( 1 ) THE appellant-original accused in Sessions Case No. 8 of 1991 has filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 31st May 1991 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana holding the appellant guilty of offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life.

( 2 ) THE facts which led prosecution of the appellant (to be referred to as "the accused") are as under :- the accused was residing with his wife and four children, that is, two sons, one daughter and one eldest daughter being married was staying at her in-laws house. The accused was doing labour work by employing donkeys. Since before about 10 days of 3rd October 1990, accused had hallucination or illusion to the effect that someone is coming to assault him and remained under constant apprehension of being killed. He was all the time bubbling to this effect. Feeling that he is affected by some ill-spirit, it was arranged to call for some sorcerer to get remove the effect of the ill-spirit. That sorcerer was to come in the evening of 3rd October 1990. As sorcerer was to come on that day, brother-in-law of accused had also come there. As the master did not turn up on that day, brother -in-law of accused stayed over night. On that day, accused, his wife and young daughter aged about 6 years, went to bed in their house, while his son and brother-in-law went to bed outside the house. On the next day when brother-in-law and son who were sleeping outside got up in the morning, the accused was informed that his brother-in-law is going. Accused replied from the house that he may go. However, as the brother-in-law wanted to see him, they knocked the door, however, the doors were not opened. As they went on knocking, the villagers gathered and then the door was got opened. As soon as the door was opened, accused came out of the house and scuffled with his brother-inlaw. However, the brother-in-law was released by the brother of the accused, who came there on hearing this hue and cry. When the son and brother of the accused entered the house after the door was opened, they found wife of the accused lying dead in the cot and in the bleeding condition. The brother of the accused, therefore, informed Sarpanch and Ex-Police Patel of the village, who informed the Taluka police by phone. On arrival of Circle Police Inspector, complaint was lodged and the offence was registered.

( 3 ) ON completion of the investigation, the accused was charge-sheeted in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patan, who in turn committed the accused to the Court of Session. The matter was transferred to the learned Additional sessions Judge, who framed charge against the accused under Sec. 302 of the Indian penal Code and Sec. 135 of the Bombay Police Act. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution led necessary evidence and on completion of the prosecution evidence, further statement of the accused was recorded under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code" ). From the said statement, it appears that the accused has pleaded ignorance as to the incident and commission of offence. Accused has not led any evidence in defence. Learned additional Sessions Judge, after hearing the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned Advocate for defence, held accused guilty of the offence under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, however acquitted of the offence under Sec. 135 of the bombay Police Act. This judgment and order is assailed in this appeal.

( 4 ) LEARNED Advocate Mr. N. M. Amin has challenged the conviction mainly on the ground that the case of the accused falls within the exception as provided in Sec. 84 of the Indian Penal Code and the learned Judge ought to have given benefit of doubt to the accused. Mr. Amin further contended that it was the duty cast on the prosecution to prove that accused was sane at the time when the act which amounts to a crim