AHMED ALI KHAN, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from the decision of the learned Second Additional sessions Judge, Bangalore, in SC. No. 3 of 1969 on the file of his court, wherein he convicted the appellant for the offence under S. 802 of IPC. , and sentenced him for imprisonment for life. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution was that the appellant murdered his wife lingammma by stabbing her with the dagger (M. O. 7) on 29th November 1968 (Friday) at about 2 f M. in the land of Master Channappa (P. W. 15) in Somanahally village. The learned Sessions Judge, on the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution found that the offence charged has been established beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant and he convicted him of the same as mentioned earlier. ( 3 ) THE only contention advanced on behalf of the appellant by Mr. Chandrasekhara bharathi, the learned counsel who is defending the appellant as amicus curiae, was that although the appellant has admitted the commission of the offence, viz. , causing the death of his wife Lingamma by stabbing her with the dagger (M. O. 7), prosecution evidence shows that the same was committed by the appellant as a result of grave and sudden provocation and therefore he is entitled to the benefit of Exception (1) of s. 300 IPC. ( 4 ) IN his statement, recorded under S. 342 Cr. P. C. , the appellant has admitted that he stabbed his wife Lingamma the deceased with the dagger mo. 7. He has also admitted the recovery of MO. 7 (dagger) from PW. 18 chikkannachari and stated that he borrowed a sum of Re. 1 from the latter and left the dagger with him. The plea taken in defence by him was that he saw Lingamma in the company of P. W. 7 Marga Boyi and seeing them in that condition, committed the murder in grave and sudden provocation. ( 5 ) IT is satisfactorily proved by their evidence that the appellant inflicted injuries on the deceased Lingamma with the dagger MO. 7 which resulted in her death on 29.-11-68 at about 2 P. M. in the field belonging, to Chanappa master PW. 15. ( 6 ) IT is the prosecution case that the appellant is the second husband of lingamma whom he had married in Kudike form. 7 which resulted in her death on 29.-11-68 at about 2 P. M. in the field belonging, to Chanappa master PW. 15. ( 6 ) IT is the prosecution case that the appellant is the second husband of lingamma whom he had married in Kudike form. It is said that Lingamma was a woman of loose character and on that account she had been divorced by her first husband and that the appellant also used to complain about her character. It was further alleged on behalf of the prosecution, that lingamma was living with her parents and the appellant was living separately. Lingamma had developed intimacy with PW. 7 Marga Bovi. The immediate provocation for the crime alleged by the prosecution was that the appellant saw Lingamma sleeping with PW. 7 m the field of one Chaluviah on the morning of 29-11-1968. To prove the same PW. 7 had been examined on behalf of the prosecution. He has deposed to the fact that he was sleeping with Lingamma in the field of Chaluviah at about 9a. M. on 29-11-1968 and that the appellant saw them and, when he tried to chase them, they ran away. The fact that the deceased was a woman of loose character and that she was found in the company of PW. 7 is admitted by the appellant. The appellant has also admitted that he inflicted injuries on Lingamma with the dagger MO. 7. It was however argued on behalf of the appellant that the appellant in his statement under S. 342, crpc. denied that the assault had taken place at 2p. M. On this basis the theory constructed on behalf of the defence was that no one was present at the time of the assault and therefore the evidence of the alleged eye witnesses should not be believed. It was further argued in this connection that although PW. 7 has spoken in his examination In chief to the effect that he and the deceased were seen in a compromising position in the morning of 29-11-1968 in the field of Chaluviah, he has given inconsistent version in his cross-examination wherein he has stated that he had gone to the field of Channappa on the morning of that day and when he was sleeping with Lingamma the deceased in that field at about 9 A. M. the appellant saw them. It was argued by Mr. It was argued by Mr. Bharathi that this contradiction in the evidence of the witness is material and renders his evidence unreli?ble. As already observed, we have found the evidence of PWs. 11, 12, 15 and 16 (the witnesses to the assault) trustworthy and acceptable and we have believed them. In these circumstances the discrepancy in the evidence of PW. 7 cannot have any materiality. Therefore, we think the learned trial Judge was quite right in accepting the evidence of PW. 7 as he did. It is fully established by the prosecution that the appellant inflicted injuries with the dagger MO. 7 on the person of Lingamma, deceased, at about 2 P. M. on 29-11-1968, in the field of Channappa Master (P. W. 15) and that she succumbed to the injuries sustained by her. It has been vehemently argued by Mr. Bharathi on behalf of the appellant, that the appellant had seen his wife in a compromising position with pw. 7, and finding them in that condition, he assaulted the deceased. He submitted that the assault was made in grave and sudden provocation and therefore he i. e. , the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Exception 1 to s. 300 IPC. We have found that the attack on Lingamma deceased was made at 2 P. M. In these circumstances the basis of the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that the assault was sudden on seeing the deceased and that the act committed by the appellant is covered by Exception 1 to S. 300 of the IPC. , falls to the ground. Mr. Bharathi then contended that even if it is held that the appellant had seen the deceased in the company of PW. 7 in the morning of 29-11-1968 and the assault had taken place in the afternoon at about 2 PM. , it is quite probable that the appellant must have lost his self-control when he saw the appellant and the deceased, in a compromising position and that condition continued till the time of the assault. Exception 1 to S. 300, IPC, reads :"exception 1. Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation causes the death of the person who gave provocation. . . "the remaining portion is not relevant for our purpose. Exception 1 to S. 300, IPC, reads :"exception 1. Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation causes the death of the person who gave provocation. . . "the remaining portion is not relevant for our purpose. ( 7 ) IN order to remove culpable homicide from the category of murder, provocation must not merely be grave but also sudden and must have by its gravity and suddenness depnved the appellant of the power of self-control. When provocation ripens into resentment and malice and the person aggrieved deliberately determines to take the life of the other person, it cannot be construed that he acted under grave and sudden provocation. The circumstances proved in this case are that (1) the appellant saw the the deceased in the company of PW. 7 in the morning of 29-11-1968 at about 8 AM. in the field of Chaluviah, (2) he went to the field of Channappa pw. 15 in the afternoon at about 2 PM. armed with the dagger mo. 7, (3) he stood waiting at the bund for Lingamma and as soon as she approached near the bund, he caught hold of her and dealt blows with the dagger and put an end to her life. (4) The evidence of the Doctor PW. 10 shows that Ligamma had sustained numerous incised injuries on her person. These circumstances clearly indicate that the appellant had gone to the field of Channappa armed with the dagger MO. 7 with the determination to inflict fatal injuries on her person. Thus the assault cannot be traced to the first incident and the passion arising therefrom. Therefore we find it difficult to hold on the material in record that the provocation which was caused in the morning continued till the afternoon when the assault was made on the deceased. ( 8 ) THE Supreme Court in K. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1962 SC 605 , after enunciating the principle relating to sudden and grave provocation, observed at page 630 of the report,"bearing" these principles in mind let us look at the facts of this case. When Sylvia confessed to her husband that she had illicit intimacy with Ahuja, the latter was not present. We will assume that he had momentarily lost his self-control. When Sylvia confessed to her husband that she had illicit intimacy with Ahuja, the latter was not present. We will assume that he had momentarily lost his self-control. But, if his version is true- for the purpose of this argument we shall accept that what he had said is true-it shows that he was only thinking of the future of his wife, and children and also of asking for an explanation from Ahuja for his conduct. This attitude of the accused clearly indicates that he had not only regsinecl his self-control but on the other hand was planning" for the future. Then he drove his wife and children to a cinema, left them there, went to his ship, took a revolver on a false pretext, loaded it with six rounds, did some official business there, and drove his car to the office of Ahuja and then to his flat, went straight to the bed-room of Ahuja and shot him dead. Between 1. 30 p. M. when he left his house, and 4. 20 P. M. when the murder took place, three hours had elapsed and therefore there was sufficient time for him to regain his self-control, even if he had not regained it earlier. On the other hand, his conduct clearly shows that the murder was a deliberate and a calculated one. " ( 9 ) IN the instant case also the accused after full preparation armed with a dagger appears on the scene of occurrence and assaults the deceased. There is nothing on record on the basis of which it could be reasonablyy inferred that he had not regained his self-control even after a lapse of about five hours after receiving the provocation in the field of Chaluviah. Therefore, on the circumstances established in the case we are of the opinion that the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of Exception 1 to section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 10 ) THE learned Sessions Judge has sentenced the accused to the lesser sentence prescribed under S. 302, IPC. Therefore the question of reduction of sentence does not arise in this case. In the result, this appeal is disallowed, and the same is dismissed. --- *** --- .