The judgment establishes the principle that the burden of proving insanity rests on the accused, and evidence of legal insanity is required to invoke the defense under Section 84 of the I.P.C.

PAREED PILLAY, J.

The appeal is filed against the conviction and sentence entered against the appellant (accused) by the Sessions Judge, Palghat in S.C. 58/1980. The appellant was found guilty under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

2. The prosecution case is that Devaki Antherjanam, a widow was residing alone at Kizhakkekalam in Trippalamunda amsom and that accused who is one of the sons of Kesavan Namboodari (brother-in-law of the deceased) went to her house on 19-6-1980 at about 9 a.m. and inflicted injury on her head with a chopper resulting in her death. Immediately after the incident, accused confessed to P.W. 1 that he committed the murder of Devaki Antherjanam. P.W. 1 went to the police station and lodged the first information statement. Accused who went to the police station was arrested by P.W. 18, Sub-Inspector. P.W. 18 took the accused to his house and as pointed out by him M.O. 8 thorthu was seized. P.W. 19, Circle Inspector verified the investigation done by P.W. 18 arid also interrogated witnesses. P.W. 17 prepared the plan Ext. P. 11. P.W. 15 conducted the autopsy and issued Ext. P7 post-mortem certificate. P.W. 16, Addl. Judicial Magistrate of the first class, Palghat recorded the confession of the accused.

3. On the prosecution side P.Ws. 1 to 19 were examined, Exts. P1 to P13 marked and M.Os. 1 to 10 were identified. On the defence side, D.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and Ext. D1 marked.

4. While questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C. accused admitted that he assaulted Devaki Antherjanam with a chopper and that he went to the Kongad, police station and surrendered there. To prove the plea of identity D.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and Ext. D1 was marked.

5. Prosecution mainly relies on the evidence of P.W. 1 before whom the accused made a confession immediately after the incident and also the confession which was recorded by P.W. 16, P.W. 1 Narayana Moothan, the Kariasthan of Devaki Antherjanam as well as accused's father Kesavan Namboodiri deposed that he was looking after the affairs of Devaki Antherjanam as well as Kesavan Namboodiri for the last 23 years, that Kesavan Namboodiri along with his wife and children were residing with Devaki Antherjanam in a house at Kizhakkekalam, that 3 years ago they shifted to another house, that children of Devaki Antherjanam had to pay 4 paras of paddy and 10 coconuts every month to Kesavan Namboodiri, that on 19-6-1980 while he was standing in the field the accused came to him and told him that he demanded coconuts from Devaki Antherjanam and that she refused to give the same and that therefore he finished her immediately. It is the evidence of P.W. 1 that there were blood stains on the cloth worn by the accused, that he (P.W. 1) went to Kizhakkekalam and found Devaki Antherjanam lying dead with bleeding injuries. P.W. 1 further stated that he went to the police station and lodged Ext. P1 first information statement.

6. P.W. 2 deposed that he was informed by P.W. 1 about the occurrence and also what the accused had told him regarding the perpetration of the crime. P.W. 2 also saw Devaki Antherjanam lying dead. To P.W. 3 also accused confessed about the commission of the crime. P.W. 3 saw accused with blood stained cloth, that he asked accused about it and that accused told him that Devaki Antherjanam refused to give him coconuts and so he assaulted her with chopper. Apart from the extra-judicial confession spoken to by P.Ws. 1 and 3 there is also the evidence of P.W. 16 Magistrate who recorded the confession of the accused after observing all formalities prescribed under the law. P.W. 16 stated that the accused was brought to him at 2.30 p.m. on 26-5-1980, that he gave two days time to the accused for reflection, that when the accused was brought again he gave him due warning about the consequences of his statement and that after having satisfied himself that the accused was giving a voluntary statement unin