The main legal point established in the judgment is the standard of proof required to establish insanity under S.84 IPC, emphasizing the need for the prosecution to prove the accused's mental capacity beyond reasonable doubt and the shift of onus once the accused establishes a preponderance of probability of insanity.

T.C. Raghavan, J.

1. The appellant was the accused in a murder case; and the Sessions Judge of Kottayam convicted him under S.302 and sentenced him to imprisonment for life rejecting his plea of insanity under S.84 of the Penal Code.

2. Regarding the incident, there cannot be much controversy. The. appellant was living in a house in the same compound as the house of his brother pw. 6, where pw. 6, his wife pw. 2, and pw. 3 and pw. 1, the widow and daughter respectively of a pre-deceased brother, were living together with the mother of the appellant, Kunhupennu. The appellant left his house and went to Thikkoyil about six miles away and was working there as a tapper in a rubber estate belonging to Pw.7. On 24th December 1969, he left his work for no reason, and two days after, came to his brother's house and lived there. On 29tb December 1969, at about 9 a. m. while pw 4. and another were working on some vessels entrusted to them for repairs by Pw.6., the appellant joined them and had coffee with them. A little later, Pw2. saw him sharpening a chopper; and the mother of the appellant asked him why he was doing that. The appellant told her that he was going to pluck tapioca planted by Pw.6, when the mother told him that he should not do that as the tapioca was needed for domestic use. The appellant insisted that he would pluck and sell the tapioca, when the mother, in a rather loud tone, told him that he should not. The mother then went to the kitchen behind the house; and the appellant followed her and inflicted as many as seven cuts on her with the chopper. Thereafter, he threw the chopper there and ran away from the place. pw. 4, pw. 3 and pw. 2 came to the kitchen; and within a few minutes, the mother breathed her last. Pw. 1 went and gave the first information to the police in the afternoon; and the police came to the scene, conducted the inquest, recovered the material objects including M. O.1, the weapon used, sent the dead body for autopsy, questioned the relevant witnesses, etc. And the appellant was arrested at Thikkoyil the next day.

3. The police noted that the mental condition of the appellant was not alright; and they sent him to the Medical College Hospital at Kottayam, where he was kept under observation from 8th to 17th January 1969 by pw. 13. Then he was sent to the Mental Hospital at Trivandrum; and pw. 12 kept him there till 29th January 1970. He was of unsound mind when he was brought to the Mental Hospital; but on 29th January 1970, he was found fit to stand his trial, and Pw. 12 issued a certificate to that effect. Then came the trial.

4. As indicated already, there cannot be much dispute regarding the incident; nor does the counsel of the appellant dispute the incident and the complicity of the appellant in the crime. He has confined his arguments to the question whether the appellant was insane at the relevant time.

5. The Sessions Judge has considered this question and has referred to the two decisions of the Supreme Court in Dahyabhai Chahaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat (AIR 1964 SC 1563) and in Bhikari v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1966 SC 1). Between the said two decisions, the question regarding insanity has been fairly settled; but we feel that the Sessions Judge has not properly understood the scope and content of these decisions.

6. In a case like this, there are two or three matters to be carefully understood and appreciated: One, that every individual is normally presumed to be sane until the contrary is established; two, that the onus of the prosecution is not merely to establish that the accused committed the criminal act, but also to establish that he had the necessary mens rea, which is also an ingredient of the offence; and three, that, under S.105 of the Indian Evidence Act, the onus of proving one of the General Exceptions like insanity is on the accused. Normally, every person is presumed to be sane, so that the prosecution need not initially establish that the accused was s