The burden of proving insanity under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code lies on the accused, and legal insanity requires that the accused's cognitive faculty of mind be destroyed to the extent that they are incapable of understanding the nature of their actions.

( 1 ) FEELING aggrieved with his conviction recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No. 10 September of 1991 on 3/3/1994 in respect of the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of imprisonment for life accompanied by a fine of Rs. 5,000. 00 the appellant hereinabove has preferred this appeal purely on the ground of section 84 of the Indian Penal Code.

( 2 ) SHRI Debasish Roy, learned counsel appearing in support of the appeal being assisted by Syed Shamsher Ali and Ranabir Roy Chowdhury has argued the appeal in great details. He has taken the pains to outline the entire evidence before us. He, in tune with the gravamen of the grounds restricted his submissions in respect of section 84 of the Indian Penal Code and submitted that the appellant squarely falls within the exception of the said provision and his conviction was liable to be set aside. Referring to the relevant witnesses Shri Roy submitted that the appellant was suffering from insanity before, during and after the incident and he was not in a position to comprehend his act; as such, the conviction, on the basis of a trial without resorting to the provisions of section 328 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was not legal and liable to be quashed.

( 3 ) HE referred to the decision of Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra, and submitted that since the appellant was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and had discharged his onus, as cast upon him under section 105 of the Evidence Act, he was entitled to the benefit under section 84 of the Indian Penal Code.

( 4 ) SHRI Ranjit Kumar Ghosal, learned advocate for the State has submitted that the appellant could not prove his case with regard to the insanity and the learned Trial Court very rightly convicted him and there was no merit in the appeal and it should be dismissed. He referred to the decisions of1. Dahyabhai Chhanganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat, and 2. Sheralli Wali Mohammd v. State of Maharashtra, and submitted that since the appellant has failed to establish the onus, he cannot come within the purview of section 84 of the Indian Penal Code.

( 5 ) SHRI Ghosal submitted that as the appellant is raising a claim in support of insanity it is incumbent upon him to establish the said claim and Shri Ghosal by

referring to the evidence on record submitted that the appellant could not make out a case in this regard and the appeal is therefore liable to be dismissed.

( 6 ) WE have heard Shri Roy and Shri Ghosal at length. Although in the ground of appeal as well as the submissions of Shri Roy, learned counsel for the appellant was restricted to section 84 of the Indian Penal Code we felt, as a First Court of Appeal when a Division Bench of this Court had admitted the appeal, it is necessary that the appeal has to be heard as a whole and not on any particular narrow point. We have the high authority of the Supreme Court in this regard: Re: Rabri Ghela Jadav v. State of Bombay.

( 7 ) AS such, although we have not been addressed on merit, apart from the question of insanity of the appellant, we have, in our own way, rummaged through the entire evidence and the materials on record on merit to consider the question as to whether the conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court can be legally sustainable irrespective of the question of section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. We will do so after we have traversed through the submission of Shri Roy touching on the question of section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. Now, we take up the submission of Shri Roy on the question of insanity.

( 8 ) FOR a profitable discussion it is necessary to refer to the provision of section 84 of the Indian Penal Code which is quoted hereinbelow: 84. Act of a person of unsound mind. Nothing is an offence which is done by a reason who, at the time of doing it, by a per-son of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing wha