Anjuli Palo, J.

1. Appellant/accused has filed this appeal challenging the judgment dated 29.12.2008, passed by the Sessions Judge, Shahdol, in Session Trial No. 256/2007, whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation and under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year.

2. Prosecution story in nutshell is that, appellant Ramnath and deceased Ramune Bai were residing in the same house at Village Jaldi Tola, District Anuppur. Both were close relatives. On 24.08.2007 at about 5:00 pm, the appellant, all of a sudden came to the house armed with tangi (axe) in his hand and attacked on the head of Ramune Bai. She died on the spot. Lalita (PW-3) witnessed the incident. She shouted. On hearing her cry, Mayawati (PW-5) came there and saw the appellant running over the bari (fence). Appellant straightaway went to his brother Kamta (PW-2) who was grazing buff-allow. Appellant assaulted him with the same tangi (axe). Kamta and other persons snatched tangi (axe) from the appellant. They brought the appellant to home and tied him with a rope till the arrival of police. Jagdish (PW-1)/elder brother of the appellant lodged FIR at police station, Anuppur. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC.

3. The trial Court framed charges under Sections 302 and 324 of IPC against the appellant. Appellant abjured guilt and asserted his ignorance about the incident and put forward insanity as his defence.

4. Learned trial Court has not accepted the defence of the appellant about his insanity and held the appellant guilty for committing murder of Ramune Bai and causing simple injuries to Kamta (PW-2). At that time, he was not suffering from unsoundness of mind as provided in Section 84 of IPC. Hence, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment.

5. The appellant challenged the aforesaid findings on the ground that it was perverse and contrary to law. There are contradictions and omissions in the testimony of prosecution witness. Appellant had no motive to commit the offence. Only one blow was allegedly caused to the deceased Ramune Bai and one single injury was caused to Kamta (PW-2). Appellant Ramnath is suffering from unsoundness of mind. He should have been given benefit of Section 84 of the IPC. Most of the prosecution witnesses have admitted the insanity of the appellant. Therefore, his action cannot be termed to be knowingly or intentional. Learned trial Court, though admitted the medical insanity of the appellant but grossly erred in making difference in medical insanity and legal insanity. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and appellant is entitled to be acquitted.

6. It is not in dispute that, deceased Ramune Bai was the bua (paternal aunt) of the appellant and Kamta (PW-2) is the real brother of the appellant. At the time of the incident at about 4:00 pm, Lalita (PW-3) niece of the appellant aged about 9 years was present at the house of Kamta (PW-2). She deposed that her uncle/appellant came and inflicted blow of tangi on the head of the deceased. After witnessing the incident, she ran away towards the street. Pappu (PW-4) deposed that he heard the shouts of Lalita (PW-3). Lalita told him that the appellant/Ramnath had killed her baba (Ramune Bai).

7. Kamta Prasad (PW-2) supported the prosecution story. He deposed that, he was grazing buffaloes near the pond. Suddenly, appellant came there and clung to him and inflicted blow by tangi (axe). Then he went to his home and saw the injuries on the deceased Ramune Bai. Thereafter, he was taken to the hospital.

8. Mayawati (PW-5) and her husband Jagdish (PW-1) came to know about the incident from Lalita. Then they reached at the spot. They saw that Ramune Bai was lying dead and she sustained injury on the head.