JUDGMENT

Ryves, J. - Musammat Anandi was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Muttra of the murder of a boy Har Charan and sentenced to transportation for life. She has appealed. There is no doubt whatever that the child, Har Charan, was left alone in the house with Musammat Anandi on the morning of the 19th of October 1921 while the other women inmates of the house had gone to the village well. The male members of the family were already out at work in the fields. When the women returned from the well they found the outer door chained from the inside. It was opened by the accused and they noticed blood about and on the cot on which the child had been sleeping when they left the house; they found the dead body of the child with its throat cut. The accused apparently was in the same room. They asked the accused what she had done and she said that she had destroyed Poorna's issue. A report was made and the accused was taken into custody that same day. It is in evidence that she attempted to run out of the house either with the intention of escaping or of jumping down a well. She was caught, however, and tied up by the Chaukidar. After being taken to the Police Station it appears that she was sent to the jail at Muttra, and we find that on the 14th of November 1921 a letter was sent by the Joint Magistrate to the Civil Surgeon of Muttra asking whether Musammat Anandi was capable of standing her trial. This shows that before that the Police must have had doubts about the matter. On the 6th of December the Civil Surgeon replied that she was unable to plead or stand her trial, and on the 6th of December the District Magistrate ordered her trial to be postponed until she was fit. On the 2nd of February the Civil Surgeon of Muttra reported that she was insane, with the result that she was removed from the Jail at Muttra to the lunatic Asylum at Agra and she remained there until the 23rd of August. Subsequently, it was certified that she had recovered her senses and could stand her trial. The main facts of the case are not disputed and they are all recorded in the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. The only question is, whether Musammat Anandi who undoubtedly killed the child was guilty of murder or whether she was protected by the provisions of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. There is no doubt that the law requires, as laid down in Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, that the onus of proving circumstances which give the benefit of the general Exception to an accused person lies on him, and in the absence of evidence the presumption is against the accused. But this does not mean that the accused must lead evidence. If it is apparent from the evidence on the r cord, whether produced by the prosecution or by the defence, that the general Exception would apply, then the presumption is removed and it is open to the Court to consider whether the evidence proves to the satisfaction of the Court that the accused comes within the Exception. Now, here it is established by the evidence of two qualified expert medical witnesses that at any rule from shortly after the 19th of October 1921 until the 23rd of August 1922 the woman was not in her senses. There is evidence that her father and some evidence that her grand-father had been at one time or another insane. There is also evidence that before the murder she occasionally went out of her mind. In other words, it is proved that she was subject to occasional fits of insanity. Now, the Court has to consider whether it is established by the evidence that the murder was committed at a time when she was in this state or not. The learned Judge comes to the conclusion that she has not proved that she was, and that the onus lay on her to do so. He draws an adverse inference against her from the circumstance that after killing the child she closed the main door of the house, that she then changed the shirt which she had been wearing when she killed the child and washed it in an attempt