S. MURALIDHAR, J.

Introduction

1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 10th August 2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), Karkardooma Courts in Sessions Case No. 89/11 convicting the Appellant for the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code (IPC) for committing the murder of his wife and the order on sentence dated 17th August 2015 whereby he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year.

2. This Court has in the judgment that follows, accepted the Appellant's plea of defence of insanity under Section 84 IPC and acquitted him of the offence with which he was charged. The Court, therefore, considers appropriate to anonymise the name of the Appellant with 'X' and also refrain from mentioning the names of his family members.

The case of the Prosecution

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 22nd June 2011, at around 8.55 am, telephonic information was received from the East District Control Room under DD No. 9-A regarding the death of a lady near Bharat National School. The DD was marked to Sub-Inspector (SI) Dinesh (PW-15), who proceeded to the spot along with Constable Kunwar Pal (PW-19). Inspector O.P. Jhakar (PW-23) who was the Investigating Officer (IO) also reached the spot. A PCR van was already present when they reached there. There, the Appellant's elder brother (PW-1) met the IO at the spot. With the help of PW-1, the door of the house, which was on the first floor, was opened. There they found the body of the deceased, the wife of the Appellant, lying in a pool of blood. A blood-stained tawa was found lying in the kitchen. One blood stained knife was lying on the bed and one knife was lying in the kitchen. There was blood spattered in the room and the lobby.

4. The Appellant was also present in the room in an injured condition. He was rushed to the nearby hospital in the PCR van. The statement of PW-1 was recorded. In it he stated that the Appellant, his younger brother, lived in a separate portion of the house on the first and the second floors. The deceased used to do stitching work on the ground floor and was helped by her son (PW-2). PW-1 stated that the Appellant had not been doing any work for the last 15 years. The Appellant suspected that the deceased was having an illicit relationship in connection with her work. As a result, there used to be frequent quarrels between the Appellant and the deceased.

Evidence at the trial

5. PW-1, in his statement to the police, stated that on the intervening night of 21st/22nd June 2011, the Appellant and the deceased were alone in the house. At around 3 am, PW-1 awoke upon hearing the noise of a quarrel between the Appellant and his wife. According to PW-1, the Appellant was abusing his wife. When PW-1 knocked on the door of the room of his brother and called out to him, he received no reply. The noise of quarrel also subsided. PW-1 noticed that the door of the house had been bolted from inside. He returned to his quarters thinking that it was a routine affair.

6. The next morning, at around 8-8.30 am, PW-1 went to the Appellant's house to enquire about the cause of the quarrel of the previous night. When he called out the Appellant by name, the Appellant came out onto the first floor balcony. PW-1 noticed that the Appellant's clothes were soaked in blood. When PW-1 inquired about his sister-in-law, the Appellant replied that he had killed her in the night and that she was lying inside. PW-1 asked the Appellant to open the door. When he did, PW-1 went inside and found the deceased lying in a pool of blood. There was blood spattered all over the house. PW-1 immediately bolted the door from the outside and called the police from his mobile phone. On the statement of PW-1, FIR No. 297/11 was registered at PS Jagat Puri.

7. Twenty-four prosecution witnesses were examined. In his statement under Section 313 C