JUDGMENT S.S. Dhavan, J. - Baladin has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Orai of the double murder of his father and wife and sentenced to death. 2. The prosecution story very briefly is this. On the morning of 29-2-60, the date of the murder, the accused's father Ram Bharosey was constructing the boundary wall of his vegetable field. With him were Sukhdevi, the wife of the accused, Durga Devi, his sister and two hired labourers. The accused Bala Din also turned up to help his father in this job but he was somewhat late and was, therefore, reprimanded by the father. The accused gave an impertinent reply and said that he would do as he liked. The case of the prosecution appears to be that Baladin was a waster and disinclined to work, and his father had to bear the burden of supporting his wife and four children. This was a source of friction between the two. 3. In the evening, about sunset, the father and the son were together preparing mud for the construction of the wall. The wife and the sister of the accused were clearing their onion field of weeds at a short distance away. Suddenly the sister and the wife heard Ram Bharosey crying out that he was being killed. They both ran towards him. The accused's wife Sukhdevi asked him why he had committed this crime. Thereupon Bala Din retorted that he was going to kill her too and struck her with an axe. Thereupon the sister Durgadevi shouted that a murder was being committed. This attracted a number of persons who rushed to the scene. Meanwhile Baladin attempted to escape but he was pursued and arrested by the villagers. The Chowkidar, Bhagirath, took the accused and the two injured persons to the police station which is five miles away from the village. Both Ram Bharosey and Sukhdevi died on the way. The accused was charged with the murder of both. 4. In defence he admitted the deed but related an unusually sordid story. He alleged that his father was leading an immoral life with his wife and that just before the murder he had actually caught them "redhanded" in the act of sexual inter-course. The accused was charged with the murder of both. 4. In defence he admitted the deed but related an unusually sordid story. He alleged that his father was leading an immoral life with his wife and that just before the murder he had actually caught them "redhanded" in the act of sexual inter-course. The learned Judge disbelieved this statement but conceded that there was a suspicion in the mind of the accused that his own father had illicit relations with his wife. He was of the opinion that a mere suspicion provided no extenuating circumstance and he convicted the accused of murder and sentenced him to death. Baladin has now come to this Court in appeal. 5. Mr. R.N. Mitra, Learned Counsel for the Appellant, at the outset, stated that he would confine himself to a plea that Baladin acted under a grave and sudden provocation which would take his case out of Section 302 IPC and entitled him to plead that he can only be convicted of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. We have gone through the entire record. There is no doubt that the accused had some suspicion that there was an immoral relationship between his father and his wife. The first information report was filed by the Chowkidar without any delay. It contains a statement that at the time of his arrest Baladin was asked why he had committed the crime and replied that his "wife had illicit connections with his father and that for that very reason he had killed them on that day on getting an opportunity." In his evidence before the trial court he did not repeat this statement and was asked no question about it in cross-examination. But two other witnesses, Devidin and Devi Dayal, did state that the accused, at the time of his arrest, disclosed his motive for murder. But two other witnesses, Devidin and Devi Dayal, did state that the accused, at the time of his arrest, disclosed his motive for murder. Devidin (P.W. 4) deposed that "Ram Lal enquired the reason up on which Baladin said that his father Ram Bharosey was committing sexual intercourse with the wife of the accused," Devi Dayal (P.W. 5) also admitted in cross-examination that "other people asked the reason upon which the accused said that Ram Bharosey (his father) was keeping his wife and he would murder both." (It must be remembered that at the time when this statement is alleged to have been made by the accused, neither the father nor the wife had died but were merely unconscious). It is true that the sister of the accused Durga Devi, denied that any one had asked the accused why he had assaulted his own father and wife. But it is possible that the interrogation of the accused did not take place in her presence and she did not hear the explanation of her brother. It is equally possible that she was anxious to protect the memory and honour of her dead father. But her denial appears to have surprised even the learned Judge who asked her whether she and the accused Baladin were children of the same father and mother. The question carries a faint suggestion that Durga Devi might have been trying to suppress evidence which would provide an extenuating circumstance for her brother. Taking all these facts into consideration we are of the opinion that the accused must have been asked the reason for his crime and did say that he committed it because his father was living in sin with his wife. It is not for us to say whether there was any basis for this explanation and the accused was speaking from knowledge or mere suspicion. 6. But no witness has stated that the accused alleged at the time of his arrest that he had caught his father and wife "red handed" just before he killed them. We have examined the testimony of the witnesses in original Hindi. All the statements amount to no more than this that the accused stated that his father had been leading an immoral life with his wife or keeping her as his mistress. We have examined the testimony of the witnesses in original Hindi. All the statements amount to no more than this that the accused stated that his father had been leading an immoral life with his wife or keeping her as his mistress. If a husband has knowledge of his wife's infidelity but keeps brooding over it, and finally kills both her and the paramour on a day when they had done nothing improper, no question of any grave and sudden provocation arises and the crime is not taken out of Section 302, IPC, though it may be a fit case for awarding the lesser sentence of imprisonment for life. 7. There is no evidence of pre-meditation. The sister of the accused Durga Devi deposed that just before the murder the father and the son were working together, and suddenly the accused took it into his head to assault his father. No one knows what happened between the two. But in view of the testimony of the disinterested witnesses that the accused was oppressed by the feeling that his own father had sullied the honor of his wife, we feel that this is a case not without extenuating circumstance. We think that the death sentence should be commuted to imprisonment for life. 8. Accordingly, we reduce this sentence of death to one for imprisonment for life but otherwise the appeal is dismissed. The reference sent by the learned Sessions Judge is not accepted.