Sadanandaswamy, J.-The appellant has been convicted for an offence under section 302, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The victim of the crime is Shantavva, the eldest daughter of Shivappa Tukkappanavar, a resident of Aminbhavi. Her mother is Gangawa. Gulappa and Ramappa are her brothers and Yellavva is her sister. Shantawa was aged about 22 years and was married about two years prior to her death which took place on 5th November, 1968. Her husband is one Gangappa Shibargatti. She had returned from her husband’s house since 5 or 6 months prior to her death and was residing with her parents at Aminbhavi. She was in illicit intimacy with one Basappa Petunavar of Aminbhavi. 2. Shivappa Tukkappanavar, his wife and children resided in a portion of the house situated in Basti Oni at Aminbhavi separately from Shivappa’s father Tukkappa. In another portion of the same house, Yellappa with his wife Yamanavva and their sons Basappa and Fakirappa (the accused) resided. Yellappa is the brother of Tukkappa who is the paternal grandfather of the deceased. Tukkappa also resided in. another portion of the said house. 3. The said house has a backyard towards its south. On 5th November, 1968, a Tuesday, which was also a full-moon day, in the morning at about 9-30 a.m. Shantavva was cleaning the utensils in the backyard of that house. At that time, her father and her grandfather had gone out of the house for cooly work, her mother Gangavva was besmearing the floor of her kitchen, and her children Ramappa and Yellavva were playing in the house. The accused Fakirappa who had gone out returned to his house. While returning to his house, he saw Shantawa engaged in making signs to her paramour Basappa Petunavar, who was at a distance. After returning to his house, he was with his mother in his house for some time. Then he went to the backyard. Then there was exchange of words between him and Shantawa. The accused seems to have taken exception to the conduct of Shantawa. Shantawa reiterated saying that he had no business to question her even if she carried on an affair with others. The accused got offended and said that his family reputation was being spoiled by her and attacked her with a sickle and delivered blows at her neck with it. Shantawa reiterated saying that he had no business to question her even if she carried on an affair with others. The accused got offended and said that his family reputation was being spoiled by her and attacked her with a sickle and delivered blows at her neck with it. Gangawa went to the rescue of her daughter and cried for help. One Subbiah came. She then ran bawling out to the house of the police patil which was nearby and informed him that the accused was attacking her daughter. Then the Patil and Gangawa returned to the house, but by that time Shantawa was lying dead having sustained cut injuries on her chest and neck. On seeing the police patil, the accused who was in his portion of the house began to run away, but he was immediately caught by the patil. The patil kept a walikar on watch over the dead body and brought the accused to the Dharwar Police Station with the assistance of another walikar and produced the accused before the Sub-Inspector of Police and lodged a complaint. 4. The offence was registered as Crime No. 82 of 1968 and the accused was aarcested and his blood-stained shirt and dhoti on his person were attached under the panchanama. The Police Sub-Inspector questioned the accused. The accused volunteered information and produced a sickle. The Police Sub-Inspector recorded the information furnished by the accused and proceeded with the accused to Aminbhavi. 5. The accused produced the sickle from inside the kitchen of his house and the same was attached under a panchanama. Then an inquest panchanama was drawn up, the dead body was sent to the Civil Hospital at Dharwar for post-mortem examination. The panchanama of the scene of offence was drawn up and the blood-stained earth removed from the spot and the Mangalasutra or Guladali lying on the ground were attached. 6. The Medical Officer, Sri Kalaburgi, conducted the post-mortem examination on 6th November, 1968 and the clothes and ornaments found on the dead body were returned with the dead body to the police. The Police Sub-Inspector conduce ted the investigation till 6th November, 1968 and thereafter the Circle Inspector, of Police, Dharwar, took up further investigation. The Police Sub-Inspector assisted him. The blood-stained clothes and articles etc., were sent to the Chemical Examiner and they were got examined. The Police Sub-Inspector conduce ted the investigation till 6th November, 1968 and thereafter the Circle Inspector, of Police, Dharwar, took up further investigation. The Police Sub-Inspector assisted him. The blood-stained clothes and articles etc., were sent to the Chemical Examiner and they were got examined. A sketch of the scene of offence was also got drawn up. The charge-sheet was sent to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dharwar. 7. Pairing the inquiry, the Committal Court recorded the evidence of four eye-witnesses-Gangawa, Yellavva, Ramappa and one Subbiah, and the last witness was treated hostile. The accused pleaded not guilty. A charge was framed against the accused for an offence under section 302, Indian Penal Code and he was committed to take his trial in the Court of Sessions at Dharwai. 8. The prosecution examined 17 witnesses. The accused admits his relationship with the deceased. His plea is that the relationship between his father and his senior uncle were not cordial and that due to ill-will, Gangavva and his children have reported against him. He also pleaded that he was formerly a servant of the police patil P.W.1, that the latter had to pay him wages and when he insisted on payment, the patil had not paid him and removed him from service, and that Gangawa and the police patil together have filed a false complaint against him. No witnesses have been examined on behalf of the defence. 9. The points which are set out by the trial Court for its decision are as follows: (i) Whether it is established by the prosecution that the deceased Shantavva met a homicidal death? (ii) If so, whether this accused is responsible for her death as alleged? (iii) If so, what offence the accused has committed? The trial Court answered the first two points in the affirmative and convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence under section 302, Indian Penal Code to imprisonment for life. 10. In this appeal, the same points as set out above arise for decision. 11. The parents of the deceased and their family resided in one portion of the house. The grand-father Tukkappa resided in another portion. Yellappa, along with his wife and son including the accused resided in another portion of the same house. The house faces towards the north and it has a backyard towards its south. 11. The parents of the deceased and their family resided in one portion of the house. The grand-father Tukkappa resided in another portion. Yellappa, along with his wife and son including the accused resided in another portion of the same house. The house faces towards the north and it has a backyard towards its south. On entering the said house, there is a ‘Padasala’ on the right side and in a portion of one ankana out of the three ankanams, the mother of the deceased Gangawa. had a kitchen. There is also a door connecting that house to the backyard. The sketch prepared by the Supervisor of the Public Works Department shows the place where the dead body was lying and the door towards the backyard of the house by the letters A and B respectively. The house of the accused is shown just adjacent to that of the family of the deceased. Just behind the backyard of the house to the south of it, is situated the house of one Basappa Ligade. The door of the backyard of the house is just in line with the front door and the Husi running in between the two, according to the evidence of P.W.1 the patil. P.W. 3 Laxman stated that the distance between the place where the dead body was lying and the place where the cart was left at point ‘C’ in about 90 feet and that there is a compound wall in between these two places. 12. The fact that the deceased met a violent death is not seriously disputed. She was married and was aged about 22 years. The evidence of P.W.1, the police patil, the Police Sub-Inspector and the panch witness P.W.6 and the contents of the inquest panchanama Exhibit P-5 show that deceased was found lying dead in the backyard at about 9-30 a.m. on sustaining injuries. Immediately after the inquest panchanama, the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination with P.W.12 to the Civil Hospital, Dharwar at about 5-30 p.m. on that day. The Medical Officer conducted the post-mortem examination at about 3-30 p.m. the next day. He found eight incised injuries on the dead body. Immediately after the inquest panchanama, the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination with P.W.12 to the Civil Hospital, Dharwar at about 5-30 p.m. on that day. The Medical Officer conducted the post-mortem examination at about 3-30 p.m. the next day. He found eight incised injuries on the dead body. He also found two internal injuries-one at the right rib, also the right lung was punctured, the spinal cord was opened and it was cut across the level of the sixth cervicle vertebra corresponding to internal injury No. 7. He maintains that all these injuries were ante-mortem and the external injuries at serial Nos. 7 and 8 with the corresponding internal injuries were together or individually sufficient to cause the death of the deceased. According to him, all the injuries might have been caused by a hard and sharp weapon like the sickle before Court. In his opinion, the death was due to shock and haemorrhage on account of the injuries Nos. 7 and 8. He has issued the post-mortem certificate Exhibit P-2. Its contents support his evidence. He has also stated that the stomach contained the semi-digested rice and vegetable particles of the quantity of 14 Ozs; and according to him, the death might have taken place within about three hours after the last meal. The sickle before the Court was sent for his opinion and he gave the opinion Exhibit P-14. The lower Court was therefore right in holding that the prosecution has established that the deceased. Shantavva met with homicidal death. 13. The next question to be considered is whether the appellant is responsible for causing the death of the deceased by delivering blows with the sickle as alleged by the prosecution. The prosecution relies upon both direct and circumstantial evidence. Out of the four eye-witnesses, three have been examined. Gangavva, P.W.9 is the mother of the deceased. P.W.4 Ramappa, P.W.8 Yellavva, the younger brother and the younger sister of the deceased respectively are child witnesses. The other witness Subbiah was examined in the Committal Court and since he did not support the prosecution case, he was treated as hostile and he was not examined in the trial Court. The prosecution relied upon the following circumstances: 1. the movement of the accused just prior to the incident; 2. His attempt to run away from his house on seeing the police patil; 3. The prosecution relied upon the following circumstances: 1. the movement of the accused just prior to the incident; 2. His attempt to run away from his house on seeing the police patil; 3. His being caught by the police patil immediately and the presence of blood-stains on his shirt and dhoti; 4. the information furnished by the accused to the Police Sub-Inspector which led to the discovery of the sickle and the recovery of the blood-stained sickle in the house of the accused. ****** [His Lordship discussed the evidence in the case, held that the guilt of the accused was established, and proceeded.] * * * * * * 29. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that even according to the case of the prosecution, the conversation that took place between the accused and the deceased shows that the words of the deceased were sufficient to provoke the accused to make him lose his self-control and that even if it is to be found that the accused has committed the crime, it would amount only to an offence uinder section 304, Indian Penal Code, and not one under section 302, Indian Penal Code. A similar contention was urged in the case reported in In re Jamaluddin1. The accused in that case was looking after the affairs of his first cousin, the deceased, aged twenty-two, for some five years before the occurrence as her parents were dead, and her husband and brother were residing outside the country. The accused was not her guardian nor was she living under his protection. He was merely a friend and helper, looking after her affairs. There was a rumour that the deceased was living a loose life. According to the accused in that case, he went to the house of the deceased and found her having sexual intercourse with some man, but the man on seeing him ran away and that unable to control his anger, the accused stabbed his cousin, the deceased. The case as set out by the accused was accepted as true. According to the accused in that case, he went to the house of the deceased and found her having sexual intercourse with some man, but the man on seeing him ran away and that unable to control his anger, the accused stabbed his cousin, the deceased. The case as set out by the accused was accepted as true. It was held rejecting the contention of the accused, that “though there are rulings to the effect that when a wife or mother or married sister, living under the protection of the husband or son or brother is caught in the act of having sexual intercourse with a stranger, the killing of that stranger, before there is time to get over the sudden anger, would be only an offence under section 304, Indian Penal Code, there is no ruling that a person, like the appellant, not being the guardian or custodian of a woman like the deceased, a mere first cousin, would have a similar right to kill her and claim to be convic:ed only under section 304, Indian Penal Code. We consider that the ruling referred to above should not be extended to first cousin, second cousin and others, especially when they are also not in the custody or protection of the individual killing them.” The conviction under section 302, Indian Penal Code, was confirmed. We are in full agreement with the abovesaid observations. In the present case, the father of the deceased is the cousin of the accused. The family of the accused and the family of the deceased were living in different houses though they are of different portions of the same building. It cannot be said that the deceased was in any way under the protection or care of the accused. On the other hand, the suggestion made in her cross-examination to P.W. 9 is that there is a dispute with regard to the house property between the family of the deceased and the family of the accused and that the two families are not on good terms on that account. Hence, the appellant cannot urge that the offence committed by him comes only under section 304, Indian Penal Code, and not under section 302, Indian Penal Code. 36. A number of decisions were relied on by the appellant. In In re Murugian,1 the accused asked his wife to give up her illicit intimacy with her paramour. Hence, the appellant cannot urge that the offence committed by him comes only under section 304, Indian Penal Code, and not under section 302, Indian Penal Code. 36. A number of decisions were relied on by the appellant. In In re Murugian,1 the accused asked his wife to give up her illicit intimacy with her paramour. The wife said that she would not give him up and abused the accused and said that she would continue her intimacy with her paramour. The accused immediately hurt his wife and killed her. It was held that the case comes within the purview of section 304(1), Indian Penal Code. In In re Kannan2, it was held that beating another person with a shoe is considered to be the height of shame and particularly in the midst of a number of villagers right in the street and that an attempt to beat a man with shoe would give sufficient provocation to the man intended to be beaten and that it would constitute grave and sudden provocation bringing the offence under section 304(1), Indian Penal Code if the person who was sought to be beaten retaliated by stabbing the deceased with a pen knife, which he was carrying in his pocket. The present case is not one of attempting to beat with a shoe in the presence of villagers in the street. In Atma Ram v. State3, it was held that the foul words used by the deceased wife to her husband would be sufficient to provoke such a degree of frenzy and resentment, in the man situated in the position of the accused they would make him lose all power of self-control so as to bring the killing of the wife by the husband under the provisions of section 304(1) of the Indian Penal Code. In Amarjit Singh v. State4. The son on hearing the father abusing him and saying that he must provide him with money even though he had to get his mother prostituted for raising it, immediately inflicted blows with a knife on the father and killed him, was held to be an offence committed under grave and sudden provocation entitling the accused to the benefit of Exception I to section 300 and consequently, the offence committed by him was one under section 304, Indian Penal Code. In the present case, the language used by the deceased was not such as to amount to insulting the mother of the accused. On the other hand, the deceased only questioned the right of the accused to interfere with her own affairs. In Hussain v. Emperor5, it was held that the accused killing another man found in his wife’s bed in an attempt to commit adultery with her is entitled to the benefit of Exception I to section 300, Indian Penal Code and that he can be convicted only under section 304, Indian Penal Code. The present case is not a case of the husband being taken by surprise in finding his wife being unfaithful or a case of provocation by the wife. Hence, the cases dealing with the offence committed by the husband on being provocated by the misconduct of the wife are not applicable. 31. The learned State Public Prosecutor has relied on the following observations in K.M.Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra6. “In India, as it is in England, there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused as a general rule, and it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused; to put it in other words, the accused is presumed to be innocent, until his guilt is established by the prosecution. But when an accused relies upon the General Exceptions in the Indian Penal Code or on any Special Exception or proviso contained in any other part of the Penal Code, or in any law defining an offence, section 105 of the Evidence Act raises a presumption against the accused and also throws a burden on him to rebut the said presumption. Under that section the Court shall presume the absence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the Exceptions that is, the Court shall regard the nonexistence of such circumstances as proved till they are disproved”. and contends that the burden is on the accused to show that the offence committed by him comes under any of the Exceptions and that he has failed to do so in this case. His contention has to be upheld. 32. The appeal is therefore dismissed, and the conviction and sentence passed on the appellant are confirmed. S.V.S. ----- Appeal dismissed.