Achanta Rama Krishna vs The State of A.P. and Another

G. Yethirajulu, J.—This Appeal is preferred by A-1 in S.C.No. 13 of 2002 on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru. He was charged for the offence u/s 302 of I.P.C. for intentionally causing the death of the deceased by name Boyapati Satyanarayana at 7-00 AM on 12-08-2001 by hacking with Kamma Kathi indiscriminately. The accused denied the charges and claimed for trial.

The case of the prosecution leading to the conviction of the appellant is as follows:

The deceased was the son of PW-2. PWs.3 and 4 are owns sisters. They have got some ancestral property to an extent of Ac.4-00 situated in between the lands of PW-2, the father of A-1 and others. The said land was divided between PWs.2 and 3 and they have been in occupation of the said land equally. PW-3 was residing at Pothavaram Village, therefore, her part of the land was entrusted for cultivation to PW-4. Subsequently, the said land was found less fertile, therefore, PW-3 proclaimed to sell away the same. PW-4 bargained with PW-3 to purchase the land, which is adjacent to her land and paid some amount as advance in the presence of PW-5. PW-4 failed to secure the remaining amount and ultimately, she could not obtain the sale deed. PW-3 offered the said land for sale and when she approached the deceased, he agreed to take the land by paying the cost and got registered the sale deed executed by PW-3 in his name in March, 2001. Eversince, he occupied the said land of Ac.2-00 and tethered his cattle in that land. As the advance amount paid by PW-4, she approached A-1 for refund of the advance amount. A-1 approached the deceased several times demanding to return the advance. But the deceased paid deaf ear, therefore, A-1 bore grudge against the deceased and decided to kill and hacked up a plan with A-2 who is the tenant cultivating the land of A-1. In pursuance of that, on 12-08-2001 A-1 armed with karra kathi, took the assistance of A-2 and went into the land occupied by the deceased at about 7-00 AM. When the deceased was collecting the milk from cows along with PW-11, A-1 lonely went to the deceased with his karra kathi and on reaching the deceased, A-1 hacked him with karra kathi and caused multiple injuries on the head of the deceased resulting in his instantaneous death. Later the accused escaped with the weapon. On witnessing the incident, PW-11 raised hue and cry and ran to PWs.1 and 2 to inform the incident. On hearing the cries of PW-11, PWs.1 and 2 rushed to the land and noticed the escaping of A-1 and A-2 from the said land with karra kathi. This was also witnessed by PWs.6 and 7. Later, a crime was registered and after completion of the investigation, the police laid the charge sheet.

The prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the accused, examined PWs.1 to 12 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-14 and M.Os.1 to 9. On behalf of the defence, DWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.D-1 to D-8 were marked. The lower Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, found A-2 not guilty of the offence. A-1 was convicted for the offence u/s 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The appellant, being aggrieved by the Judgment of the lower Court, dated 06-05-2004, preferred this Appeal challenging its validity and legality.

The case of the prosecution is that as the deceased failed to refund the amount given as advance for sale of the land, the accused bore grudge against him and accordingly attacked him causing instantaneous death. The case of the defence is that the accused did not commit the offence and as he was not mentally sound by the date of occurrence, he is entitled to the benefit of doubt and accordingly, he is liable to be acquitted.

In view of the rival contentions, the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and whether the conviction and sentence imposed on them are liable to be set aside or modified?

PW-1 is the younger brother of the deceased. One Achanta Lakshmi Tulasamma is his maternal grandmother and P. Varalakshmi is his mother''s younger sister. PW-3 wanted to sell the land to her elder sister. PW-4 came forward to purchase the land for Rs. 70,000/- per acre. She gave Rs. 10,000/- as advance. She could not pay the remaining amount, therefore, PW-3 asked her sister whether she purchases the land or it can be sold to others. PW-3 informed A-1 about the transaction and PW-4 not paying the amount. On that, A-1 asked PW-4 to purchase the land as per the agreement. PW-4 expressed her inability, therefore, PW-3 wanted to sell the land to others. His father advised him that if PW-3 sold away the land to others, it will be difficult, therefore, A-1 along with elders went to PW-4 and asked her to purchase the land. She again stated that she was not interested in the land. PW-3 approached the deceased and requested him to purchase the land and registered the land in his name. After the registration of the land, A-1 demanded the deceased to pay back the advance paid by his father to PW-3 for which the deceased refused. Due to that grudge, on 12-08-2001 at about 7-00 AM, himself and PW-2 were milching the cattle in their fields. The deceased was also milching the cattle in his fields and it was separated by a fence. He heard some cries of the deceased as "Boboy Champastunnadu". On that, himself and his father went to the spot and witnessed the accused armed with Gada Kathi and hacking the deceased. On receipt of the injuries, the deceased fell down and A-1 left that place and the deceased died instantaneously.

In the cross-examination, he stated that they were milching the cattle in the open land. Regularly they will go to the field for milching the cattle. The deceased went to his field for milching the cattle. Later, himself and PW-2 went to the filed for milching the cattle. By the time they went to the deceased, he is no more.

PW-2 corroborated the evidence of PW-1 in all respects.

PW-3 spoke about the sale transaction, advance amount, sale consideration etc. But he is not a witness to the occurrence. He denied a suggestion that there was no agreement of sale and the father of A-1 did not act as a mediator.

PW-4 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case.

PW-5 also spoke about the sale agreement and the advance amount paid to PW-3 etc. He is not a witness to the occurrence.

PW-6, one of the brothers of the deceased, deposed that on the date of offence at about 7-00 AM, when he was returning on milching the cattle and came upto the fields of one Subba Rao, he found A-1 and A-2 sitting in the field of A-1. When he questioned them whether they will come along with him to their houses, they replied that they will not come and asked him to go away. Afterwards, he came to know that A-1 hacked the deceased. PW-7 is not an eyewitness to the occurrence. PW-8 is the Photographer. PW-9 is one of the mediators for the observation of the scene of offence and also inquest held over the dead body of the deceased and also for recovery of M.O.9 knife used for the commission of offence.

PW-10 is the Doctor, who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. He found the following external injuries:

A cut through injury is present over the middle part of left forearm hanging with skin tag-both parts are irregular and filled with blood clots.

A chopped wound of 20 cm x 10 cm x bits of skull bones and expelled brain matter is present from occipital region extending towards the area below the left ear and front of middle area of forehead.

Three cut lacerated injuries are present over the mid frento-parietal region about the size of 8 cm x 05 cm x bone deep; 05 cm x 02 cm x bone deep and 04 cm x 01 cm x bone deep with a gap of 0.5 cm between them.

An incised wound of 15 cm x 8 cm x 5 cm depth, is present over the anteromedial aspect of left upper arm.

An incised wound of 04 cm x 02 cm x 01 cm is present over the left upper scapular region.

A lacerated injury of 08 cm x 03 cm x 01 cm oblique in direction is present from the left side of cheek to the front of neck.

A spindle shaped, obliquely directed incised wound of size of 30 cm x 05 cm width of middle x 03 cm depth in the middle is present from right side of upper chest to the left upper abdomen.

A lacerated injury of 02 cm x 01 cm x 0.5 cm over the right side of upper neck.

A vertical incised wound of 06 cm x 01 cm x 05 cm is present over the lower lip to the submental region is present.

An incised wound of 03 cm x 02 cm x 0.5 cm over the left side of the chin present.

A lacerated injury of 10 cm x 03 cm x 02 cm from the left cheek to the middle of left neck present.

All the above injuries are having blood clots on cut injuries.

On internal examination, he found the following:

Skull & scalp fractured skull bones are mentioned in the external injuries Nos. 2 and 3.

The brain matter is pieced out and expelled out through the external injuries mentioned No. 2 and 3.

In the neck hyoid & thyroid cartilages normal.

The heart & lungs are normal size on cut section pale.

Liver normal size on cut section normal.

Stomach and intestines are normal.

Both kidneys and spleen normal size and on cut section pale.

the spinal column intact.

urinary bladder and genitalia normal.

The Doctor opined that the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage on account of multiple injuries and injury to brain.

PW-11 is a child witness aged about 14 years. The learned Judge, after taking all precautions and satisfying himself that he is capable of giving evidence, recorded his evidence. PW-11 stated that he worked as a farm servant under the deceased. On the date of offence at about 7-00 AM, the deceased was milching the cattle. At that time, he was digging the holes for installation of pegs. A-1 came there and stated to the deceased that his buffalos are entering into his field and asked the deceased to look after the same. On that the deceased replied yes and asked him to go away. A-1 after taking two steps returned back and hacked the deceased on his neck with Gadakathi. From there he went to the father of the deceased who is by the side of the land. PWs.1 and 2 came to the scene of offence and observed the same. A-1 on hacking the deceased went away to his house.

The evidence of PW-11 is also important and it is corroborating with the evidence of PW-1. Though the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that PW-11 is a child witness and it is not safe to believe his evidence, but since he is 14 years old, there can be no doubt that he is in a position to understand the happenings, therefore, I find no reason to refuse to accept his evidence.

PW-12, the Magistrate, who recorded Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of PW- 11, also stated about the statement given by PW-11 narrating the incident relating to the crime.

The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that as PWs.1 and 2 were in the neighbouring land and as the land of the deceased and their lands are separated by fence, it is not possible for them to observe the incident. But PWs.1 and 2 categorically stated that immediately after hearing the cries, they reached the scene and observed the deceased lying dead and the accused running away from that place by holding a knife. As the scene of offence is adjacent to the field of PWs.1 and 2, there would not have been any problem to immediately rush to the scene and observe the presence of the accused in the company of the deceased.

The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that as the deceased was not in a sound state of mind, he does not know what he was doing, therefore, it can be brought under one of the exceptions of I.P.C. and he shall be acquitted for the offence. The accused in his 313 Cr.P.C. examination gave appropriate answers to all the questions put by the court regarding the incriminating evidence given by the witnesses. The replies given by the accused clearly indicate that he has no mental illness and he was able to understand the questions correctly and give apt and appropriate replies. He not only said no to some questions, but also gave explanations to some questions.

Now, it has to be considered whether the material placed by the defence will lend support to its version that the accused is not mentally sound?

DW-1, the mother of the accused stated that the accused was not mentally sound and he was under medical care. In the year 1992, he consumed endrine pesticide. From that year onwards, the accused was not in a fit state of mind and always found drowsy and he was being taken to the Doctor every month for medical check up. For some time, he went treatment at Kakinada Mental Hospital. He also underwent treatment in Hyderabad in Dr. Prasad Rao''s Hospital. He was also undergoing treatment in the Nimmalapudi Suryaraju Mental Hospital at Tanuku. After he was remanded to judicial custody, he was being referred to the mental hospital at Visakhapatnam for treatment. From 1992 onwards, the accused is undergoing medical treatment and he also filed medical prescriptions covered by Ex.D-5. She further stated that her husband''s family is having this mental problem and her husband''s brother also died due to the same problem. But she did not produce any document to show that he died due to mental problem.

DW-2, the Doctor in the Government Hospital Mental Care, deposed that A-1 was being regularly referred to them from the jail. At the time of admission, the accused was having complaints of schizophrenia with aggressive and abusive behaviour. On examination, he found delusion of reference, delusion of persecution and suspiciousness. After examining the patient, he opined that he was suffering with chronic, pariniod schizophrenia with suicidal and homicidal tendency. He further stated that schizophrenia is a kind of insanity and the paternal uncle of A-1 is having the same illness. The disorder is manageable by medicines. When the disease is at an acute stage, the patient may not know the acts being committed by him and the questions thereon. If the patient is under regular medical aid and checkups, there are less likely of getting acute episodes.

DW-3, a Psychologist in a Private Nursing Home at Tanuku, deposed that from June 2000 the records were computerized and prior to that the record was manual. A-1 was under his treatment since 17-04-1993. He continued with him till June, 1997. After a gap of three years, the accused consulted him on 15- 03-2000. In the last occasion, he saw him for treatment on 02-07-2001. Subsequently, on 23-02-2002, the patient was not present before him, but his father came to him and stated that the patient committed murder of his cousin and presently he was in jail. A-1 was suffering with schizophrenia. It is a mental insanity. The patient was showing abnormal behaviour two months prior to his first consultancy. Schizophrenia is where the patient will not have touch with reality and he is living in the world of his own and he will have delusions and illusions and abnormal thoughts like suspicious nature. When the patient is of acute episodes, some patients may be homicidal or suicidal tendency. Schizophrenia is a continuous disease wherein the patient will have intermittent relapses of symptoms. If the patient is under continuous medical aid, the relapsing nature may be controlled. Inspite of continuous treatment, the patient will have residuary symptoms. In the cross-examination, he stated that there will be lucid intervals and intermittent relapses.

Ex.D-7 shows that on examination, the doctor observed that the patient complained of sleepy, irritability and head ache since one or two months. The patient was feeling that the people are poking fun at him, which is making him angry. The doctor prescribed medicines and on many subsequent occasions, the endorsements were written that the patient was better. Though the doctor mentioned that the patient is suffering from schizophrenia, he did not make any specific observations as to what kind of behaviour the accused was having and what was his mental condition. The doctor also did not mention what is the gap between one incident to the other and how was his condition during that period. In the patient''s case sheet, dated 06-06-2001, it was mentioned that the patient is neat, normal, co-operative equivocal, relevant coherent and irritable. Except the remark irritable, in all other respects the observation of the doctor is normal. The offence took place on 12-08-2001. As on that date what was the condition of the patient was not mentioned. All the documents filed on defence side relate to the subsequent period, therefore, they cannot be given due weight in appreciation of the facts. From the case sheet dated 06-06-2001 it is made out that the accused was normal except some irritable temperament as on the date of offence. The behaviour, though irritable, was not abnormal and there was no information from the doctor that the accused was not capable of understanding as to what he was doing and whether he was under the influence of anybody. Except the doctor generalizing this aspect, he did not specifically state that the accused was having any such problem at least on 06-06-2001 though not on 12-08- 2001. The accused introduced the theory of the madness subsequent to the date of Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination and there was no whisper at any time from the date of arrest till the date u/s 313 Cr.P.C. examination. The jail authorities also did not report that the accused was suffering with any mental illness or that his behaviour was abnormal. In the absence of such material, the accused cannot be said to be mentally sick and not in a position to understand what he was doing, therefore, there was no sufficient material to show that the accused committed the offence not knowing as to what he was doing.

The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that unless the accused places sufficient material to show that he was not mentally sound by the date of offence, he is not entitled for any benefit. In support of his contention, he relied on certain decisions.

In Bhikari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, : , the Supreme Court held that:

The burden of proving an offence is always on the prosecution; it never shifts. Intention, when it is an essential ingredient of an offence, has also to be established by the prosecution. But the state of mind of a person can ordinarily only be inferred from circumstances. For example, if a person deliberately strikes another with a deadly weapon, which according to the common experience of mankind is likely to cause an injury and sometimes even a fatal injury depending upon the nature of the weapon and the part of the body on which it is struck, it would be reasonable to infer that what the accused did was accompanied by the intention to cause a kind of injury which in fact resulted from the act. In such a case the prosecution must be deemed to have discharged the burden resting upon it to establish an essential ingredient of the offence, namely the intention of the accused inflicting a blow with a deadly weapon. Section 84, Penal Code, can be invoked by the accused for nullifying the evidence produced by the prosecution. This he can do by establishing that he was at the relevant time incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that when he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law. The prosecution need not establish that a person who strikes another with a deadly weapon was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or of knowing that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law. Every person is presumed to know the natural consequences of his act. Similarly every person is also presumed to know the law. The prosecution has not to establish these facts. It is for this reason that Section 105 of the Evidence Act places upon the accused person the burden of proving the exception relied upon by him.

In Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra 2003 SCC (Cri) 144 the Supreme Court while considering the scope of Sections 84 of I.P.C. and 105 of Evidence Act, 1872, held that:

Paranoid schizophrenia is a mental disease. It can recur. When a person is under paranoid delusion, he is not fully aware of his activities and its consequences. The cause of schizophrenia is still not known but heredity plays a part. Paranoid schizophrenia, in the vast majority of cases, starts in the fourth decade and develops insidiously. Suspiciousness is the characteristic symptom of the early stage. Ideas of reference occur, which gradually develop into delusions of persecutions. Auditory hallucinations follow, which in the beginning, start as sounds or noises in the ears, but afterwards change into abuses or insults. Delusions are at first indefinite, but gradually they become fixed and definite, to lead the patient to believe that he is persecuted by some unknown person or some superhuman agency. He believes that his food is being poisoned, some noxious gases are blown into his room and people are plotting against him to ruin him. Disturbances of general sensation give rise to hallucinations, which are attributed to the effects of hypnotism, electricity, wireless telegraphy or atomic agencies. The patient gets very irritated and excited owing to these painful and disagreeable hallucinations and delusions. Since so many people are against him and are interested in his ruin, he comes to believe that he must be a very important man. The nature of delusions thus may change from persecutory to the grandiose type. He entertains delusions of grandeur, power and wealth, and generally conducts himself in a haughty and overbearing manner. The patient usually retains his memory and orientation and does not show signs of insanity, until the conversation is directed to the particular type of delusion from which he is suffering. When delusions affect his behaviour, he is often a source of danger to himself and to others.

Section 84 IPC provides 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 burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within the purview of Section 84 lies upon the accused u/s 105 of the Indian Evidence Act. Under the said section, the court shall presume the absence of such circumstances.

Undoubtedly, the state of mind of the accused at the time of commission of the offence is to be proved so as to get the benefit of the exception. Further, the nature of the burden of proof on the accused to prove insanity is no higher than that which rests upon a party to civil proceedings.

In Jai Lal Vs. Delhi Administration, : the Supreme Court held that:

To establish that the acts done are not offences u/s 84 it must be proved clearly that at the time of the commission of the act the appellant by reason of unsoundness of mind was incapable of either knowing that the acts were either morally wrong or contrary to law. The question is whether the appellant was suffering from such incapacity at the time of the commission of the acts. On this question, the state of his mind before and after the crucial time is relevant. If a person 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 he cannot be guilty of any criminal intent. Such a person lacks the requisite mens rea and is entitled to an acquittal. The general burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt not only the actus reus but also the mens rea. Held on reviewing the evidence that the defence of insanity was not made out.

In Tubu Chetia Vs. The State of Assam, the Gauhati High Court held as follows:

When an accused takes the plea of the general exceptions under the Penal code, the burden is upon him to establish that plea, although he is not required to establish it beyond reasonable doubt. Any kind of unsoundness of mind or insanity is not enough for legal purpose. There is great difference between medical insanity and legal insanity. Unsoundness of mind as contemplated by Section 84, I.P.C. is legal insanity which means the state of mind in which an accused is incapable of knowing the nature of his act or that he is incapable of knowing that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. In other words, his cognitive faculties are such that he does not know what he has done or what will follow from his act. In the instant case, from the evidence of the P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 there is no doubt that the appellant had some sort of mental disorder at the relevant time. But the question is whether it was legal insanity so as to give the accused the benefit of Section 84. Legal insanity of the appellant is negatived by the following circumstances: (1) When P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 approached his room and asked him to open the door and came out. This shows that his cognitive faculties were not completely lost. He understood that somebody asked him to open the door and come out, and he responded, although he came out with the spear in his hand. (2) The second circumstance is that P.W.2 immediately after the occurrence found the appellant sitting leaning near the door, as if sleeping, with the spear in hand. He and the other persons told him that they had not come to assault or arrest him. He then threw away the spear. This shows that when the P.Ws. approached him not as assailants he disarmed himself. (3) the third circumstance is that when P.W.5, the Assistant Sub- Inspector of Police, put some questions to him at the time of his arrest, no reply was given. But when he was going to take him into custody, the appellant protested. This also shows that he was not completely insane. In the circumstances, it must be held that the appellant has failed to establish insanity in order to get the protection u/s 84 of the Penal Code.

In S.K. Nair Vs. State of Punjab, :the Supreme Court held that the plea that accused was suffering from paranoid fact establishing that he understood implications of his acts at the time he committed the offence is not maintainable.

In Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker Vs. State of Gujarat, : the Supreme Court held as follows: "Many sane men give more than the necessary stabs to their victims. The number of blows given might perhaps reflect his vengeful mood or his determination to see that the victim had no escape. One does not count his strokes when he commits murder. This does not necessarily prove that the accused was doing the act under some hallucination.

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 Section 299 of the Penal Code. This general burden never shifts and it always rests on the prosecution. But, u/s 105 of the Evidence Act the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within the exception lies on the accused; and the court shall presume the absence of such circumstances. u/s 105 of the Evidence Act, read with the definition of "shall presume" in Section 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 has to 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 u/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. If the judge has such reasonable doubt, he has to acquit the accused, for in that event the prosecution will have failed to prove conclusively the guilt of the accused. The doctrine of burden of proof in the context of the plea of insanity may be stated in the following propositions: (1) the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed the offence with the requisite mens rea; and the burden of proving that always rests on the prosecution from the beginning to the end of the trial. (2) There is a rebuttable presumption that the accused was not insane, when he committed the crime, in the sense laid down by Section 84 of the Penal Code: the accused may rebut it by placing before the court all the relevant evidence - oral, documentary or circumstantial, but the burden of proof upon him is no higher than that rests upon a party to civil proceedings; (3) Even if the accused was not able to establish conclusively that he was insane at the time he committed the offence, the evidence placed before the court by the accused or by the prosecution may raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the court as regards one or more of the ingredients of the offence, including mens rea of the accused and in that case the court would be entitled to acquit the accused on the ground that the general burden of proof resting on the prosecution was not discharged."

In State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ahmadullah, : the Supreme Court held as follows:

The crucial point of time at which the unsoundness of mind as defined in Section 84 has to be established is when the act was committed.

The accused bore illwill to the deceased and the act was committed at dead of night when he would not be seen, the accused taking a torch with him, access to the house of the deceased being obtained by stealth by scaling over a wall. Then again, there was the mood of exaltation which the accused exhibited after he had put her out of her life. Held that it was a crime committed not in a sudden mood of insanity but one that was preceded by careful planning and exhibiting cool calculation in execution and directed against a person who was considered to be the enemy.

The catena of decisions placed before this Court clearly indicates that the burden is on the accused to establish that he was suffering from insanity and he was not in a position to understand as to what he was doing at the time of commission of offence to bring the act within the exceptions mentioned in Section 84 of I.P.C.

After carefully going through the entire evidence and the material placed by the accused, we are convinced that there is no sufficient material in support of the defence version that the accused was not capable of understanding what he was doing. As the conduct of the accused before and at the time of commission of offence clearly indicates that he was in a position to understand the happenings and in pursuance of that, he committed the murder of the deceased, the offence cannot be brought under the exceptions covered by I.P.C. The prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the lower Court also rightly convicted him, therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the Judgment of the lower Court.

In the result, the Appeal is dismissed by confirming the Judgment of the lower Court in all respects. The advocate fee is fixed at Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand).