MARIAPPANversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

                   [2013] 4 S.C.R. 273


                       MARIAPPAN                              A
                             v.
                 STATE OF TAMIL NADU
            (Criminal AppE!al No. 926 of 2009)
                     APRIL 18, 2013
                                                              B
        [P. SATHASIVAM AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.]

      Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 84, 299, 302 and 449 - Murder
- Defence of insanity - Accused-appellant repeatedly
assaulted his paternal aunt with a 'aruval' and thereby caused C
her death - Conviction of appellant by trial court and High
Court - Challenged - Plea of insanity by appellant seeking
protection u/s.84 IPC.:... Held: Physical and mental condition
of the accused at the time of commission of offence, is
paramount for bringing the case within puNiew of s.84- ln the D
case on hand, no evidence as to the unsoundness of mind
of the appellant-accused at the time of the occurrence -
Appellant had coine to the house of the deceased one day
prior to the occurrence, demanded money and threatened the
deceased of grave consequences and on the next day, when E
the demand was not fulfilled, he trespassed into the house,
pushed away PWs 1 and 2, bolted the door from inside and
inflicted repeated 'aruval' blows on the deceased which
resulted into her death - All these aspects also show that at
the relevant tiine, appellant was not insane as claimed by him F
- Further, appellant was examined as a defence witness and
according to the trial Judge, as a witness, he made his
statement clearly and cogently and meticulously followed the
court proceedings - The trial Judge, after noting appellant's
answers in respect of the questions u/s. 313 CrPC concluded G
 that he could not be termed as an •insane" person - Burden
of proving an offence is always on the prosecution and never
 shifts, however, existence of circumstances bringing the case
 within exception uls.84 /PC lies on the accused - Appellant
                            273                               H
    274       SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [2013) 4 S.C.R.


A failed to discharge the burden as stated in s. 105 of the
   Evidence Act - Evidence Act, 1872 - s.105.

      The prosecution case was that on account of a land
  dispute the accused-appellant repeatedly assaulted his
8 paternal aunt with a 'aruval' and thereby caused her
  death. The trial court as well as the High Court convicted
  the appellant under Sections 449 and 302 of IPC and
  sentenced him to undergo RI for 5 years under Section
  449 of IPC and RI for life for the offence under Section
C 302 of IPC.
       In the instant appeal, the appellant raised the plea of
  insanity seeking prote~tion under Section 84 of the IPC.
  The appellant placed reliance on the evidence of DW-1-
  the Doctor who stated that the accused was suffering
D from Paranoid Schizophrenia. The other material relied on
  in support of the plea of insanity is Ex. D-2, the
  termination order of the Inspector General of Police,
  Northern Sector, CRPF, New Delhi wherein it is stated that
  the appellant was medically ~nfit for service in CRPF due
E to Paranoid Schizophrenia.
      The question which therefore arose for consideration
  was whether at the time of the alleged incident, i.e., on
  05.11.2001, the accused-appellant was suffering from
  "Paranoid Schizophrenia'' and, hence, he was entitled to
F the benefit of exception under Section 84 of IPC.     ,

          Dismissing the appeals, the Court
      HELD: 1. In the instant case, from the matetials
G analyzed, discussed and concluded by the trial Courtand
  the High Court, it is clearly established that it was the
  accused-appellant who committed the murder. [Para 8]
  [281-E]
       2: Section 84 IPC makes it clear that a person, who,
H at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness· of
      MARIAPPAN v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU               275


mind, commits anything, he is permitted to claim the A
above exception. In other words, insanity or
unsoundness of mind are the stages when a person is
incapable of knowing the nature of the act or unable to
understand what is wrong or right and must relate to the
period in which the offence has been committed. Further 8
Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 makes it
clear that though the burden of proving an offence is
always on the prosecution and never shifts, however, the
existence of circumstances bringing the case within the
exception under Section 84 IPC lies on the accused. On C
a reading of Sections 84 and 299 IPC and Sections 105
and 101 9f the Evidence Act, it is clear that "when a
person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, the
burden of proof lies on that person". At the time of
commission of offence, the physical and mental condition
of the person concerned is paramount for bringing the D
case within the purview of Section 84. [Paras 10, 11 and
15] [282-B, C-E; G; 284-H; 285-A-D]
    Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale vs. State of Maharashtra
(2002) 1 sec 748: 2002 (2) Suppl. SCR 612 and               E
Sudhakaran vs. State of Kera/a (2010) 10 SCC 582: 2010
(12) SCR 873 - relied on.

     Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 22nd
Edition, paras 10 and 11 and Modi's Medical Jurisprudence   F
and Toxicology, 23rd Edition, paras 26 and 28 - referred
to.

    3.1. In the case on hand, though the Doctor (DW-1)
attached with the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai,
who treated the accused from 11.07.2001 to 08.08.2001       G
has stated that the appellant-accused was suffering from
paranoid schizophrenia, it is not in dispute that after
08.08.2001; there is no material or information on record
that he was suffering from the same. It is relevant to
mention that the date of occurrence was 05.11.2001 i.e.     H
    276     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013] 4 S.C.R.


A nearly after three months of the treatment by DW-1. In the
  same way, Ex. D-2, the termination order of the Inspector
  General of Police, Northern Sector, CRPF, New Delhi is
  also not helpful because of the language used in Section
  84 of IPC. As a matter of fact, DW-2, father of the accused-
B appellant has not stated anything about the behaviour of
  the deceased. He has also not stated anything that he is
  a mentally ill person and not able to do his routine works
  properly. In fact, from Ex. D-2, which is a letter from the
  Department, it is seen that the appellant-aGcused made
C a written request for rejoining stating improvement in his
  health. [Para 16] [285-E-H; 286-A]

        3.2. It is also relevant to note that the appellant came
  to the house one -day prior to the occurrence, demanded
  money and threatened the deceased of grave
D consequences and on the next day, when the demand
  was not fulfilled, he trespassed into the house, pushed
  away PWs 1 and 2, bolted the door from inside and
  inflicted repeated aruval blows on the deceased resulted
  into her death. All these aspects also show that at the
E relevant time, he was not insane as claimed by him. [Para
  17] [286-A-C]

       3.3. Another factor which goes against the appellant-
  accused is that he himself was examined as a defence
F witness No.3. According to trial Judge, as a witness, he
  made his statement clearly and cogently and it was also
  observed that he was meticulously following the court
  proceedings, acting suitably when the records were
  furnished for perusal. The trial Judge has also pointed
  out that during the entire proceedings, the accused has
G nowhere stated that he was insane earlier to the date of
  incident. The trial Judge, after noting his answers in
  respect of the questions under Section 313 CrPC has
  concluded that the accused could not be termed as an
  "insane" person. [Para 18] [286-C-E]
H
       MARIAPPAN v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU                  277


     4. In view of the materials placed and the decision        A
arrived at by the trial Court and of the fact that there is
no evidence as to the unsoundness of mind of the
appellant-accused at the time of the occurrence, namely,
on 05.11.2001 and also taking note of the fact that the
accused-appellant failed to discharge the burden as             B
stated in Section 105 of the Evidence Act, the conclusion
arrived at by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court
is confirmed. [Para 19] [286-E-G]

                      Case Law Reference:
                                                                c
    2002 (2) Suppl. SCR 612         relied on      Para 13

    201 O (12) SCR 873              relied on      Para 14

    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 926 of 2009.                                                D

    From the Judgment & Order dated 17.10.2006 of the High
Court of Madras, bench at Madurai in Crl. A.No. 1556 of 2003.

    Anil Shrivastav for the Appellant.
                                                                E
    M. Yogesh Kanna, A. Santha Kumaran, Sasikala for the
Respondent.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. This appeal has been filed against   F
the final judgment and order dated 17 .10.2006 passed by the
Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in Criminal Appeal
No. 1556 of 2003, whereby the High Court dismissed the
appeal filed by the appellant herein and confirmed the order
dated 29.08.2003 passed by the Additional District and          G
Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. IV), Madurai at
Periakulam in S.C. No. 390 of 2002.

     2. Brief facts

     (a) The case on hand relates to the death of a woman in    H
    278       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013) 4 S.C.R.


A her house over a land dispute by the appellant-accused,
  claiming the plea of insanity under Section 84 of the Indian
  Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'the IPC'). Parvathi @ Kili (the
  deceased), her husband Parasivam Chettiar (PW-6) and their
  grand daughters viz., Chellakili (PW-1) and Parmala (PW-2)
B were living together at Ammapatti village. The .deceased was
  the paternal aunt of the appellant-accused.

        (b) There was a dispute between the family of the
  appellant-accused and the deceased over a portion of land
C belonging to one Chinnamanur Pillayar Kovil, which was taken
  on lease by PW-6 through one Chinnamanur Karuvaya Pillai.
  The family of the appellant-accused claimed that the said land
  was only leased out to them. When the family of the appellant-
  accused demanded to handover the disputed land, PW-6, in
  turn, after the death of the said Chinnamanur Karuvaya Pillai,
0 handed over the land to one Karuppaya Pillai (PW-11 ), son of .
  Karuvaya Pillai which resulted in strained relationship between
  both the families as the appellant-accused was demanding
  money for the same.
E        (c) One day prior to the date of occurrence, i.e., on
  04.11.2001, when PWs 1 and 2 were also at home, the
  appellant-accused came to the house of the deceased and
  questioned about the whereabouts of PW-6 and also told her
  that they have taken their land and money and threatened to
F kill them. At that time, PW-5, brother-in-law of PW-6 came there
  and pacified the appellant-accused. Thereafter, the appellant-
  accused left the place by saying that he would come again
  tomorrow and warned that if the money is not paid, he would
  kill her and her husband.
G       (d) On 05.11.2001, at 8.00 a.m., while the deceased was
  in the kitchen, the app~lant-accused entered into the house and ~
  closed the door from i ~ide. When PWs 1 & 2 asked about
  the conduct of the app ·uant-accused, he said that if the -
  deceased and her husbar1d are not paying his-money, he is
H going to kill them- and went to the kitchen Thereafter, the
         MARIAPPAN v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU                      279
                [P. SATHASIVAM, J.)
   appellant-accused pulled the tuft of the deceased in his left hand A
   and gave a cut on her neck with Aruval and when she warded
   off with her right hand, it resulted into injuries to her fingers. At
   that time, PWs 1 & 2 requested the accused to leave her.
   Again, the accused caught hold of the tuft of her in his left hand
   and gave repeated Aruval blows ·on her head as a result of B
   which she died instantaneously. Thereafter, the accused left the
   place with Aruval in his hand and after opening the door he said
   that he is going to kill PW-6 also. On raising hue and cry by
   PWs 1 & 2, the neighbors came there. PW-1 along with PW-5
   went to the Uthamapalayam Police Station and after recording c
   the statement given by PW-1 the sub-Inspector of Police (PW-
   16) registered a case being Crime No. 386 of 2001 for the
   offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. On the same
__ day, at 4.30 p.m., the appellant-accused was arrested and the
   dead body was also sent for post mortem. After completion of D
   the investigation, a charge sheet was filed and the case was
   committed to the Court of Additional District and Sessions
   Judge, (Fast Track Court No. IV) Madurai at Periakulam and
   numbered as Sessions Case No. 390/2002.
      (e) The Additional District and Sessions Judge, by order        E-
_dated 29.08.2003, convicted the appellant-accused under
 Sections 449 and 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo
 RI for 5 years under Section 449 of IPC along with a fine of
 Rs.5,000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for 1 (one) year and
 to undergo RI for life for the offence under Section 302 of IPC      F
 alongwith a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to further undergo RI
 for 5 years.

     (f) Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed an
 appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 1556 of 2003 before the             G
 Madurai Bench of the Madras High. Court. By impugned
 judgment dated 17.10.2006, the High Court dismissed the
 appeal and confirmed the order dated 29.08.2003 passed by
 the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court
 No. IV), Madurai.
                                                                      H
    280      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 4 S.C.R.


A        (g) Against the said order, the appellant-accused has filed
    this appeal by way of special leave petition.

        3. Heard Mr. Anil Shrivastav, learned counsel for the
    appellant and Mr. M. Yogesh Khanna, learned counsel for the
    respondent-State.
8
       4. The one and only contention projected by learned
  counsel for the appellant-accused is that at the time of the
  alleged incident, the accused was suffering from "Paranoid
  Schizophrenia" and, hence, he is entitled to the benefit of
C exception under Section 84 of IPC.

    Discussion:
         5. Before considering the above issue, it is to be noted
  that whether the prosecution has established the guilt against
0 the accused by examining PWs 1 and 2, the grand daughters
  of the deceased Parvathi, as eye-witnesses. It is the evidence
  of PW-6 - husband of the deceased that one day before the
  date of incident, when PWs 1 and 2 were at home along with
  his wife-Parvathi, the appellant-accused came to their house
E and demanded money and also threatened her before leaving
  the place that he would come again tomorrow and if money is
  not paid, he would kill both the deceased and her husband PW-
  6. It is also stated by PWs 1 and 2 that on the. next day, at 8.00
  a.m., when the deceased was cooking food in the kitchen, the
F accused trespassed into the house, bolted the door from inside
  and, thereafter, caused fatal injuries to the deceased with the
  Aruval. It is further stated that on raising hue and cry, PWs 3
  and 4, the neighbours, came at the spot and saw the accused
  running from the house with aruval.
G
        6. The evidence of PWs 3 and 5-the neighbours, proves
  the occurrence that had happened one day prior to the date of
  the incident and also the shoutings of the accused-appellant
  threatening and demanding money. PW-6 has also explained
H in his evidence about the dispute relating to the lease. of the
       MARIAPPAN v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU                       281
              [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

temple land through one Chinnamanur Kuruvaya Pillai and               A
handing over the said land to PW-11, son of the said
Chinnamanur Kuruvaya Pillai. According to PW-6, because of
the said land, there were strained relationship between the two
families for more than 10 years and the appellant-accused
used to quarrel with him and his wife as to how the land leased       B
out to their family could be handed over to PW-11 and was
demanding money for the same.

     7. The evidence of PWs 1 and 2 - the eye-witnesses, the
evidence of PWs 3 and 4, who saw the accused running after            C
the occurrence with Aruval (M.0.1) and the recovery of the
weapon at the instance of the accused which was found to be
stained with human blood of "O" group, as per the serologist
report (Ex.P .12), tallied with the blood group of the deceased
as the clothes of the deceased viz., M.0.s 1 to 4 were also
stained with human blood "O" group clearly prove the case of          D
the prosecution. Further, the medical evidence through PW-9-
the Doctor, who conducted the post mortem and issued the
report (Ex.P-3) strengthened the version of PWs 1 and 2.

     8. From the materials analyzed, discussed and concluded          E
by the trial Court and the High Court, it clearly establishes that
it was the accused-appellant who committed the murder.
      9. Coming to the only contention put-forward by the
appellant-accused that the accused was suffering from
Paranoid Schizophrenia, learned counsel for the appellant             F
placed reliance on the evidence of DW-1-the Doctor attached
to Government Rajaji Hosital, Madurai who treated the accused
from 11.07.2001 to 08.08.2001. In his evidence, DW-1 has
stated that the accused was suffering from Paranoid
Schizophrenia. The other material relied on in support of the         G
plea of insanity is Ex. D-2, the termination order of the Inspector
General of Police, Northern Sector, CRPF, New Delhi wherein
it is stated that the accused is medically unfit for service in
CRPF due to Paranoid Schizophrenia. It is further contended
 that the appellant has also relied on the statement of PW-2,         H
     282     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013) 4 S.C.R.


A grand-daughter of the deceased, that the wife of the accused
  obtained divorce on the ground that the accused was mentally
  ill.
                                  .          '

       10. Since the appellant has raised the plea of insanity
  seeking protection under Section 84 of the IPC, it is useful to
B refer the same:
       -"84. Act of a person of unsound mind.· Nothing is an
        offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing
        it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of
        knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is
c       either wrong or contrary to law."
  The above section makes it clear that a person, who, at the
  time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, commits
  anything, he is permitted to claim the above exception.
o (emphasis supplied). In other words, insanity or unsoundness
  of mind are the stages when a person is incapable of knowing
  the nature of the act or unable to understand what is wrong or
  right and must relate to the period in which the offence has been
  committed.
E       11. It is also useful to refer Section 105 of the Indian
    Evidence Act, 1872 which reads as under:
        "105. Burden of proving that case of accused comes
        within exceptions.- When a person is accused of any
        offence, the burden of proving the existence of
F       circumstances bringing the case within any of the General
        Exceptions in the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860), or within
        any special exception or proviso contained in any other
        part of the same Code, or in any law defining the offence,
        is upon him, and the Court shall presume the absence of
G       such circumstances."
    Though the burden of proving an offence is always on the
    prosecution and never shifts, however, the existence of
    circumstances bringing the case within the exception under
    Section 84 IPC lies on the accused.
H
       MARIAPPAN v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU                   283
              [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
    12. With these provisions, Jet us examine whether at the     A
time of the incident, the accused was suffering from
unsoundness of mind, i.e., on 05.11.2001.
     13. Learned counsel for the appellant-accused heavily
relied on the decision of this Court in Shrikant Anandrao
Bhosale vs. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 7 SCC 748 wherein       B
this Court considered the similar issue. A reference made from
Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 22nd Edition, as
quoted in paras 10 and 11 are relevant, which reads thus:
    "10. What is paranoid schizophrenia, when it starts, what C
    are its characteristics and dangers flowing from this
    ailment? Paranoid schizophrenia, in the vast majority of
    cases, starts· in the fourth decade and develops insidiously.
    Suspiciousness is the characteristic symptom of the early
    stage. Ideas of reference occur, which gradually develop
    into delusions of persecution. Auditory hallucinations D
    follow, which in the beginning, start as sounds or noises
    in the ears, but afterwards change into-abuses or insults.
    Delusions are at first indefinite, but gradually they become
    fixed and definite, to lead the patient to believe that he is
    persecuted by some unknown person or some superhuman E
    agency. He believes that his food is being poisoned, some
    noxious gases are blown into his room and people are
    plotting against him to ruin him. Disturbances of general
    sensation give rise to hallucinations, which are attributed
    to the effects of hypnotism, electricity, wireless telegraphy F
    or atomic agencies. The patient gets very irritated and
    excited owing to these painful and disagreeable
    hallucinations and delusions. Since so many people are -
    against him and are interested in his ruin, he comes to
    believe that he must be a very important man. The nature G
    of delusions thus may change from persecutory to the
    grandiose type. He entertains delusions of grandeur,
    power and wealth, and generally conducts himself in a
     haughty and overbearing manner. The patient usually
     retains his memory and orientation and does not show H
    284        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 4 S.C.R.


A         signs of insanity, until the conversation is directed to the
          particular type of delusion from which he is suffering. When
          delusions affect his behaviour, he is often a source of
          danger to himself and to others. (Modi's Medical
          Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 22nd Edn.)
B         11. Further, according to Modi, the cause of schizophrenia
          is still not known but heredity plays a part. The irritation and
          excitement are effects of illness. On delusion affecting the
          behaviour of a patient, he is a source of danger to himself
          and to others."
c       14. It is useful to refer the decision relied on by learned
   counsel for the State i.e. Sudhakaran vs. State of Kera/a,
   (2010) 1O sec 582. The facts in that case are identical to the
   case on hand. Here again, this Court referred to Mod i's Medical
   Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 23rd Edition about paranoid
11 schizophrenia. The following statement in paras 26 and 28 are
   relevant:
          "26. The defence of insanity has been well known in the
        English legal system for many centuries. In the earlier
E       times, it was usually advanced as a justification for seeking
        pardon. Over a period of time, it was used as a complete
        defence to criminal liability in offences involving mens rea.
        It is also accepted that insanity in medical terms is
        distinguishable from legal insanity. In most cases, in India,
        the defence of insanity seems to be pleaded where the
F
        offender is said to be suffering from the disease of
        schizophrenia.
        28. The medical profession would undoubtedly treat the
        appellant herein as a mentally sick person. However, for
G       the purposes of claiming the benefit of the defence of
        insanity in law, the appellant would have to prove that his
        cognitive faculties were so impaired, at the time when the
        crime was committed, as not to know the nature of the act."
      15. After adverting to Sections 84 and 299 IPC and
H Sections 105 and 101 of the Evidence Act, this Court
       MARIAPPAN v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU                      285
              [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
_concluded that "when a person is bound to prove the existence A
 of any fact, the burden of proof lies on that person". This Court
 also held as under:
     "35. It is also a settled proposition of law that the crucial
     point of time for ascertaining the existence of
     circumstances bringing the case within the purview of           B
     Section 84 is the time when the offence is committed. We
     may notice here the observations made by this Court in
     Ratan ~al v. State of M.P. In para 2 of the aforesaid
     judgment, it is held as follows:
            "It is now well settled that the crucial point of time
                                                                     c
            at which unsoundness of mind should be
            established is the time when the crime is actually
            committed and the burden of proving this lies on the
            [appellant]."
                                                                     D
 As concluded, we also reiterate that at the time of commission
 of offence, the physical and mental condition of the person
 concerned is paramount for bringing the case within the
 purview of Section 84.
       16. In the case on hand, though the Doctor (DW-1) E
 attached with the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, who
 treated the accused from 11.07.2001 to 08.08.2001 has stated
 that the appellant-accused was suffering from paranoid
 schizophrenia, it is not in dispute that after 08.08.2001, there
 is no material or information on record that he was suffering F
 from the same. It is relevant to mention that the date of
 occurrence was 05.11.2001 i.e. nearly after three months of the
 treatment by DW-1. In the same way, Ex. D-2, the termination
 order of the Inspector General of Police, Northern Sector,
 CRPF, New Delhi is also not helpful because of the language G
  used in Section 84 of IPC. As a matter of fact, DW-2, father of
 the accused-appellant has not stated anything about the
  behaviour of the deceased. He has also not stated anything that
  he is a mentally ill person and not able to do his routine works
  properly. In fact, it was brought to our notice that in Ex. D-2, H
    286       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2013] 4 S.C.R.


A which is a letter from the Department, it is seen that the
  appellant-accused made a written request for rejoining stating
  improvement in his health.
       17. It is also relevant to note that the appellant came to the
  house one day prior to the occurrence, demanded money and
B threatened the deceased of grave consequences and on the
  next day, when the demand was not fulfilled, he trespassed into
  the house, pushed away PWs 1 and 2, bolted the door from
  inside and inflicted repeated aruval blows on the deceased
  resulted into her death. All these aspects also show that at the
C relevant time, he was not insane as claimed by him.
       18. Another factor which goes against the appellant-
  accused is that he himself was examined as a defence witness
  No.3. According to learned trial Judge, as a witness, he made
  his statement clearly and cogently and it was also observed that
D he was meticulously following the court proceedings, acting
  suitably when the records were furnished for perusal. The trial
  Judge has also pointed out that during the entire proceedings,
  the accused has nowhere stated that he was insane earlier to
  the date of incident. The trial Judge, after noting his answers
E in respect of the questions under Section 313 of the Code of
  Criminal Procedure, 1973 has concluded that the accused could
  not be termed as an "insane" person.
       19. In the light of the above discussion and in view of the
F materials placed and the decision arrived at by the trial Court
  and of the fact that there is no evidence as to the unsoundness
  of mind of the appellant-accused at the time of the occurrence,
  namely, on 05.11.2001 and also taking note of the fact that the
  accused. failed to discharge the burden as stated in Section
  105 of the Evidence Act, we fully agree with the conclusion
G arrived at by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court.
          '
        20. Consequently, the appeal fails and the same is
    dismissed.
    B~B.B.                                      Appeal dismissed.
H