Legal insanity must be proven to exist at the time of the offence, and the burden of proof lies on the accused. The absence of motive or the ghastly nature of the crime is not relevant without positive proof of impaired mental faculties.

FATHIMA BEEVI, J.

The appellant the accused in S.C. No. 16/1978 of the Sessions Court, Kottayam was convicted under S. 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The conviction and sentence are under challenge in this appeal.

2. The charge against the appellant Rajan (30) an agricultural labourer was that he committed murder by causing the death of Biju the three year old son of his elder brother Chellappan (P.W. 5) by cutting the child with a sickle and severing the head, at about 4.30 p.m. on 6-1-1978 at the courtyard of the house of P.W. 5 in the presence of P.W. 1 Narayani the maternal grandmother of the child, while P.W. 5 and his wife were away in the farm. According to the prosecution the accused who had some grudge against P.W. 5 has wreaked his revenge in thus causing the death of the child.

3. The prosecution case briefly stated is this : The appellant was staying with his brother P.W. 5 until three months prior to the incident. He then moved to the house of another brother on account of some ill-feeling. On the date of the occurrence P.W. 5 and his wife had gone to the paddy field leaving P.W. 1 in the house to look after the child. The deceased child was playing along with his cousin Pennayi in the southern courtyard and P.W. 1 was standing close by attending to some domestic work. The appellant then arrived there with a sickle in his hand. He separated the other child 'Pennayi', held Biju and cut him with the sickle twice on the neck severed the head, and when P.W. 1 made an alarming outcry the appellant picked up the severed head of the victim in one hand and with the sickle in the other ran away along the bund. P.W. 2 Poovan the immediate neighbour attracted by the alarm rushed towards the place. He saw the appellant running away and on being confronted by P.W. 2, the appellant dropped the bleeding severed head of the child on the bund and took to his heels. P.W. 3 Janaki another neighbour who had seen the appellant earlier also noticed him running away with a blood-stained sickle.

4. The crime was registered against the appellant at the Vaikom Police Station on recording Ext. P-1 statement of P.W. 1 at 7 p.m. the same day. The appellant was apprehended on 7-1-1978 at 7.15 p.m. and the blood-stained lunki was seized. On 8-1-1978 P.W. 9 the Circle Inspector seized M.O. 1 sickle under Ext. P-5 mahazar and on completing the investigation charge-sheeted the case.

5. At the trial P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 supported the prosecution. The appellant set up the defence of insanity and examined D.Ws. 1 and 2. The learned Sessions Judge accepting the prosecution evidence found the appellant guilty holding that the plea of insanity has not been established. The appellant was accordingly convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.

6. There can be no serious controversy over the question that the appellant had caused the death of the child Biju in the manner alleged by the prosecution. The direct evidence of the eye witness Narayani (P.W. 1) corroborated by the testimony of the two neighbours P.Ws. 2 and 3 and supported by the medical evidence furnished by P.W. 6 who conducted the autopsy and issued Ext. P-2 certificate, leaves no room for doubt that the appellant had caused the death of Biju by cutting with a sickle in broad day light, while the child was playing in the courtyard. P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 are disinterested rustic witnesses who have no axe to grind against the appellant and their version impresses as natural and truthful. P.W. 1 saw the appellant cutting and severing the neck of the child and P.W. 2 an aged agricultural labourer who lives within 15 meters away noticed the appellant just in front of his house advancing with the severed head in one hand and the sickle in the other. P.W. 3 also saw the appellant at a spot not far away from the scene proceeding with a blood-stained sickle. The appellant had dropped the severed head on the chira and it was noticed by P.W. 9 at the time of the inquest at a dista