Respondent's learned counsel, on this issue, submitted that the onus was on the appellant to discharge to the effect that he was insane. She relied on R. v. Oliver Smith 6 CAR 19; Upetire v. Attorney General, Western Nigeria (1964) 1 All NLR 204. Furthermore, she contended that the mere absence of any evidence of motive for a crime is not enough ground to infer insanity. Reliance was placed on Egbe Nkanu v. The State (1980) 3 - 4 SCL (?) at 17; Rafiu Salako v. Attorney General, Western Nigeria (1965) NMLR 10. The learned Chief State Counsel for the respondent contended furthermore, that the appellant did not establish the defence of insanity under Section 29 of the Criminal Code. She referred to Imo v. The State (1991) 9 NWLR (pt. 213) 13 or (1991) 11 SCNJ 137 at 160. And that the law presumed the appellant to be sane. She relied on Mallam Zakari Ahmed v. The State (2001) 2 ACLR 131 at 169; Section 27 of the Criminal Code. Learned respondent's counsel insisted that the contents of the appellant's extra-judicial statements in Exhibits A and D show that the alleged intoxication was self-induced and so the defence was not available to him. Resolution of Issue 1. The appellant in his extra- judicial statements obtained by the police shortly after the commission of the murder in question, in Exhibits A and D narrated how he purchased Indian hemp which he smoked and some bottles of stout which he drank at the 2nd East Circular Road, Benin City before he proceeded from there to Aduwawa Area Benin City from where he lured the deceased, Favour Ihoeghilan into a bush behind the cattle market, and raped her. However, in his evidence at the trial, he told the story that it was some boys at an Urora canteen who caused him to inhale Indian hemp which made him to be confused, such that he did not know what happened to him again, until he found himself at the Police Station, on the next day. Herein lies the defence of involuntary intoxication. Section 29 of the Criminal Code, Cap. 48, Vol. II Laws of defunct Bendel State, 1976 now applicable in Edo State, provides inter alia: "29.(1) Save as provided in this section, intoxication shall not constitute a defence to any criminal charge. (2) Intoxication shall be a defence to any criminal charge if by reason thereof the person charged at the time of the act or omission complained of, did not know that such act or omission was wrong or did not know what he was doing and ..... (a) the state of intoxication was caused without his consent by the malicious or negligent act of another person; or