ORDER :

1. The appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 , 352 and 201 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short, the IPC'). The occurrence is of 27th September, 2018. On that day, the deceased Asam Gota and one Fagu Ram Karanga (PW2) were cutting grass in an agricultural field. At that time, the appellant came there armed with an iron pipe and assaulted the deceased on his head. Thereafter, when PW2 fled away, the appellant chased him. The Trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. The High Court, by the impugned judgment, has confirmed the same.

2. The main submission canvassed before the High Court was that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the appellant was of unsound mind on the date of occurrence as can be seen from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The High Court negated the said contention on the basis of the medical examination of the appellant conducted on 7th December, 2023.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has invited our attention to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses who have deposed that the mental condition of the appellant was not good and was unstable at the relevant time. He relied upon decisions of this Court in the case of Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar vs. State of Gujarat , AIR 1964 SCC 1563 and Rupesh Manger (Thapa) vs. State of Sikkim , (2023) 9 SCC 739 .

4. The learned counsel appearing for the State in support of the impugned judgment submitted that the initial burden is always on the accused to prove his defence under Section 84 of the IPC. It is submitted that the initial burden cannot be said to have been discharged if there is no evidence adduced to show his conduct prior to the occurrence, at the time of occurrence and post occurrence. In this case, medical evidence showing his condition at the relevant time is not on record. The medical examination of the appellant made in December, 2023 showed that he was normal. It is, therefore, submitted that as held by the High Court, the appellant has not discharged burden on him.

5. In the case of Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar (supra), a Bench of three Judges of this Court in paragraph 7 held thus:

"7. 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 s. 84 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE : the accused may rebut it by placing be fore 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." (Underlines supplied)

6. This decision has been followed in several decisions including the decision in the case of Rupesh Manager (Thapa) (supra) whe