The burden of proof is on the accused to prove that he was of unsound mind at the time of the offence, but the accused may discharge the burden of proof by showing that he was incapable of knowing the nature of his acts or that they were wrong or contrary to law.

S.B.Sinha, J.

1. This criminal appeal arises out of a judgment of conviction and sentence dated 26th March, 1987 passed by Shri D.N. Pathak Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, in Sessions Trial No. 286 of 198& whereby and whereunder the said learned court found the appellant guilty of offences under Secs. 302 and 324 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life under Sec. 302 of Indian Penal Code, and rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under Sec. 24 thereof The learned trial court, however, directed both the sentences will run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 26.3.1984 at about 10 a.m. the informant Bhuli Loharin, wife of Baldeo Lohar along with her minor sons namely, Birsa and Nanhku, aged about 7 and 5 years respectively, were collecting mahua. At that point of time, the appellant came there and began knocking the door of Tri bhuwan Naik whereafter both the aforementioned sons of the informant went to that place. After some time the informant heard the cries of the boys which made her to rush to the place and on her arrival there, she found that the appellant had caused sharp cutting injuries to both of them with a Baithi. The appellant had also chased the informant but she caught the Baithi which was in the hand of the appellant resulting in sufference of injuries in her hand. Thereafter the appellant filed away. The informant found that Sirsa had already died and Nanhku was brought to her house in an injured condition. Soon thereafter, the villagers collected there to whom she told all about the occurrence. Later on, the other son of the informant Nankhu also died.

3. In respect of the aforementioned occurrence the informant lodged FIR on the same day, i.e. on 26.3.1984 at about 8.30 p.m. The said FIR was marked before the trial court as Ext. 4. The postmortem examination of the aforementioned deceased persons were held on 27.3.1984.

4. In support of the prosecution case, seven witnesses were examined. P. W. 1 is Tangni Devi, wife of Sukhdeo Naik who stated that the appellant came to her house and kicked her door and due to fear she want inside her house and shut the door. Later on upon hearing the noise of P. W. 2, she came out of her house. The informant (P. W. 2) asked for water from her, one of her children Birsa had died and whereupon she found that Nankhu, the other child was lying seriously injured. Both the sons of the informant were taken from there and thereafter Nankhu also died. According to her, she came to learn from the informant that both the boys had been killed by the appellant.

5. P. W. 2 Bhuli Loharin is the informant. As noticed hereinbefore she is also one of the victims and for causing injury to her, the appellant was charged under Sec. 324 of Indian Penal Code. She stated in her deposition that both her sons were playing near the place of occurrence and when the appellant went to the khalihan and house of Tribhuwan Naik both her sons followed him, though she remained busy in her work.

6. Thereafter she heard the cries of her sons whereupon she rushed to the spot, and found that the appellant had caused Baithi blows to both of them and they had received serious injuries as a result thereof.

7. According to her, Birsa had already died. Thereafter the appellant also chased her with that Baithi. She caught the Baithi and tried to snatch the same from the hands of the appellant and in that process, she suffered injuries on her left hand. However, she was able to snatch the Baithi from the hand of the appellant. She gave water to Nankhu and thereafter he also died.

8. The villagers, who assembled there, were informed about the occurrence. Thereafer the police came to the place of occurrence and she gave her statement. She was also examined by the doctor.

9. P. W. 3 is the Doctor who conducted the postmortem examination and he found the following injuries on the person of Nankhu who was aged about 5 years:

(1) One incised wo