The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, emphasizing the burden of proof on the accused, the legal test of responsibility, and the relevance of extenuating circumstances in the defense of insanity.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal arises out of judgment and order of sentence dated 23.02.2001 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal-Angul, Dhenkanal in S.T. No. 61-D of 1997 convicting the appellant under Sections 302 and 324, I.P.C. and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life u/s 302, I.P.C. and to suffer R.I. for two years for the offence u/s 324, I.P.C. with a direction that both the sentences are to run concurrently.

2. The occurrence happened at about 5.30 a.m. on 8.2.1997 in village Kangeilo under Kamakshyanagar Police Station in the district of Dhenkanal. Trinath Dehury (deceased) at that time was sitting by the side of the fire in his Bari to warm himself as it was still cold in the morning. The appellant came running to that place with a Kati (M.O.-III) and gave blows to the deceased by that Kati. Receiving the blows, the deceased fell down there. The occurrence was witnesses by Nanda Kishore Dehury (P.W.2), informant Kaira Dehury (P.W.3) and Gobardhan Behera (P.W.4). Seeing the incident, all of them rushed to the spot to attend the deceased. They also chased the appellant in vain. From the spot the appellant ran towards the school of the village where a polling party had camped for the General Election to be conducted in that village on that day. Therein the school the appellant assaulted Sarat Kumar Sahu (P.W.10) and Prafulla Kumar Panda (P.W.7) by the same Kati (M.O.-III). The police staff presents in the school used as a polling station caught hold the appellant. On the basis of the report, lodged by Kaira Dehury (P.W.3), the present case was registered in Kamakshyanagar Police Station. The then O.I.C., Kamakshyanagar Police Station (P.W.11) investigated into the case and on completion of investigation he submitted charge-sheet against the appellant implicating him in offence under Sections 302/323/324, I.P.C.

3. The defense plea is one of denial and it is the specific case of the defense that at the time of occurrence the appellant was laboring under unsoundness of mind.

4. P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 as introduced earlier are the eye witnesses so far as the assault on deceased Trinath Dehury is concerned. P.Ws. 7 and 10 are the injured witnesses so far as the occurrence in the school of the village is concerned. P.Ws. 8 and 9 besides being witnesses to relevant seizures are also witnesses to the second part of the occurrence that happened in the village school. P.W.1 is the Medical Officer who conducted the post-mortem examined on the dead body of the deceased. P.W.6 is the Medical Officer who examined the injured persons, i.e., P.Ws. 7 and 10 on police requisition. P.W.11 is the Investigating Officer.

Besides proving some documents vide Exts. A to D, the defense has examined two witnesses. D.W.1 is the staff deputed for election duty in the spot village. D.W.2 is a teacher of Pabitrapur Primary School where the appellant was also working as a teacher at the relevant time.

5. Learned trial Court on consideration of the materials on record eschewed the plea of insanity raised by the defense and found the appellant guilty under Sections 302/324, I.P.C.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously submits that learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on the point of plea of insanity taken by the appellant at the time of trial and has also failed to understand the law on the point. He further submits that the burden of proof so far as the plea of insanity on the accused is concerned is not as heavy as on the prosecution and facts proved in the case should have been taken into consideration by the learned trial Court to accept the plea of insanity raised by the defense.

To substantiate his contention learned counsel for the appellant relies on Raghu Pradhan Vs. State of Orissa Ajaya Mahakud Vs. State of Orissa State of Orissa, Vrs. Kamal Lochan Khinbudi (1997) 12 OCR 107.

Learned Addl. Government Advocate on the other supports the impugned judgment and submits that there is no material on record to bring