The central legal point established in the judgment is that to claim the benefit of section 84 of the IPC based on insanity at the time of the offense, the prosecution must prove the presence of mens rea in the accused at the initial stage.

( 1 ) THE sole appellant, Kamala Bhuniya, preferred this appeal in the year 1995, challenging her conviction and sentence by the learned addl. Sessions Judge, Tamluk in connection with Sessions Trial No. l (l) of 1995 arising out of G. R. Case No. 865 of 1987.

( 2 ) THE prosecution case in brief was that on 23rd September, 1987, between 11. 30 a. m and 12 p. m. the appellant killed her husband, Netai Charan Bhuniya with an axe at village Gumai under Panskura Police Station. Getting the information of murder of Netai from the neighbours, the FIR maker rushed to the spot along with others and through the window, he saw the deadbody of netai in a pool of blood and the appellant standing near the deadbody with the axe in her hand.

( 3 ) ON getting information of the murder through the complaint, officers of panskura police station arrived at the place of occurrence and they arrested the appellant along with weapon.

( 4 ) THE police officer-in-charge of investigation, subsequently conducted inquest over the deadbody of the victim and after collection of evidence, finally chargesheet was submitted against the appellant under section 302 of the IPC for causing homicidal death of her husband, Netai Charan Bhuniya.

( 5 ) THE learned Trial Court, from the police papers and after hearing both prosecution and defence, framed charge against the appellant under section 302 of the IPC and since the appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed for trial, the prosecution side was asked to produce its evidence in support of the charge framed against the appellant.

( 6 ) THE prosecution side produced 14 witnesses during trial including the fir maker, some neighbours of the appellant, the doctor, who conducted P. M. examination and the Investigating Officer. The prosecution side also produced the inquest report, the P. M. report and FSL report.

( 7 ) THE learned Trial Judge, after considering submissions of both prosecution and defence and having regard to the evidence on record, ruled out the defence plea of insanity taken during argument and the learned Judge on perusal of evidence was convinced to hold the appellant guilty for the homicidal death of her husband and accordingly the appellant was convicted under section 302 and she was sentenced to suffer R. I. for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-in default, R. I. for six months more.

( 8 ) BEING aggrieved by, and dissatisfied with, the order of conviction and sentence, the appellant preferred the appeal in the year 1995, and she also prayed for interim release on bail pending disposal of the appeal but her prayer for bail was rejected and ultimately the appeal came up for hearing before us on this day in presence of Mr. Sekhar Basu for the appellant and Mr. Sushil mahato, for the State-respondent.

( 9 ) WE have heard both Mr. Basu and Mr. Mahato, over this appeal and after hearing both the sides, we propose to dispose of this appeal by delivering the present judgement in open Court.

( 10 ) APPEARING for the appellant, Mr. Basu has addressed us mainly on the point that having regard to the fact and evidence available with the record, the appellant was entitled to get benefit of section 84 of the Indian Penal Code and the learned Judge totally misdirected himself in appreciating the scope and ambit of section 84 as urged before him during trial and for this reason, the judgement of the learned Trial Court should be set aside and the appellant should be given the benefit of section 84 and she should be acquitted from the charge of murder.

( 11 ) MR. Basu has, first of all, explained the legal position relating to section 84 with reference to the celebrated judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered on section 84 and reported in the case of Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai thakkar vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 1563.

( 12 ) MR. Basu contends that it has been observed in the case of Hon'ble supreme Court that to consider the case of an accused under