The burden of proving legal insanity under S.84 of the Penal Code rests on the accused, and the court must consider the state of mind of the accused at the time of the offense to determine the applicability of the legal insanity defense.

1. Appellant Narayanan has been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge of Parur of the offence of murder for having on the morning of 22-4-64 stabbed and caused the death of one Manicka Shenoi and he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life.

2. The facts of the case are very simple. The incident took place in front of one Rajeswari Hotel near the Perumbavoor bus stand on the Alwaye-Munnar road. Pw. 4 a boy met the accused that morning in front of the hotel. P.W. 4 knew the accused before and wanted the accused to purchase tea for him, but the accused excused himself by saying that he had no money-Then Pw. 4 offered to give him tea and took him to the hotel. After getting inside the hotel the accused soon got out saying that he did not want tea. He then stood in front of the hotel. It was at that time that the deceased Shenoi came out of the Rajeswari Hotel. As soon as he came the accused stabbed him on the right side of his neck from behind with a dagger M.O.1. The accused then ran away with the weapon in his hand. Pw.1 a police constable on duty at the bus stand seeing this pursued and arrested him a few yards away and took the knife from him. The accused was then brought to the scene of occurrence and along with the injured was taken to the Perumbavoor police station and produced before the Sub Inspector of police Pw. 17. The injured was unable to speak and & statement was recorded from Pw.1 and a case was registered. Pw. 2 an agent of a transport bus who was present in front of the hotel also witnessed the accused stabbing and running away from the scene and Pw.1 phasing and arresting him. Pw. 3 a betelnut shop keeper near the hotel heard the cry 'Ayo' and came out from inside his shop and saw the accused running away with the weapon in his hand. He saw the deceased pressing his wound and saying that he had been stabbed, and witnessed the arrest of the accused by Pw.1 and taking him and the deceased to the police station. Pw. 4 also saw the accused running away from the scene and Pw.1 running after him and arresting him. We have been taken through the evidence, of these witnesses and find no, reason to doubt the truth of their evidence. On the evidence of these, witnesses, it is conclusively established that it was the accused who had inflicted the fatal injury on the deceased. This fact has not been challenged by the defences. The evidence of the two medical officers Pws. 5 & 6 unmistakably show that the deceased sustained a neck injury, that it had cut open the jugular vein and that death was the direct result of the injury.

3. The only question that arises for decision is whether the act of the accused is protected under S.84 of the Penal Code. Learned Judge has considered the entire, evidence and has come to the conclusion that the accused has failed to satisfy the court that when he committed the murder he was not capable of knowing the nature of the act and that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that on the evidence the learned judge should have held that the accused had discharged; the burden placed on him under S.105 of the Evidence Act and that even if he had failed to establish the fact affirmatively the evidence was sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the court regarding the intention of the accused when he committed the act and the court should therefore have, acquitted the accused on the, ground that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. Reliance was placed on a recent decision of the Supreme Court in D.C. Thakkar v. State of Gujarat (AIR. 1964 SC 1563).

It is true that the prosecution in a case of homicide, shall prove beyond; reasonable doubt that the accused caused the, death with the requisite intention, described in the section. This general; burden never shifts and it always, rests on the prosecution. But S.84 of the Penal Code provides that nothing is, an offence, if the a