JUDGMENT :

Milind N. Jadhav, J.

1. The learned ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, by judgment and order dated 29.05.2003, has acquitted Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 of offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”). The State of Maharashtra is in appeal against the said judgment and order acquitting Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in Sessions Case No. 157 of 2002. A notable feature in this case is the defence of insanity pleaded by Respondent No. 1 under the provisions of Section 84 IPC, which carves out an exception that an act will not be an offence if done by a person who, at the time of doing the same, 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 Trial Court has arrived at a conclusion that the Respondent No. 1 was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and has succeeded in proving insanity within the meaning of Section 84 IPC at the time of commission of the act and hence deserved acquittal.

2. Respondent No. 2 is the mother of Respondent No. 1. Deceased victim Padmakar and Respondent No. 1 were carrying on their