The exception of insanity under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code can lead to acquittal if the accused's mental state at the time of the offense is proven to be unsound.

1. - This is a jail appeal by accused Ganpat against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Merta dated May 10, 1979 convicting the appellant under Section 302 and 309, Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six month's rigorous imprisonment on the first count and six month's simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' like imprisonment on the second count.

2. The charge against the accused is that he committed murder of his wife Smt. Dhapuri, aged about 22, years in the afternoon of 21-8-73 in his village Kod, Tehsil Degana, District Nagair. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that at about 4 P.M. on that day Mst. Dhapuri was taking bath in her house. The asked her to wash his clothes. She refused to do so and abused the accused. The accused lost control & struck blows with an axe to Mst. Dhapuri resulting in multiple injuries some of which were on head. Mst. Dhapuri did not survive and passed away instantaneously. The accused ran from there & went to his well, where his mother was working. He dropped himself in that well in a bid to commit suicide. He was taken out from well and was tied with a rope to prevent his escape. Many persons of the village collected and report Ex. P/1 was drawn up. It was sent to police station, Thavala where a case was registered. 1 he Investigating Officer arrived on the spot and prepared the inquest report. The accused was also arrested. The blood stained clothes of the deceased-victim were sized and sealed. The blood stained soil was also seized. The post mortem examination of the victim's dead body was conducted on 22-8-78 by PW. 11 Dr. Rampratap - the then, Medical Officer-in-charge, Government Dispensary, Riyan Badi. He found three external injuries and some internal injuries, as mentioned in the post mortem examination report Ex. P/3. The came of death was slated to be severe bleeding and shock from the wounds. On the completion of investigation, the police submitted a challan against the accused in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Merta, who committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions. The learned Sestions Judge framed charges under Section 302 and 309, IPC, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed absolute innocence. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses and filed some documents. In defence, no evidence was adduced. Though, the accused did not take the specific plea of insanity in defence, there were circumstances pointing out that he was not sane at the time of commission of the murder. On the conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge held the charges duly proved against the accused. The plea of insanity raised on his behalf was not accepted. The accused was consequent convicted and sentenced, as mentioned at the very out-set.

3. We have heard the learned Amicus Curiae & the learned Public Prosecutor The learned Amicus Curiae did not challenge the fact that the accused had committed the murder of Mst. Dhapuri and also had dropped himself in the well in an attempt to commit suicide. What has been argued by the learned Amicus Curiae is that the accused was insane at the time of the commission of the crime. The learned Sessions Judge did not properly appreciate the matter and erroneously held that the accused was not insane at the relevant time. It was argued that since the accused was insane at the crucial time of the commission of the offences, he is protected under Section 84 of the IPC. In reply, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the question of insanity was dealt with at length by the trial Court and correctly held that the accused was not insane at the relevant time. This finding is based on cogent reasons and should not be disturbed by us. We have taken the respective submissions into consideration,

4. We may point out that in the F