The judgment established the importance of the prosecution proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the accused's burden to establish the defense of insanity, and the need to investigate the mental condition of the accused to establish the presence of mens rea.

Rajendra Prasad, J.

1. In this appeal filed by sole appellant Nanhak Ram from jail, the appellant has challenged legality and correctness of judgment and order of conviction dated 29th June, 1987, passed against him by Ashok Kumar sinha, District and Sessions Judge, Saran, chapra, in Sessions Trial No.55 of 1987 arising out of Manjhi P. S. Case No.53/86 dated 18.4.86, whereby and where-under learned District and Sessions judge convicted the appellant for the offence under Sec.302 of the Indian penal Code and sentenced thereunder to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

2. The prosecution story, as it appears from fardbeyan (Ext.1) of informant jai Narain Singh (P. W.6) recorded by ASI pran Mohan Jha (P. W.9) on 18.4.1986 at 17 hours at the door of Jai Narian Singh (P. W.6) is as follows: On 18.4.1986 at about 9 hours in the morning while brother Ramnarain Singh (deceased) of the informant (P. W.6) was going to his khalihar and when he reached at a distance of 200 yards south from his house all on a sudden the appellant assaulted with mussar of wood on neck head and other places of body of brother (deceased of informant) with the result the brother of informant fell down there and succumbed to his injuries. The son of informant Rajeshwar Singh (P. W. .7) aged about 10 years, who was playing there came running and informed about the occurrence when the informant was at his khalihan. After the informant came he knew about the occurrence. Thereafter villagers, namely, Parmeshwar dubey, Krishnadeo Tiwary and others took the dead body of brother of informant at his darwaja. The informant also stated that right from four days before the occurrence, appellant Nanhak Ram used to behave like mad and had attempted to assault one Ram Shakal Singh alias bhardul Singh with bhala but Ram Shakal singh had escaped. The appellant also entering into house of one Ugam Ram in the night had scattered his clothes, boxes etc. Day before yesterday, i. e. , on 16.4.86 an iron chain was put in the hands of appellant and appellant had managed to take out his right hand from the chain. The informant also stated that after death of his brother in order to control the appellant and to put chain in the hands of appellant people had assaulted the appellant with lathi resulting hurt to appellant.

3. On the basis of fardbeyan (Ext.1) a case under Sec.302 I. P. C. was registered against the sole appellant and formal F. I. R. (Ext 2) was drawn. The case was investigated by police and after completion of investigation police submitted charge-sheet against the sole appellant for committing offence under sec. 302 I. P. C. Later on cognizance of the offence was taken against the appellant and the case was committed to the court of session for trial. The appellant was put to trial and the learned District and Ses-sions Judge, Saran, Chapra, found the appellant guilty of offence under Section 302 I. P. C. and convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life as indicated in paragraph 1 of this judgment.

4. As it appears from suggestions put to prosecution witnesses in course of their cross-examination, the defence is plea of insanity and that on the alleged date and time of the occurrence the appellant by reason of unsoundness of mind was incapable of knowing the nature of his act, he was doing, was either wrong or contrary to law.

5. In the background of facts and circumstances and the manner in which occurrence is alleged to have taken place and also defence of insanity taken by the appellant accused, the points for consideration would be whether the appellant accused at the time of occurrence, by reason of unsoundness of mind was incapable of knowing the nature of his act or what he was doing, was either wrong or contrary to law and whether the prosecution has been able to prove and establish charge under Sec.302 I. P. C. levelled against the appellant accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt.

6. Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned sr. Advoca