unerringly pointing guilt on the Appellant, found him to be the perpetrator of the murder and convicted him and as such the impugned judgment requires no interference. As regards the plea of insanity, it is argued by Mr. Tripathy that the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates the Appellant’s full awareness and intentionality in committing the crime. According to Mr. Tripathy, merely because the Appellant was addressed as “Baya’ in early days cannot by itself establish him to be insane in absence of a cogent evidence. He also submitted that the prosecution has otherwise very well emphasized the reliability and truthfulness of the child witness, P.W.3, whose testimony was consistent, robust and detailed. He further submits that to ensure the credibility of P.W.3, preliminary questions were asked to establish her consciousness and understanding of the events, confirming her capacity to provide reliable and rational testimony. It is also argued that P.W.3 clearly described how the Appellant demanded tobacco and rice from their mother and, upon being refused, attacked both the mother and the infant brother with a Ghaghada. Her narration was further corroborated by P.W.4 and P.W.5, who arrived at the scene of occurrence shortly after the incident. Moreover, the
