P. Govinda Menon, J.
1. The appellant has been convicted Under Section 302 IPC for having caused the death of his wife by cutting her with a chopper at about 12-30 p. m., on 4-1-60 and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life, He was funnel not guilty and acquitted of the offence Under Section 326, I. P. C-, for having caused grievous hurt to his mother by cutting her with a chopper.
2. The prosecution case briefly is this.-
The accused was for some time employe J in Bombay. Then he came back to his native village and married the deceased Narayani Animal, daughter of Pw. 11 in January 1959. The accused, his mother Pw. 1, his sister Fappamnvii Pw. 2 and his wife were living together in his house in Tharur village. After the marriage Pw. 2 had gone to 'Ernakulam and was staying with another brother of hers who was employed there, In November 1959, Pw. 1 went to Ernakulam to her son and while she was returning she brought back Pappamma] with her. While Pw. 1 was away the accused and his wife alone were , living in the house. The accused then began to illtreat and beat his wife. Pw. 4 who, is a maid-servant in the house, informed their neighbour Pw. 3 Janafci Animal and under instructions from her she sent her husband to the house of the deceased. The husband informed Pw. 11 the mother of the deceased She sent her relation Pw. 12 to the house of the accused to bring back her daughter. Pw. 12'accordingly went and took the deceased to her house. When Pws. 1 and 2' returned from Ernakulam they did not find the deceased in the house. The husband of the elder sisler of Pw. 2 was then sent to the house of Pw. 11 and the deceased was brought back to the accused's house.
3. On the date of the incident on 4-1-60, the accused had gone to Alathur to purchase some medicine for his ailing mother. He returned with the medicine and the mother asked him to change his clothes and take his food. The accused went to the kitchen and 'the deceased served him food. Pw. 2 the sister then heard exchange of words between the accused and the deceased from the kitchen. The accused asked the deceased 'whom are you looking at and with whom were you talking*. The deceased said she did n t look or talk to anybody. Pw. 2 then told the accused that he should not talk to her in that strain as she was not a woman of that type. The accused then told Pw. '2 that it was none of her business to interfere when he was questioning his wife. Pw. 1 hearing the conversation came to the kitchen and advised Pw. 2 to go away. While Pw. 2 was going the accused followed her and beat her with his shoe. Pw. 3 saw the beating and took Pw. 2 to the verandah of hir house.
4. The accused again went inside the house. The deceased1 and Pw. 1 were then sitting On a bench. The accused demanded the deceased the five him all her jewels. The deceased immediately obeyed and removed all the conmen's and gave it to him. The accused then went to the kitchen and soon afterwards returned with a chopper and cut the deceased on her head. On getting the cut, she fell down On the floor.
5. Pw. 7 who was cooking food for certain Sabaremalai Pilgrims in a shed about 50 feet away from the house heard the alarm raised by Pw. 1 and rushed to the house of the accused-He saw the deceased lying down and the accused standing nearby with a chopper in his hand. Pw. L was also standing there. Seeing blood he got frightened and ran away from the house.
6. The accused again cut and when Pw. 1 tried to ward of the attack her left thumb was-chopped off. Pw. 1 however wrenched the chopper from his hand and raising an alarm that the daughter was being killed came out of the house and threw away the chopper. Pw. 3 hearing this, alarm came and took Pw. 1 also to the verandah of her house.
7. Pw. 7 after seeing file incident at encewent to Pw. 13, the President of the Panchayat Board and told him that the accused had Cut 'b5' head of the deceased and that she was lying dead. Pw. 13 advised Pw. 7 immediately to go and inform the Adhikari.
8. Pw. 10 who is living three houses away from the accused's house hearing the alarm came and saw Pws. 2 and 3 sitting in the house of Pw. 3, Pw. 2 told him that the accused had beaten her and sent her out of the house, that her mother was inside the houses that Cries are being heart and that he should go and enquire what the matter was. Pw. 10 being an old man went and informed Pw. 9, a teacher in the nearby Amber Charka School. Pw. 9 with a student in the school and1 Pw. 10 proceeded to the house. While going, they saw Pw. 1 sitting on the verandah of Pw. 3, house and Pw. 1 told Pw. 10 that the had lost the tip1' of her thumb.
9. The front door of the accused's house was then seen closed. So they went towards the backward, jumped Over the wall and went near the cotirtyard wall and peeped over it into the house. Pw. 9 then saw the accused standing with a chopper in his hand in the varandah of the house. The accused then shouted that nobody should go there and that he would kill if anybody dared get inside.
10. Pw. 8 a person living half a furlong away hearing about the incident came to the house. He also went to the backyard and peeped inside and saw the accused standing with the chopper in the verandah of the kitchen.
11. Pw. 7 after reluming from Pw. 13 also went to the house and he also saw the accused standing with a chopper in his hand. The accused then went inside and closed the door. Pws. 7, 8 and 9 then came to the front side of the house. By that time the accused had also come and was sutinff on a bench on the verandah of the house. Pw. 8 asked the accused what he had done and the accused told him in the presence of Pws. 7 and 9 that he had killed her and that they may a and inform the police. Pw. 8 then locked the door with the accused inside and kept the key with him.
12. Pw. 5, a student while returning from-the school to his ,house heard that the accused hid murdered his wife and told his father Pw. 6 abet It. Pw. 6 immediately came to the house and Saw a large crowd there. The house wag, seen locked. He asked, the accused what the matter was. The accused then said that everything was over, He then went to Pw. 16 the village Munsiff and gave, a statement Ext. P. 2 Pw. 16 recorded the statement and came over to the house.
He saw the accused sitting on the bench in verandah. He noticed blood stains on the named and banian worn by the accused. He also saw the front door locked. Pw. 8 opened the door and Pw. 16 got inside and asked the accused what the matter was. The accused then told him that the wife is murdered and is lying inside and that he could do whatever is necessary. Pw. 16 got inside and saw the dead body. He told the accused that he is going to send, him to the police and that he should accompany him Pw. 16 tock him to his office, At the office, he, prepared the yadast and sent the accused along with the Kolkaran Pw. 17 to the police station.
13. Pw. 17 produced the accused with the first information statement Ext. P-2 and the yadast Ext. P-5 before the Head constable Pw. 22. Pw. 22 registered a case and arrested the accused and took into custody his blood stained mundu and banyan, under a mahazar Ext. P-13. Pw. 25 the Circle Inspector on getting the report came to the scene, Pw. 16 was present in the house of the accused. He got the door opened and went inside and held the inquest. He then spared the scene mahazar and recovered the chopper M. O. 1 which was thrown by Pw. 1, and another chopper M. O. 2 from the kitchen both of which were blood stained.
He then questioned all the important witnesses on the same day. Pw. 18 the Medical Officer conducted the autopsy. The accused was then produced before the Sub Magistrate of Chittoor Pw. 10 the Sub Magistrate recorded the statement of the accused after observing all the formalities. The statement was not marked by the prosecution as it was not a confessional statement. That statement has been marked n the side of the defence as Ext, D-2. After '.completing the investigation Pw. 25 the Circle Inspector of Police filed the charge sheet against the accused.
14. The accused when questioned in the committing Magistrate's Court stated that he did no cut his Wife or mother, that while he was sitting fin the verandah of his house a masked person came and caught hold of his neck, that he heard the cries of this wife, that he beano unconscious and did not know what happened afterwards. That was practically what he stated in the confessional statement Ext. D-2. In the Sesisons Court the story of the masked man was given up, but-he stated that he did not remember whets he had cut his wife. Ho denied enmity with the deceased. He stated that he does not remember whether he had ill-treated her or beaten her. H-also gave an elaborate statement about having some mental disease for which he had been treated at different places by different persons. He has also examined three defence witnesses to prove the plea of insanity.
15. The death of Narayani Ammal has been amply proved. Pw. 18 the Medical Officer who conducted the postmortem found 11 injuries which he has correctly-described this the, certificate Ext. P-6. Injury No. 1 is described as:
The right leg found severed completely at 'h-i level between middle and lower l/3rd of right leg. The cut end is an incised wound round the Circumference of the leg with an uneven exit. The bones of the leg (tabia and fibula) were four cu: along with the muscles, nerves, tendons and blood vessels.
Injury No. 3 was:
An incised wound 3 1/4'x l/2'x 1/4' over the centre of scalp running diagonally from front to back towards right side cutting the skull bane completely underneath 3' long.
Injury No. 4 was:
An incised wound 2' x 1/4' x 1/4' over the right occipital region cutting the skull bone underneath. The bone is cut only to half its thickness.
Injury No. 11 was:
Contusion of the skin about 1 1/2' in diameter noticed over the right side of 'he. chest over the 9th 10th and '11th ribs along the midaxillary line.
On internal examination the doctor found 2oz., of blood in the peritoneal cavity. Over the parietal pleura of the right side of the thoracic cavity a contusion was found at the level of the 10th rib-On examination of the liver a rupture, was found over the lateral lobe of the liver for a length. The skull was found cut to is half thickness for 1 1/2' length over the right oceipitil. region at the level of external wound No. 4. The two cut wounds found inside the skull correspond' to the external inherits Nos. 3 and 4. According to the doctor external injuries Nos. 1 to 6 could be caused with choppers like M. O. 1 or M. O. 2, the contusions by fisting or those portions of the body coming into contact with a hard substance and abrasions by falling down or by coming into contact with a rough substance like the wall. Accordant; to him the rupture on the liver may be due to a punch on that part of the body. He is of opinion that the cause of death is shock due to the multiple injuries and that all the injuries put together are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. There is therefore no doubt that Narayani Animal died as a result of the injuries sustained by her on that day.
16. The question that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt to the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution seeks to prove the case by the direct evidence of Pw. 1, the circumstantial all evidence afforded by the testimony of Pws. 2 to 4 7 to 10, 6 and 16, the presence of blood saints on the cloth and hanian worn by the accused and the presence of blood on the choppers and the evidence' of motive spoken to by Pws. 3 4, 6, 11, 12 and 10.
27. (Their Lordships discussed the evidence and continued as under: ) It was also argued that the exact words used by the appellant, when her; made the extra judicial confess only are at given, that the version given by the witnesses vary and therefore the confessions should be excluded. The witnesses have deposed what the appellant has stated and we are not able to find any appreciable difference in the gist of the confessions made by the accused. From what the witnesses have stated it is clear that the accused had admired that ha had killed his wife.
28. The Supreme Court in a recent case in Mulk Raj v. The State of U. P. A.I.R. 1959 SC 902 dealing with extra judicial confessions have stated.
The value of the evidence as to the, confession just like any other evidence, depends upon the veracity of tile witness t0 whom, it is made. It is true that the Court requires the witness to give the actual words used by the accused as nearly as possible, but it is not an invariable rule that the court should not accept the evidence if not the actual words hut the substance were given. If the rule is inflexible that the Courts should insist only on the exact words-, more often as not, this kind of evidence sometimes most reliable and, useful, will have to be excluded; for, except petrels in the case of a person of. good memory many witnesses cannot, repeat the exact words of the accused. It is .for the Court having regard to the credibility of the witness, his capacity to understand the language in which the accused made the confession, to accept the evidence or not.
In this case the witnesses who speak to the circa judicial confession are thoroughly disinterested witnesses who have no axe to grind against the: accused and they are persons who have no reason to (invent a false confession. The learned Sessions (judge was therefore perfectly justified in accepting their testimony.
29. In the case of Pw. 16 it was further stated that he is a person in authority, but that only makes it necessary for I ha Court to scrawnier his evidence with more than ordinary care in order to ascertain whether the confession was voluntarily made. The Court has to see whether such a person used any words which might possibly have induced the accused to confess. J5ut if on the evidence there is nothing to show that there was any inducement the confession could be accepted. In this case there is not even a suggestion that any such inducement was made by the Village Runoff. He is a respectable witness and thoroughly disinterested. We are therefore unable to agora that the extra-judicial confession spoken to by Pw. 16 cannot be accepted.
30. The next important circumstance alleged against the accused is the existence of a sprout motive. The prosecution case is that the accused suspected the fidelity of his wife, even though she was a chaste and a faithful woman. We have the evidence Of Pw. 6 who is related to the accus ;d that once or twice the accused complained to him about the character of his wife and that he wan-led to divorce her. Pw. 16 has deposed that about 5 or 6 months prod to the occurrence the accused had told him that he wanted to divorce his wife as he suspected the character of the woman.
We have then the evidence of Pw. 4 who is the maid-servant in the house of the accused that after Pws1. 1 and 2 left for Ernakulam, the accuse] started ill-treating and beating his wife. She told Pw. 3 about this and as Pw. 3 was ill she advised Pw. 4 to inform the relatives of the deceased, that she sent her husband t0 Pw. 11 the mother of the deceased' and informed her. Pw. 11 sent a relation of hers Pw. 12 to the house of the accused.
Pw. 12 swears that, when he went to the house of the accused he actually saw the decors d being assaulted and that he took the deceased to Pw. 11's house. Pw. 11 the mother has stated that the deceased had told her that about 6 months after the marriage the accused was abusing and beating her saying that she looked here or there and that getting information from Pw. 4 husband she sent Pw. 12 to fetch her daughter.
The accused when questioned Under Section 342 has admitted that Pw. 12 had come and taken away the deceased to her house. There h no reason to disbelieve any of these witnesses. Added to that we have the, evidence of Pw. 2 that on that day the quarrel sorted because the accused asked the deceased whom she was looking at and to whom she was talking. These , circumstances show that the accused was labouringly under a strong delusions about the unfaithfulness of his writhe and disturbed any such thought had caused her death.
31. It will nor, be out of place in this connection to consider the inconsistent pleas putty forward by the accused in the committing Magistrate's Court and in the Sessions Court. In the committing Magistrate's Court he had put forward the specific case of a masked man coming and trying to throttle him and his hearing cries of has wife from inside the house the suggestion being that the unknown person must have killed the wife. In the Sessions Court this case was given and ho pretended not remembering anything.
32. The learned Counsel for the appellant had raised an argument that in view of the medical evidence the offence proved to have been committed by the accused would not in any view be murder because none of the injuries- which the accused has been proved to have inflicted have been proved to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, It is true that the doctor has not said that any one of the injuries by itself was sufficient to cause death in the orderly course, of nature. about looking at the nature of the injuries, the Only inference is that whoever has caused these injuries must have intended to cause the debate of the victim.
It is difficult to imagine how any human being could have survived the ferocity of the attack as is revealed by the nature of the injuries. Even if none of the injuries by themselves were Sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death cumulatively they were certainly sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death which in effect took place son infer the ass smut. In our opinion if the prosecution evidence is accepted the offence is clearly one of murder.
33. It had al o been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant that in the charge that had been framed by the Court what was seated was that the accused caused the death by cutting her with a chopper & not that lie caused any injurious: by fisting or punching. The learned Counsel referred us to to evidence of flick doctor that on dissection he found that the liver had rupiured and it could not he said that the death was not due to that injury and that the death must have been only as a result of cutting with the chopper. There is no substance in this argument. No doubt it would have been better if the charge had been more specific.
But the mere omission to specify the details of how the injuries were caused in the charge can. not in the circumstances of this case have any effect as no prejudice has been alleged or shown.
As pointed Out in Willie (William) Slaney v. State of Madhva Pradesh : 1956CriLJ291 procedural laws are designed to subserve the ends of justice and not to frustrate them and if the rail is conducted substantially in the manner prescribed by the Code but some irregularity occurs in the course of such conduct the irregularity is curable person who seeks the exemption to prove it Under Section 537 Crl. P. C The object of a charge is to warn the accused person of the case he is to answer and if that test is satisfied it cannot be treated as if it was a part of a ceremonial, The imperfection in the charge even if there is any is curable provided no prejudice has been shown to have resulted because of it. In this casa it is nobody's case that any other person had entered the house or caused any one of the injuries found on the person of the deceased. The circumstances of the case show beyond the shadow of doubt that the deceased sustained all the injuries at the hands of the accused and accused alone.
On a consideration of the enter evidence End the circumstances and probabilities of the case we have no hesitation in holding that the finding of the learned Sessions Judge that it was the accus d who caused all the injuries on the deceased is perfectly justified.
34. Finally we will deal with the plea of insanity that has been put forward on behalf of in accused. Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code deals with the plea of insanity. Section 84 Indian Penal Code reads as follows1:
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 her wrong or contrary to law.
This provision embodies the fundamental maxim of criminal law actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea' (An act does not constitute guilt unless done with a guilty intention), In order to con-stitute crime, the intent and act must concur, but in the ease of insane persons, no culpability is fastened on them as they have no free will (furiosi nulla voluntas est). It is necessary for the application of Section 84 B. P. C. to show, (1) that the accused was of unsound mind; (2) that he was of unsound mind at the time he did the act and not merely before or after the act; and (3) as a result of unsoundness of mind he was incapable of knowing the ' nature of the act or that he was doing what was I either wrong or contrary to law. It is not therefore every person mentally diseased who ipso facto is [exempted from criminal responsibility.
35. This provision was examined in Queen Empress v- Kadar Nasyer Shah ILR 23 Cal 604, a Wading case which has been repsatedly follow seel. The learned Judges point out that the rule is in substance the same as is contained in the answers of the Judges to the questions put to them by the House of Lords in Daniel M'Naghten's Case, (1843) 10 C and F 200. There it was laid down that every than is to be presumed to be sane and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be reponsible for his crimes until the contrary is proved and that o establish a defence the ground of insanity it must clearly be 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, if he did know it, that ho did not know he was doing what was wrong.
36. If unsoundness of mind is urged as a ground of exemption from liability, it is for the accused must not leave the condition of his mind at the time of the commission of the offence in doubt, but must satisfy the court that it was such that he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that what he was doing was either wrong Or contrary to law. Accused's condition, antecedent and subsequent to the commission of the crime is relevant only, in so far as it might assist the court in coming to a conclusion as to Hg mental capacity at the time when he committed the act The accused cannot get the benefit of Section 84 by merely creating a reasonable doubt in the mind of the court about the existence of circumstance bringing his case within the exception.
37. The burden of proof resting on the accused to prove the insanity is n0 doubt not so onerous as the burden of proof resting upon the prosecution to prove the fact that the accused committed the act with which he is charged. As ob-served by Viscount Hailsham, L. C. in Sademan v. Rex 1936-2 All ER 1138:
the burden in case in which an accused his to prove insanity may fairly be stated as not being higher than the burden which rests on a plaintiff or defendant in civil proceedings.
As to what is the burden resting upon a plaintiff or defendant in civil proceedings, can best be. stated in the words of Wiles, J., in Cooper v. Slade (1858) 6 II. L. C, 74a That learned Judge referred to an ancient authority in support of what he termed.
the elementary proposition that in civil case the preponderance of probability may constitute sufficient ground for a verdict.
Applying this rule of burden of proof, if of a consideration of the prosecution evidence and the evidence Ie4 by the accused the court comes to the conclusion that there was a probability of the accused being legally insane at the time of the commission of the crime, he would be entitled to be acquitted on the ground of insanity.
38. This is quite different from holding as was held in Parbhoo v. Emperor A.I.R. 1941 All 402 (FB), which has gone t0 the extent of saying that the accused is one led to be acquitted on the ground of insanity even if a reasonable doubt is created in the mind of the court whether he is or is not entitled to the benefit of the exception Under Section 84.
39. There is clear distinction between madical and legal insanity. The courts are concerned with the legal and not with the medical view of the question. A man may be suffering from some form of insanity in the sense in which the term is used by medical man, but may not be suffering from unsoundness of mind as is described in Section 84.
If the facts of a particular case show that the accused knew that he had done something wrong it did not matter how though he mega Be insane from the medical point of view he could not be exonerated Under Section 84 I. P. C
40. Reference may be made to the decisions in In re, Pappathi Animal : AIR1959Mad239 ; Hazara Singh v. The State , Kashiram v. The State A.I.R. 1957 Madh Bha 104; Nitai Naik v. The State : AIR1957Ori168 and Emperor v. Gedka Goala A.I.R. 1937 Pat 363 where the question of the applicability of Section 84 I- p. C, has been elaborately dscussed. In the light of the principles laid down in the above decisions, we may now consider the evidence in this case with regard to the plea of insanity.
41. Three witnesses have been examined Ol1 the side of the accused, Dw. 1 is a close neighbor of the accused. He stated that the accused was not going for work for the last 4 or 5 years. To a question as to why he was not going for work his first answer was that the accused is a rich persn and that is why he does not go for work. The counsel for the accused then pulled him up and asked him about his physical condition. The witness then woke up and said that there was something wrong with his head. He also spoke of the accused going to Shornur for treatment, his treatment under Dw. 2 the retired Superinsndent of Mental Hospital Madras and of his going to the Chottanikara temple for worship for his msnt.il derangement. His evidence even if true does not help the accused in making out what his condition was at the time of the incident or immediately before or after the incident
42. Dw. 2, the retired Superintendent of the Mental Hospital, Madras stated that he had treated the accused between 19-4-59 and 7-5-59 and in his opinion he was suffering from schizophrenia a peculiar mental disease. The doctor gives die symptoms which he had noticed, as no inclination to secure any employment and loosing of all initiative; that he was just drifting and his1 touch with reality being very low; that he was living in fantasy and his ideas being poor, that Ms sleep was not satisfactory that he took, life easy and was easily led or misled. The witness also stated that he used to talk to the accused every time he visited him and he was answering all questions as much as he can under the circumstances. He says that there was something fundamentally wrong with the accused. The evidence of the doctor would at the most show that the accuse was riot mentally a normal person. This cannot amount to legal insanity.
43. Dw. 3 is an Ayurvedic physician who treated the accused in the Ayurveda Vaidayasala at Chornur between 15-8-57 and 9-10-57 and 31-5-59 and 28-6-59. He gives his opinion that the accused was suffering from a disease known as Madonna them. The main symptoms which he hid nosed were talking incoherently. Later he came forward with more details of this disease and suggesting that the accused was insane. The learned Sessions fudge has discussed the evidence of this witness in para 26 of the judgment and we agree with the learned Sessions Judge that his evidence is not reliable and cannot be accepted. It is also significant to note that the theory of insanity has been suggested only to the witnesses who are either relations or close friends of the accused and not to any of the disinterested neighbours or the ViHsg1 Munsif who knows the accused personally and who is expected to know the cenditin of the accused.
44. The learned Counsel for the appoint referred us particularly to the conduct of the accused namely the evidence that he got the we worn by the deceased and throwing it into the well. The jewels were later recovered by the Sub-luspector from the well. We are not prepared to agree that this is an indication that at the time of the incident he was insane. This conduct is perfectly consistent with a sane, but a highly jealous husband always suspecting the fidelity of his wile and throwing the jewels worn by the wife cut ' disgust and, an uncontrollable temper.
45. On the other hand, we how the evidence of the conduct of the accused as spank to by witnesses Pws. 7, 8 and 9 that when they saw him in the back verandah of the kitchen the accused threatened them that if they dared enter the house they would be killed. Then there is his further conduct in closing the door and going inside when they saw him. Later his conduct in telling Pws. 7, 8 and 9 that he had killed his wife and that they may inform the authorities and his extra-judicial confession to Ws. 6 and 16 that he has murdered his wife and that the Village Munsiff may as whatever is necessary. All these show that he was perfectly sane, knew that what he had done was wrong and was prepared to suffer the consequences of his wrongful act. From all these it is clear that the accused was conscious of the nature of his act and as stated in Queen Empress v- Ashman Dagdu ILR. 10 Bom 512 'if he was conscious of its nature he must be presumed to have been conscious of its criminality1'.
46. We must also remember that on that day morning he was sent by his mother to purchase medicine. It is unlikely that if he had b-en not mentally alright on that day he would have been sent to Alathur, a place five miles away from his house,. We have also the evidence that he hid been examined;' by the Assistant District Medical Officer, of the-Headquarters Hospital, palghat. He is .court witness 'No. 1, The doctor had placed him lincler observation for 10 days and has issued a certificate Ext. 02 reporting that the accused is not a lunatic. He is the sub-jail doctor also. He used to visit the sub-jail often. He has categorically stated that he did not observe any signs of lunacy in the accused either during the period of his observation or when he had later visited the sub-jail.
The learned Sessions Judge has cbserved that during the course of the trial also he was not able to obese anything abnormal in the accused as that from the questions put to the accused Under Section 342 and the answers given by him it is seen that he is capable of understanding the questions put to him and giving rational answers. The learned Counsel had argued that the crime was motiveless but the mere fact that an act is without apparent motive is not by Itself sufficient to establish insanity. From all these circumstances the only irresistible inference is that the accused was not in sane at the time when he committed the act is to entitle hajji to claim exemption Under Section 84, IPC
The result is that the conviction of the accused Under Section 302, IPC is correct avid is hen by confirmed. Imprisonment for life is the minimum his could be awarded and it is also confirmed. Tea appeal is therefore, dismissed.