Amit Talukdar, J. - (1.) Feeling aggrieved with his conviction recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No. 10 September of 1991 on 3/3/1994 in respect of the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of imprisonment for life accompanied by a fine of Rs. 5,000.00 the appellant hereinabove has preferred this appeal purely on the ground of section 84 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) Shri Debasish Roy, learned counsel appearing in support of the appeal being assisted by Syed Shamsher Ali and Ranabir Roy Chowdhury has argued the appeal in great details. He has taken the pains to outline the entire evidence before us. He, in tune with the gravamen of the grounds restricted his submissions in respect of section 84 of the Indian Penal Code and submitted that the appellant squarely falls within the exception of the said provision and his conviction was liable to be set aside. Referring to the relevant witnesses Shri Roy submitted that the appellant was suffering from insanity before, during and after the incident and he was not in a position to comprehend his act; as such, the conviction, on the basis of a trial without resorting to the provisions of section 328 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was not legal and liable to be quashed.
(3.) He referred to the decision of Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra, and submitted that since the appellant was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and had discharged his onus, as cast upon him under section 105 of the Evidence Act, he was entitled to the benefit under section 84 of the Indian Penal Code.;