@ shoulder head and neck. When his sister Shashi Sharma (PW/1) tried to Intervene the appellant also assaulted her on her head near left eye and left arm He threatened his family members from coming out of the house. Ayodhya Prasad was I taken to District Hospital, Bilaspur on a truck by one Tulsi Tiwari and he was admitted in District Hospital, Bilaspur. However, he succumbed totinjuries on 3-3—2003 while undergoing treatment in District Hospital, Bilaspur. Deceased Ayodhya Prasad was examined on 25-2-2003 by Dr. K.K. Sao (PW/8) and gave his injury report (EXP/12). Shashi Sharma (PW/1) was also examined by Dr. K.K. Sao (PW/8) and gave his injury report Ex.P/13. After his death, dead body was sent for autopsy where Dr. P.C. Sahu (PW/4) conducted post mortem and gave his report (Ex-Pl4). After completing the investigation, charge sheet was tiled against the appellant in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, who in turn Committed the case to the Court of Sessions __\_Judge. Learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the deceased was father of the appellant. On 25-2—2003 at about 8.00 p.m., when the deceased Ayodhya Prasad was washing his hands and feet for taking. meals, the appellant asked him to leave the house on the pretext that he spread dirt and foul smell by washing his hands and feet in the house On this his father answered that he would leave after drinking water All of a sudden the appellant took out a carpenter’s axe and assaulted his father on his _ a f t\\\ 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant who abjured his guilt. Prosecution in order to establish the charges against the appellant examined 9 witnesses in all. Thereafter the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in which he denied the circumstances appearing fagainst him in the prosecution case and pleaded that his father excessively harassed his wife and therefore, his wife Kamodni VT assaulted hi_m with carpenter’s axe. He did not assault his father and; his sister is deposing against him due to greed of the i property. He is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. ,The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of the judgment. Homicidal death of deceased Ayodhya Prasad is not in dispute. Even otherwise, from the evidence of Dr. K.K. Sao (PW/8), who examined Ayodhya Prasad in injured condition on 25-2-2003 and found injuries on his person as described in para 9 of the judgment and also considering the evidence of Dr. P.C. Sahu \ (PW/4), who conducted postmortem over the person of the deceased on 3-3-2003 and found injuries as described in para 11 of the judgment and opined-that all the injuries present over the person of the deceased were ante-mortem in nature and same was caused by heavy and sharp edged weapon and injury No.1 was caused on left parietal region near left eye 5 cms above the 2 left ear and 8 cms above thé Ieft eye-brow and on internal examination he found parietai bone was cut and the same was ‘ aufficient to cause his death and the deceased died due to coma as a result of injury No.1, homicidal death of Ayodhya Prasad is established. @r. K.K. Sao (PW/8) has also proved the injury report of Shashi éharma and gave his report (EXP/13) in which he described one incised wound of 5" x 1/2 “ skint on the left side of her face caused 1 V f by sharp edged weapon. 9. teamed counsel appearing for the appellant submits that from the evidence of injured witness Shashi Sharma (PW/1), it is clear that the appellant had no motive for committing murder of his own father. She has categorically stated that the mental condition of her brother was not sound and therefore, they did not think to lodge the report against him in Police Station. Thus, taking into consideration that the' appellant was suffering from unsoundness of mind and he was not aware of the consequence of the act, therefore, the act allegedly committed by the appellant falls within the ambit of general exception as described in Section 84 of the IPC and the trial Court ought to have acquitted the appellant by giving him the benefit of Section 84 of the Code. On the other hand, Shri Ashish Shukla, Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State supported the impugned judgment. ‘We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial court as also the impugned judgment. V The trial Court relying upon the evidence of Shashi Shrma (PW/1) who herself sustained incised injury at the tirne of incident, has held that the prosecution has established the involvement of the appellant in crime in question. Shashi Sharma (PW/1) hasdeposed that the incident occurred on 25 2-2003 at about 8 00 p m and at that time she was in her parental house at Sagar She was watching T V wrth her Bhabhi, father, nephew, ,Yogesh and other children. Bh‘abhi , "e f asked for meals, whereupon her father went near the hand pump to wash his hands and feet The hand-pump is inside the house The appellant was present In veranadah He asked his father not to spread filth by washing hands and feet and leave the place. When his father replied that he would leave after drinking water, the appellant attacked him with carpenters axe. She and her bhabhi tried to stop him, whereupon the appellant also attacked his sister 0n her head, temporal region, cheek and neck She has stated in para 3 of her deposition that the mental condition of her brother was not good therefore they did not think to lodge report against him Her father was admitted in District ~- Hospital, Bilaspur, where he died on 3—3-2003. This Witness has been examined atlength by the defence. However, defence could not elicit anything in her cross examination which would make her version untrustworthy or unreliable. A suggestion has been accepted by this witness that her brother was eccentric and he At that time her ;a s i acted in irrational manner. 12. 3 1. FE M 14. From perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that examination of this witness was stayed on 6—8-2003. On the request of Additional Public Prosecutor, the appellant was referred for verification of his mental condition to medical board. lt also appears that he was referred to Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Medical Cfollege, Raipur, where hewas examined by Doctor who did not find any mental sickness on ‘medical examination. That apart, except the evidence of Shashi Sharma (PW/1) that mental condition i V f of her brother was not good, therefore, they did not think to lodge the report in Police Station against him and there is no .4 . other evidence adduced by the defence to establish their defence that appellant was suffering from unsoundness of mind, therefore, he was incapable to understand the consequences of the act which he did on the date of incident and as such entitled for extending the benetit of Section 84 of the Code. 15. ‘\ The trial Court, after due appreciation of the evidence of Shashi Sharma (PW/1), which is duly corroborated from the evidence of Dr. K.K. Sao (PW/4) and Dr. P.C. Sahu (PW/8) who have found the corresponding injuries over the person of the deceased, has held that the prosecution has proved the involvement of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt in the crime in question. The defence has failed to establish its defence that the appellant was suffering from unsoundness of mind at the time of incident. The above finding of the trial Court is based on proper f appreciation of evidence available on record. . ‘ Raju 3.1g w V On the basis of aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has proved the invoivement of the appeliant in the crime in question beyond all reasonable doubt and we find no substance in this appeal. In the result, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and is 15. accordingly dismissed. Sdl- l Sd/- T I kN-Cmandrakar DmNDRA MISHRAI Judge ? Judge \ .V ,/ ”W‘f? wiimii 1 Li ’ /_