The crucial point of time to establish unsoundness of mind is when the crime is committed, and the burden of proving this lies on the accused. The past medical history, conduct preceding and post-occurrence of the incident, and expert medical evidence are crucial in determining the applicability of the insanity plea.

Sunil K. Kotwal, J.

1. The appellant/accused has directed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 14/3/2001, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Latur in Sessions Case No. 140/1999. By the said judgment and order, learned Sessions Judge, convicted the appellant for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, he was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/-. Accused was acquitted of the offence punishable under section 498-A of the I.P.C. Against the order of acquittal, no appeal is preferred by the State. Prosecution case, briefly stated, relates to the death of a woman in her house at the hands of her own husband, claiming the plea of insanity under section 84 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, the I.P.C). After marriage of accused with the deceased Surekha on 11/12/1998, she used to reside at Latur with the accused who was a diploma holder in Civil Engineering, along with his unmarried sisters namely Vanita Bhatambrekar and Anita Bhatambrekar. Deceased Surekha was M.B.B.S. Degree holder Doctor and she used to work as Medical Officer at Pangri, Taluka Barshi, District Solapur, and used to commute daily from Pangri to Latur. Whenever Surekha had visited to her parental house at Shivajinagar Uplai Road, Taluka Barshi, she used to inform her parents that accused was demanding amount of Rs. 1 Lakh for his contract business and on that count she was subjected to mental harassment. On 19/6/1999, at night, Surekha and accused slept together in their bedroom and on next day morning i.e. on 20/6/1999, Surekha was found dead. Initially, she was taken to private hospitals by accused No. 1 and his sister and at last, to Civil Hospital, Latur. Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Latur declared Surekha dead. Inquest panchanama (Exh. 38) was drawn and when her dead body was referred to post mortem examination to Dr. Kalpana Barmade (P.W. 2), by submitting post-mortem notes (Exh. 29), she opined that Surekha died due to asphyxia due to throttling. On the same day, Shri Balkrishna Digambar Deshpande (P.W. 1), who is father of the deceased, lodged F.I.R. (Exh. 15) against the accused. Crime No. 93/1999 was registered under sections 302 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code against the accused. During the course of investigation, spot panchanama (Exh. 34) was drawn by P.S.I. Shankar Mali (P.W. 8) and blood stained pillow cover, lungi, shawl and one bed sheet came to be seized from the bed room of the accused. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Latur against the accused for the offence punishable under sections 302, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Offence punishable under section 302 of the I.P.C. being exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, this case was committed to Sessions Court, Latur.

3. Charge (Exh. 1) was framed against the accused for the offence punishable under sections 302, 498-A of the I.P.C. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. Accused raised the defence of insanity under section 84 of the I.P.C.

5. Prosecution examined total 8 prosecution witnesses. Even defence has examined 4 defence witnesses. After considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by both the parties, the learned trial Court pleased to convict the accused only under section 302 of the I.P.C. He was acquitted of the offence punishable under section 498-A of the I.P.C. Therefore this appeal arises.

6. Heard Shri N.S. Ghanekar, Advocate for the appellant and Shri S.J. Salgare, A.P.P. for the State. The one and only contention projected by learned Counsel for the appellant/accused is that, at the time of alleged incident, the accused was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia' and hence, is entitled to the benefit of exception under section 84 of the I.P.C.

7. Before considering the above issue, we have to first examine whether prosecution has e