The burden of proof lies on the accused to establish insanity under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, and the evidence must clearly prove that at the time of committing the act, the accused was labouring under such defect of reason as not to know the nature and quality of the act or that he was doing wrong.

Judgment

AYYANGAR, J. : This is an appeal by special leave by the State of Madhya Pradesh against the dismissal of an appeal preferred by it to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Gwalior Bench) which declined to reverse the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge holding the respondent not guilty of an offence under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The ground of acquittal by the Sessions Judge, which was concurred in by the High Court was that the respondent was of unsound mind at the time of the commission of the crime and so was entitled to an acquittal under S. 84 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. There is very little dispute about the facts or even about the construction of S. 84 of the Code because both the learned Sessions Judge as well as the learned Judges of the High Court on appeal have held that the crucial point of time at which the unsoundness of mind, as defined in that section, has to be established is when the act was committed. It is the application of this principle to the facts established by the evidence that is the ground of complaint by the appellant-State before us.

3. Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code which was invoked by the respondent successfully in the Courts below runs in these terms :

"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."

It is not in dispute that the burden of proof that the mental condition of the accused was, at the crucial point of time, such as is described by this section lies on the accused who claims the benefit of this exemption (vide S. 105, Indian Evidence Act, Illustration (a) ).

4. In order to appreciate the point raised for our decision it is necessary to refer to the findings of the Sessions Judge which were in terms approved by the learned Judges of the High Court. Before we do so, however, we shall narrate a few facts regarding which there is no dispute: The deceased Bismilla was related to the accused- respondent as the mother of his wife Jinnat whom he had divorced. The accused nurtured a grievance against his mother-in-law for matters it is unnecessary to set out. Bismilla went to bed in her own house on the night of September 28, 1954. On the morning of the next day the body of Bismilla was found by her husband lying in a pool of blood on the cot on which she was sleeping with the head missing. The First Information Report was immediately lodged by the son of the deceased. The police were informed that the respondent had borne ill-will towards Bismilla and thereafter the Sub-Inspector who was in-charge of the investigation sent for the respondent. The respondent admitted having committed the murder and stated that he had put the head of Bismilla and the knife with which it had been severed from the body in a cloth-bag which he had hid in an underground cell in the furniture shop of his father. The respondent was taken to that shop where he took out the articles in the presence of Panch-witnesses. He also took out a torch from the cash -box of the shop and handed it over to the police with the statement that the torch had been used by him on the occasion of the murder to locate the deceased in the darkness. The accused further stated the manner in which he managed to scale over the wall of the house of the deceased, how he gained entrance into the room, how he found her asleep on a cot and how he severed the head from the trunk and carried the former away and hid it at the place from which he took it out. The respondent was produced before the District Magistrate before whom he made a confessional statement reciting all the above facts. He was thereafter committed to stand his trial before the Court of Sessions Judge, Gwalior, for the offence under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. We have only to add that the confession which was substantially corroborated by other evidence was never withdrawn thoug