under the instructions of the investigating officer at the scene of occurrence itself. The result, according to her, was positive. 20. PW13, Junior Sub Inspector, Chengannur Police Station is the person who recorded Ext.P1 FIS of PW1, based on which he registered the present crime, i.e., Ext.P18 FIR. He admitted that PW1 in Ext.P1 FIS, has given Ext.D1 statement. 21. PW12, the then Circle Inspector of Police, Chengannur, is the investigating officer in this case. On 23/10/2015 he took over the investigation of the case. He prepared Ext.P2 inquest report and also Ext.P10 scene mahazar. The accused was taken into custody from the house where the incident had taken place. Exts.P11 and P12 are the arrest memo and inspection memo respectively prepared when the accused was arrested. The blood-stained dhoti, that is, MO3 worn by the accused at the time of the occurrence was seized as per Ext.P8 seizure mahazar . Based on Ext. P3(a) disclosure statement given by the accused and as led by him, MO1 axe was recovered at the instance of the accused from the pond situated near the house. MO1 axe was seized as per Ext.P3 mahazar. On his instructions, PW7, the Scientific Assistant examined MO1 axe and found the presence of blood on the same. MO2, the nighty, worn by the deceased at the time of the occurrence was also seized by him. All the material objects were produced before the court as per Ext.P13 series property list. Ext.P14 is the copy of the final report in Crime No.718/2015, charged against the accused for assaulting and injuring his mother on an earlier occasion. MO2, the nighty, worn by the deceased at the time of the occurrence was also seized by him. All the material objects were produced before the court as per Ext.P13 series property list. Ext.P14 is the copy of the final report in Crime No.718/2015, charged against the accused for assaulting and injuring his mother on an earlier occasion. Ext.P15 is the copy of the order of the court in the case filed by the deceased under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Ext.P16 is the copy of the forwarding note submitted before the court requesting forwarding of MO2 and MO3 dhoti for chemical examination. Ext.P17 is the FSL report received relating to the examination of MO2 and MO3. He had also seized MO4 earrings that were worn by the deceased at the time of occurrence. In the cross examination PW12 stated that he had arrived at the scene of the occurrence at 7.45 a.m. When he reached there, he did not see either PW1 or the accused. He saw the accused for the first time at about 11 a.m. standing in the courtyard of the house. The accused was taken into custody, which was not resisted by him. PW12 admitted that the accused was suffering from some mental illness even before the date of incident. He admitted that PW1 and PW2 had given Exts.D1 and D2 statements. He does not know whether on 24/10/2015 the accused had been examined or treated by the Psychiatrist, Government Hospital, Mavelikkara. However, he knows that thereafter for about a month, the accused was under treatment at the Mental Health Centre, Thiruvananthapuram. 22. Ext.P2 inquest report has been proved by PW3 who admits that he is an attestor to the same. Ext.P3 seizure mahazar has been proved through PW4, an attestor to the same. PW9, an attestor to Ext.P8 mahazar, proves the seizure of MO3 blood-stained dhoti. 23. Finally, PW14, the then Circle Inspector, Chengannur, on 15/02/2016 took over the investigation of the case, verified the investigation conducted so far and submitted the charge sheet against the accused before the court. 24. It was argued on behalf of the accused that PW11 is a mentally ill person and therefore his deposition ought not to have been taken into consideration by the trial court. 24. It was argued on behalf of the accused that PW11 is a mentally ill person and therefore his deposition ought not to have been taken into consideration by the trial court. It is true that PW11, father of the accused, when examined stated that he was staying at a place by name Snehadhara, which is an institution wherein people with mental illness are being treated. He also admitted that for about a year or so, he had been staying at the said place. When PW11 was asked as to who had brought him to the court, he answered that he had come on his own. He admitted that he was taking some medicine. He asserted that he had no mental illness, which fact he had told the people at the institute also. He also said that he had come to the court as instructed by PW1. Section 118 of the Evidence Act says that all persons are competent to testify, unless the Court considers that they are prevented from understanding the questions put to them, or from giving rational answers to those questions, by tender years, extreme old age, disease, whether of body or mind, or any other cause of the same kind. The explanation to Section 118 says that a lunatic is not incompetent to testify, unless he is prevented by his lunacy from understanding the questions put to him and giving rational answers to them. When PW11 was in the box, his mental capacity, or his ability to depose is not seen challenged. To all the questions put to PW11, he is seen to have given rational answers. The learned trial judge who had the opportunity to closely watch PW11 in the box, did not find anything amiss. Therefore, in such circumstances, the argument that PW11 was suffering from mental illness and that he was incompetent to depose, is only liable to be rejected. 25. PW1 and PW2, the siblings of the accused, though had not directly witnessed the incident, came to the spot immediately thereafter. The only contradiction brought out in the testimony of PWs.1 and 2 is Exts.D1 and D2, which has not materially affected the prosecution case. The recovery of MO1 axe was effected on the basis of Exts.P3(a) disclosure statement given by the accused which has been proved through PW4. The only contradiction brought out in the testimony of PWs.1 and 2 is Exts.D1 and D2, which has not materially affected the prosecution case. The recovery of MO1 axe was effected on the basis of Exts.P3(a) disclosure statement given by the accused which has been proved through PW4. The defence do not have a case that Exts.P3(a) is not a statement coming under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 26. The testimony of PW11 shows that it was the accused who had hacked his mother to death. The testimony of PW1 and PW2 shows the events that took place immediately thereafter. We find no reason(s) to disbelieve PW11, PW1 and PW2 as their testimony has not been discredited in any way. 27. It was argued on behalf of the accused that as per the chargesheet, the allegation is that the accused with an axe had hacked his mother twice. However, Ext.P5 post-mortem certificate refers to several injuries and so the possibility of more people being involved in the incident cannot be ruled out. The prosecution has not explained all the injuries seen on the deceased and so this is a defect in the case put forward, contends the accused. It is true that the chargesheet only says that the accused with an axe had hacked his mother twice. It further says that due to the said act of the accused, his mother’s neck had been severed. PW6, the Police Surgeon who conducted the post-mortem has noted 29 injuries in Ext.P5. According to PW6, injury no.1 to 10, which are incised chop wounds on the back of neck and head, could be caused by MO1 axe. Injury no. 11 to 23 and 25 to 29 are abrasions and contusions, which could be caused by a fall on a rough surface. Injury no.24, an incised wound, bone deep, amputating the left thumb could be caused by a sharp weapon like MO1. The charge framed by the court also does not refer to the exact number of times the accused had hacked his mother. This does not appear to be a defect because all along the prosecution case is that the accused with MO1 axe had inflicted the injuries stated in Ext.P5 post-mortem report, resulting in her death. The charge framed by the court also does not refer to the exact number of times the accused had hacked his mother. This does not appear to be a defect because all along the prosecution case is that the accused with MO1 axe had inflicted the injuries stated in Ext.P5 post-mortem report, resulting in her death. At no point of time except in the cross examination of PW6, the surgeon who conducted the post-mortem examination, the accused had a case that someone else was also involved. PW6 apparently was not present at the time of the incident. It is true that the burden is always on the prosecution to prove the case put forward and the said burden never shifts. When PW11, his father, the only eyewitness to the incident, was cross examined the accused has no case that apart from the former, somebody else was also present at the time of the incident. The accused has also no case that PW11 was also involved or that PW11 had in any way attacked his mother. The only defence taken up by the accused all along is the benefit of the exception contained in section 84 IPC. This was the stand taken up when questioned under section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C also. The accused is seen to have given a statement in writing when he was asked whether he had anything more to submit regarding the case. He claimed that he was a loving son and that he would never do such a thing to his mother, who also loved him dearly. His wife died in an accident. This was a great shock to him. 10 years back he had been under treatment for serious mental illness. On the date of the incident, he had no control over himself and was not conscious or aware of his acts, due to which he does not remember or know what had happened on the date of the incident. He is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. It was only after his treatment at the mental health centre, Thiruvananthapuram, he came to understand about the true state of facts relating his mother’s death. Therefore we find no defect in the case put forward as contended by the accused. The fact that it was the accused who hacked his mother is established by the testimony of PW11, whom we find no reasons to disbelieve. Therefore we find no defect in the case put forward as contended by the accused. The fact that it was the accused who hacked his mother is established by the testimony of PW11, whom we find no reasons to disbelieve. We will shortly consider the defence of insanity taken by the accused. 28. It is true that PW6 has not stated that the injuries noted in Ext.P5 post-mortem report are sufficient in the ordinary course to cause the death of the deceased. The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the same is not necessary because the act of the accused in hacking his mother repeatedly on the neck with MO1 axe, a heavy weapon, would clearly show his intention to cause the death of his mother and therefore the act of the accused squarely comes under the first clause of Section 300 and not under the third clause of Section 300. 29. Injury no. 1 to 10 as referred to earlier are incised chop wounds on the back of neck and head of the deceased. The relevant portion of the cross examination of PW6 reads- “…………………..A chop wound is caused using a heavy weapon. An incised wound is caused by a sharp weapon. Among the incised wounds except injury No.24 were fatal injuries. It cannot be stated out of injury No.1 to 10 which one was inflicted firstly in point of time. MO1 is sharp weapon, not a blunt one, it is a heavy one. …. It cannot be stated which was the postmortem or antemortem injury. Injuries were pre mortem. If the injury inflicted 1 st ly, had cut the spinal cord then death is instantaneous other injuries could then be postmortem injuries. If all these injuries 1 to 10 were inflicted while the victim was in a standing position, he will immediately fall down. The head of the victim was not chopped off from the body. To cause the injuries in Ext.P5 single heavy weapon is sufficient. Multiple heavy weapons also can be used to cause those injuries. Injury no.12 to 14 in Ext.P5 can be caused when a heavy hand object come in contact with that part of the body, it can be due to a fall, can be due to strike with a heavy object. Due to fall towards front the face to ground abrasions cannot be caused on back of body. Injury no.12 to 14 in Ext.P5 can be caused when a heavy hand object come in contact with that part of the body, it can be due to a fall, can be due to strike with a heavy object. Due to fall towards front the face to ground abrasions cannot be caused on back of body. If it is suggested that more one person alone could cause the injuries mentioned in Ext.P1, I cannot say anything about it.” (See pages 11 to 13 of his deposition) This testimony coupled with the opinion as to cause of death given by PW6 in Ext.P5 which reads- “Death was due to multiple chop wounds sustained to head and neck. Pattern of injury sustained is consistent with the manner alleged.” is sufficient to show that the injuries sustained were sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death as contemplated under the third clause or thirdly of section 300 IPC. Therefore, we find that the evidence on record establishes that the accused did hack his mother Bhasurangi with MO1 chopper resulting in her death. 30. The accused takes up a case of insanity under Section 84 IPC. Section 84 IPC says that nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it by reason of unsoundness of mind is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. The accused relies on the testimony of PWs.1, 2, 11 as well as DW1 to DW3 and Exts.D3 to D5 to establish this ground. It is true that PWs.1, 2 and 11 admit that the accused was suffering from some mental illness. However, they do not admit that due to his unsoundness of mind he was incapable of knowing the nature of his act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. As per the testimony of DW1, Superintendent, Sub-jail, Mavelikkara, on 23/10/2015 the accused was remanded to judicial custody by the magistrate. In the remand warrant, the magistrate had directed the accused to be examined by a Psychiatrist of a Government hospital. In obedience to the same, on 24/10/2015, the accused was taken to a Psychiatrist at the Government Hospital, Mavelikkara (DW2). The Psychiatrist after examining the accused, referred him to the Mental Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. In the remand warrant, the magistrate had directed the accused to be examined by a Psychiatrist of a Government hospital. In obedience to the same, on 24/10/2015, the accused was taken to a Psychiatrist at the Government Hospital, Mavelikkara (DW2). The Psychiatrist after examining the accused, referred him to the Mental Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. Ext.D3 is the reference letter issued by the Psychiatrist. He then submitted Ext.D4 report seeking permission of the court to take the accused to the Mental Health Centre. The request was allowed, based on which, the accused on 25/10/2015 was sent to the Mental Health Centre, Thiruvananthapuram. 31. DW2, a psychiatrist, deposed that he does not remember whether he had examined the accused in this case, as several patients come to him. He admitted the issuance of Ext.D3 reference letter and his signature in the same. He also admits having examined the accused on 24/10/2015 at 10.45 a.m. The patient himself had stated the history of his mental illness for the past 10 years. The patient had told him that at the time of examination, he was not under medication and that he also does not know the duration during which he had been under medication. The patient complained of memory impairment and lack of sleep. A detailed mental status examination was not possible at that time. He referred the patient for detailed neuro-psychotic evaluation to the Mental Health Centre, Thiruvananthapuram as he found the history stated by the patient to be not reliable. As the patient had complained of sleep issues, he had prescribed medicine for the same. At the time of his examination, the patient was conscious and oriented. 32. DW3, Consultant, Government Mental Health Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, identified the accused in the box. DW3 and PW5 are one and the same person. DW3 admitted that the accused had been under his treatment from 26/10/2015 to 13/12/2015. According to DW3, the accused had been treated by other doctors of the Mental Health Centre, Thiruvananthapuram also. The interaction of the patient with others has not been mentioned in the records. They were unable to get the history of the earlier treatment of the patient. To a question whether the non-disclosure of the earlier treatment was due to mental illness, DW3 replied that he cannot say so. He admitted that there is a hereditary component or that such a component is possible in mental illness. They were unable to get the history of the earlier treatment of the patient. To a question whether the non-disclosure of the earlier treatment was due to mental illness, DW3 replied that he cannot say so. He admitted that there is a hereditary component or that such a component is possible in mental illness. However, they were unable to get any such family history from the accused. At the time of the admission of the patient, his mental illness was not impairing his judgment. DW3 further stated that there was a possibility that the alleged act in the case was due to the illness of the patient. However he also stated that they had no materials evidencing the previous history of the patient. DW3 to a question by the defence answered that there is no reason to believe that the accused had pretended insanity. In the cross-examination DW3 deposed that at the time of admission, the accused had not shown any signs of serious mental illness. He was not suffering from any delusion or hallucination. When Ext.D3 was shown, DW3 deposed that even at the time of Ext.D3, the patient was not suffering from any hallucination or delusion. In the further cross-examination of DW3 done with the permission of the court, DW3 admitted that there would be lucid intervals in case of all mental illnesses. 33. It was argued by the learned defence counsel that PW12, the investigating officer in this case had a duty to investigate and report the fact of insanity of the accused to the court. However, PW12 has failed in his duty. This is a serious infirmity in the case put forward by the prosecution, as evidence has come on record that the accused was suffering from mental illness, which would show that he did not have the required mens rea at the time of the commission of the offence and so he is entitled to the benefit of Section 84 IPC. In support of this argument reference is made to the dictums in Muhammed Rasheed v. State of Kerala, MANU/KE/5234/2019 and Shibu v. State of Kerala, 2013 (4) KLT 323. In support of this argument reference is made to the dictums in Muhammed Rasheed v. State of Kerala, MANU/KE/5234/2019 and Shibu v. State of Kerala, 2013 (4) KLT 323. In Mohammed Rasheed (Supra) it has been held that it is the duty of the investigating officer to investigate into the mental condition of the accused immediately before and after the occurrence in cases where the accused requires hospitalisation at the time or during the first remand itself and to look into the evidence of the doctor who treated the accused. Relying on the dictum in Bapu v. State of Rajasthan, (2007) 8 SCC 66 , the Division Bench further held that it was the duty of an honest investigator to subject the accused to medical examination immediately and place the evidence before the court and if that is not done, it creates a serious infirmity in the prosecution case and that the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused. In the case on hand it was pointed out that the testimony of DW1 as well as PW5 would show that at the time of the first remand itself, the accused required hospitalisation and so had been sent for treatment to the Mental Health Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, where he was under treatment for about a month. However, PW12, the investigating officer, never investigated into these aspects and mechanically submitted the final report. Therefore, relying on the aforesaid decisions, it was argued that the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt as the prosecution has failed to prove the mens rea required on the part of the accused. 34. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that as directed by the Magistrate, at the time of the first remand itself, the accused had been taken to the Mental Health Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, where he was also given treatment. The testimony of DW1 to DW3 itself would disprove the defense of insanity taken by the accused. Our attention was also drawn to the distinction between legal insanity and mental insanity. According to the prosecutor, for an accused to get the benefit of Section 84 IPC, it is his burden under Section 105 of the Evidence Act to establish the same. Our attention was also drawn to the distinction between legal insanity and mental insanity. According to the prosecutor, for an accused to get the benefit of Section 84 IPC, it is his burden under Section 105 of the Evidence Act to establish the same. In the case on hand, the materials on record, though would show that he was suffering from some mental illness, the degree of his illness was not of such a degree as to impair his faculties, due to which he was unable to understand the seriousness of the act done by him or whether it was right or wrong. In support of this argument, reference was made to the dictum in Ram Bahadur Thapa v. State of M.P., 2022 KHC 3121, a Division Bench decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which extensively refers to several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the point. 35. We have anxiously considered the arguments advanced by either side. In Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 1563 , it has been held that , it is fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent and, therefore, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution, therefore, in a case of homicide shall prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused caused death with the requisite intention described in S.299 of the Penal Code. This general burden never shifts, and it always rests on the prosecution. Under S.105 of the Evidence Act, read with the definition of ‘shall presume' in S.4 thereof, the court shall regard the absence of such circumstances as proved unless, after considering the matters before it, it believes that the said circumstances existed or their existence was so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that they did exist. To put it in other words, the accused will have to rebut the presumption that such circumstances did not exist, by placing material before the court sufficient to make it consider the existence of the said circumstances so probable that a prudent man would act upon them. The accused must satisfy the standard of a ' prudent man'. To put it in other words, the accused will have to rebut the presumption that such circumstances did not exist, by placing material before the court sufficient to make it consider the existence of the said circumstances so probable that a prudent man would act upon them. The accused must satisfy the standard of a ' prudent man'. If the material placed before the court, such as oral and documentary evidence, presumptions, admissions or even the prosecution evidence, satisfies the test of 'prudent man' the accused will have discharged his burden. The evidence so placed may not be sufficient to discharge the burden under S.105 of the Evidence Act, but it may raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of a Judge as regards one or other of the necessary ingredients of the offence itself. It may, for instance, raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Judge whether the accused had the requisite intention laid down in Section 299 of the Penal Code, 1860. If the Judge has such reasonable doubt, he must acquit the accused, for in that event the prosecution will have failed to prove conclusively the guilt of the accused. There is no conflict between the general burden, which is always on the prosecution, and which never shifts, and the special burden that rests on the accused to make out his defence of insanity. 36. As held in the dictum in Hari Singh Gond v. State of M. P., AIR 2009 SC 31 , Section 84 IPC lays down the legal test of responsibility in cases of alleged unsoundness of mind. There is no definition of 'unsoundness of mind' in the Penal Code. The term 'insanity' has no precise definition. It is a term used to describe varying degrees of mental disorder. Every person who is mentally diseased is not ipso facto exempted from criminal responsibility. A distinction needs to be made between legal insanity and medical insanity. In dealing with cases involving a defense of insanity, distinction must be made between cases, in which insanity is more or less proved and the question is only as to the degree of irresponsibility, and cases, in which insanity is sought to be proved in respect of a person, who for all intents and purposes, appears sane. In all cases, where previous insanity is proved or admitted, certain considerations must be borne in mind. In all cases, where previous insanity is proved or admitted, certain considerations must be borne in mind. Whether there was deliberation and preparation for the act; whether it was done in a manner which showed a desire to concealment; whether after the crime, the offender showed consciousness of guilt and made efforts to avoid detection, whether after his arrest, he offered false excuses and made false statements. It has also been pointed out that these tests are good for cases in which previous insanity is more or less established. 37. In T.N. Lakshmaiah v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2001 SC 3828 , it has been held that under the Evidence Act, the onus of proving any of the exceptions mentioned in the Chapter lies on the accused though the requisite standard of proof is not the same as expected from the prosecution. It is sufficient if an accused is able to bring his case within the ambit of any of the general exceptions by the standard of preponderance of probabilities, as a result of which he may succeed not because he proves his case to the hilt but because the version given by him casts a doubt on the prosecution case. 38. In Bapu (Supra), it has been held, Section 84 embodies the fundamental maxim of criminal law, i.e., actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea (an act does not constitute guilt unless done with a guilty intention). To constitute an offence, the intent and act must concur; but in the case of insane persons, no culpability is fastened on them as they have no free will (furiosi nulla voluntas est). The Section itself provides that the benefit is available only after it is proved that at the time of committing the act, the accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or that even if he did not know it, it was either wrong or contrary to law then this section must be applied. The crucial point of time for deciding whether the benefit of this section should be given or not, is the material time when the offence takes place. The crucial point of time for deciding whether the benefit of this section should be given or not, is the material time when the offence takes place. In coming to that conclusion, the relevant circumstances are to be taken into consideration, it would be dangerous to admit the defence of insanity upon arguments derived merely from the character of the crime. It is only unsoundness of mind which naturally impairs the cognitive faculties of the mind that can form a ground of exemption from criminal responsibility. The law recognises nothing but incapacity to realize the nature of the act and presumes that where a man's mind or his faculties of ratiocination are sufficiently dim to comprehend what he is doing, he must always be presumed to intend the consequence of the action he takes. Mere absence of motive for a crime, howsoever atrocious it may be, cannot, in the absence of a plea and proof of legal insanity, bring the case within this section. 39. Further, in Sheralli Wali Mohammed v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 4 SCC 79 : AIR (1972) SC 2443 it has been held that the mere fact that no motive has been proved why the accused committed the murder or the fact that he made no attempt to run away, would not indicate that he was insane or that he did not have necessary mens rea for the commission of the offence. Mere abnormality of mind or partial delusion, irresistible impulse or compulsive behaviour of a psychopath affords no protection under Section 84. Behaviour, antecedent, attendant, and after the event, may be relevant in finding the mental condition of the accused at the time of the event, but not that remote in time. It is difficult to prove the precise state of the offender' s mind at the time of the commission of the offence, but some indication thereof is often furnished by the conduct of the offender while committing it or immediately after the commission of the offence. A lucid interval of an insane person is not merely a cessation of the violent symptoms of the disorder, but a restoration of the faculties of the mind sufficiently to enable the person soundly to judge the act; but the expression does not necessarily mean complete or perfect restoration of the mental faculties to their original condition. A lucid interval of an insane person is not merely a cessation of the violent symptoms of the disorder, but a restoration of the faculties of the mind sufficiently to enable the person soundly to judge the act; but the expression does not necessarily mean complete or perfect restoration of the mental faculties to their original condition. So, if there is such a restoration, the person concerned can do the act with such reason, memory, and judgment as to make it a legal act; but merely a cessation of the violent symptoms of the disorder is not sufficient. 39.1. The standard to be applied is whether according to the ordinary standard, adopted by reasonable men, the act was right or wrong. The mere fact that an accused is conceited, odd irascible and his brain is not quite all right, or that the physical and mental ailments from which he suffered had rendered his intellect weak and had affected his emotions and will, or that he had committed certain unusual acts in the past or that he was liable to recurring fits of insanity at short intervals, or that he was subject to getting epileptic fits but there was nothing abnormal in his behaviour, or that his behaviour was queer, cannot be sufficient to attract the application of this section. 40. The settled position of law is that every man is presumed to be sane and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his acts unless the contrary is proved. ( State of M. P. v. Ahmadull, AIR 1961 SC 998 ). 41. Having thus reminded ourselves of the law on the point and the distinction between legal insanity and medical insanity, we will now consider whether the accused has been successful in establishing that he is entitled to the benefit of Section 84 IPC. The evidence on record does not help the accused in any way to establish that his mental state was such that he was not able to distinguish between right and wrong or that by reason of unsoundness of mind, he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. We have already referred to the testimony of DW1 to DW3 as well as the prosecution witnesses, namely, PW1, PW2 and PW11. We have already referred to the testimony of DW1 to DW3 as well as the prosecution witnesses, namely, PW1, PW2 and PW11. PWs.1, 2 and 11 are none other than the siblings and the father of the accused. Their evidence at best would only show that the accused had some mental illness. Their evidence does not in any way help the accused in establishing that due to his unsoundness of mind at the time of the incident he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act committed by him. The learned defence counsel pointed out that PW1 and PW2 denied having stated to the police or denied the fact that the accused had been under treatment for mental illness, only because they do not want the accused to be released and their intention is to see that he continues in jail. This intention of PW1 is clear from the answer that he gave in the cross examination. During cross examination, PW1 was asked whether he was ready to take responsibility of the accused in the event of the latter being released from jail, to which he answered in the negative. Pointing to this answer of PW1, it was argued that this itself would show the reason why PW1 has now taken a stand that the accused did not have any mental illness, due to which he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act committed by him. The said answer alone cannot be taken to conclude that the accused has substantiated his case of legal insanity. The witnesses of the accused himself do not support the defence case that he was incapable of understanding the nature of acts committed by him. Aggressive behaviour or attacking others cannot be equated with unsoundness of mind. Abnormal behaviour also does not mean that a person is suffering from legal insanity. The standard to be applied is whether according to the ordinary standards adopted by reasonable men, the act was right or wrong. Aggressive behaviour or attacking others cannot be equated with unsoundness of mind. Abnormal behaviour also does not mean that a person is suffering from legal insanity. The standard to be applied is whether according to the ordinary standards adopted by reasonable men, the act was right or wrong. The mere fact that an accused is conceited or that his brain was not quite all right, or that his physical and mental ailments from which he suffered, had rendered his intellect weak and had affected his emotions, or that he had committed certain unusual acts in the past or that he was liable to recurring fits of insanity at short intervals, or that his behaviour was queer, cannot be sufficient to attract the application of Section 84. As held in Sheralli Wali Mohd 's case (Supra) mere abnormality of mind or partial delusion or irresistible impulse or compulsive behaviour of a psychopath would not afford a protection under Section 84 IPC. 42. In the case on hand, the evidence on record does not support the defence case of insanity under Section 84 IPC. On the other hand, the materials on record show that it was a planned one which is clear from the conduct of the accused before and after the incident. PW11, the father, whom we find no reasons to disbelieve, deposed that pursuant to a fight that had occurred between the mother and the son in the night before the incident, the latter had gone out and waited in the cattle shed till morning. He was successful in bringing his mother out of the house by deceit. He called out to her by telling her that two loads of bricks had arrived and if there was nobody to look after them, it may be stolen. He thus persuaded his mother to step out of the house. The moment she stepped out of the house, the accused with MO1 axe, which was kept in the cattle shed where he was hiding, hacked his mother repeatedly resulting in her death. This conduct of the accused does not show that his mental condition was such that he was unable to or incapable of understanding the nature of the act committed by him. He seems to have concealed himself in the cattle shed and waited for an opportunity to carry out his plan. This conduct of the accused does not show that his mental condition was such that he was unable to or incapable of understanding the nature of the act committed by him. He seems to have concealed himself in the cattle shed and waited for an opportunity to carry out his plan. The fact that there were quarrels between the mother and the son relating to the property of the mother, has also come out in evidence. Therefore, the motive as alleged by the prosecution has also been established. In these circumstances, we find that the learned trial Judge, who has discussed all these aspects, was right in arriving at the guilt of the accused and convicting him. We find no reasons to interfere with the findings in the impugned judgment. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.