The burden of proof is on the accused to establish the defense of insanity.

R.N. Prasad & P.K. Sarkar, JJ. - The appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 30.6.1986 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in S.T. No. 48/19 of 1980/83 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

2. One Vidyanand Singh, Mukhia of Jogni Ganiari Gram Panchayat sent a written report on 29.10.1978 through the Chaukidar to the Officer-in-charge of Sakra Police Station stating therein that Sita Ram Singh committed murder of Satyanarain Singh at 12 noon. Now he is not in sound condition of mind. He may commit further offence. He requested to come to the place of occurrence to maintain peace.

3. On the aforesaid written report (Ext. 1) a formal First Information Report (Ext. 4) was drawn up and investigation was taken up. On completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted. On receipt of the charge-sheet, the court took cognizance and committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial. The trial court convicted the appellant under section 302 of Indian Penal Code as stated above.

4. The defence of the appellant was that he is innocent and has not committed any offence. In the written statement specific defence was taken that the appellant was suffering from insanity.

5. The prosecution in support of its case examined 11 witnesses. out of whom P.W. 1 is the informant and is a hear-say witness. P.W. 2 is an eye-witness to the occurrence. P.Ws. 3, 4, 5 & 6 reached at the place of occurrence on hearing alarm and saw the appellant with blood stained Garasi. P.W 7 is Chaukidar who took the written report to the officer-in-charge of Sakra Police Station. P.W. 8 was declared hostile. P.W.9 is Doctor who held post mortem over the dead body. P.W.10 is the Investigating Officer. P.W.11 is also a Doctor who examined the appellant.

6. Out of the witnesses as stated above, P.W.3 is cousin of the deceased and also related to the appellant. P.W.4 is the cousin of the deceased. P.W.5 is wife of the deceased. P.W.2 is daughter of the deceased and is an eye witness to the occurrence. She was aged about 13 years at the relevant time. She stated in her evidence that she was in her cattle shed which was adjacent to the cattle shed of the appellant. The appellant is nephew of her father, the deceased. On the date of occurrence at about 11 A.M. the appellant gave two blows with fodder cutting Garasi on the neck of her father at his cattle shed. Her father fell down and died then and there. She raised hulla on which the appellant started brandishing the fodder cutting Garasi. People came' on hearing hulla at the place of occurrence and snatched the blood stained Garasi from the appellant. They handed over the Garasi to her and she handed over the same to the Investigating Officer in presence of Chakradhar Singh (P.W.6) and Jugal Singh (P.W.4). In cross-examination she denied the suggestion that appellant had gone for treatment in Kankey Mental Hospital at Ranchi, the appellant was insane or he was insane at the time of committing crime.

7. PWs.3, 4, 5 & 6 have stated that they came at the place of occurrence after hearing hulla. They found Satyanarain Singh dead and injury on his neck. P.Ws.3 & 4 stated that they found the appellant at the place of occurrence with the blood stained fodder cutting Garasi. P.Ws.5 & 6 stated that they found Sita Ram Singh, the appellant, at the spot who told that he committed murder of Satyanarain Singh with Garasi. PWs. 3 & 4 have stated that they are cousins of the deceased and uncle of the appellant. P.W.3 has stated in his cross-examination that the decased had some land dispute with the appellant. The witnesses have been cross-examined by the appellant but nothing cogent was elicited to doubt the testimony of the witnesses.

8. P.W.1 is Mukhia of the Jogni Ganiari Gram Panchayat on whose written report First Information Report was lodged. He did not claim to have seen the occurren