Ahmed Ali Khan, J.-This is an appeal from the decision of the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in Sessions Case No. 3 of 1969 on the file of his Court, wherein he convicted the appellant for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him for imprisonment for life. 2. The case of the prosecution was that the appellant murdered his wife Lingamma by stabbing her with the dagger (M.O.7) on 29th November, 1968 (Friday) at about 2 p.m. in the land of Master Channappa (P.W.15) in Somanahalli 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. S. 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 section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. In his statement, recorded under section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the appellant has admitted that he stabbed his wife Lingamma the deceased with the dagger (M.O. 7). He has also admitted the recovery of M.O. 7 (dagger) from P.W.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. The doctor P.W.10 who held the postmortem examination on the dead body of Lingamma found ten incised injuries and one lacerated wound, spread all over the dead body of Lingamma, and multiple abrasions on her back. He has deposed with reference to the postmortem notes which have been marked Exhibit P-5(a) in the case. 5. The doctor P.W.10 who held the postmortem examination on the dead body of Lingamma found ten incised injuries and one lacerated wound, spread all over the dead body of Lingamma, and multiple abrasions on her back. He has deposed with reference to the postmortem notes which have been marked Exhibit P-5(a) in the case. He was of the opinion that the second injury (incised wound) on the right breast with multiple abrasions on the right nipple ½" x 1½" x 1" deep, was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. There is little doubt in the case that the deceased died on 29th November, 1968 as a result of the injuries inflicted by the appellant. The trial Court accepted the prosecution case on this point. Its conclusion was not challenged before us. Hence, it is unnecessary to go over that ground. 6. Soon after the occurrence, P.W.15 Master Channappa went to the house of the Police Patel Hanumantha Setty (P.W.1) and informed him about the occurrence. According to the Police Patel information about the murder was given to him by P.W.15 at about 2 p.m. the same day and he reduced the same into writing as per Exhibit P-1. He then sent Exhibit P-1 through the Thoti of the village (P.W.8 Voggayya) to Talagattapura Police outpost, from where P.W.8 was directed by P.W.9 Venkatappa (Police constable), who was in charge of the police outpost, to Harohalli Police Station, House. P.W.8 went to Harohalli Police station and handed it over to the Head Constable P.W.22 who was in charge of the Police station House at Harohalli at about 7 p.m. the same day. 7. On receipt of Exhibit P-1, P.W.22 registered a case under section 302 Indian Penal Code and sent the F.I.R. to the jurisdictional Magistrate, and express reports to his superiors. The F.I.R. reached the Magistrate at about 12-45 p. M. on 30th November, 1968. 8. Immediately after issuing the F.I.R. P.W.22 left for the place of occurrence at about 7-45 p.m. on 29th November, 1968, and he reached the place at about 9 p.m. As it was late in the night, the inquest was held on the following morning, i.e., on 30th November, 1968 at 7 a.m. 9. Statements of the eye-witnesses P.W.11, P.W.15, P.W.16, and also of P.W.12 were recorded by him at the time of inquest. Statements of the eye-witnesses P.W.11, P.W.15, P.W.16, and also of P.W.12 were recorded by him at the time of inquest. P.W.23, the Circle Inspector of Police arrived at the spot on 1st December, 1968 and took over the investigation from P.W.22. He effected the arrest of the accused on 3rd December, 1968 and recorded the information given by the latter as per Exhibit P-20 and recovered the dagger (M.O. 7) from P.W.18 at the instance of the accused. It was seized under the panchanama Exhibit P-18 in the presence of panchayatdars. The report of the Serologist is to the effect that human blood was found on the dagger M.O.7. 10. After the completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was laid before the City Magistrate, Bangalore, on 16th December, 1968. The committal magistrate was of the opinion that a prima facie case has been made out against the appellant. He committed him for trial to the Court of Session, Bangalore. As mentioned above, he was tried by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore, and was convicted for the offence with which he had been charged. 11. With regard to the assault on the deceased Lingamma, P.W.11 Venkatappa. P.W.12 Dod-Chennappa, P.W.15 S. Chennappa and P.W.16 Chikkamma have been examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W.11 Venkatappa has deposed to the effect that at about 2 p.m. on 29th November, 1968, he saw the appellant standing waiting on the boundary of the land S. No. 246/2 belonging to P.W.15, Master Chennappa. Near the spot where the appellant was standing, cut crops were lying here and there. When Lingamma the deceased, went there to gather the cut crops which were left there , all of a sudden the appellant went and caught hold of her hair and began to strike her with dagger on her neck, chest, breasts and on other parts of her body. After 2 or 3 blows were dealt by him, Lingamma fell down on the ground. Thereupon the appellant sat on her and continued to inflict injuries on her person with the dagger. It is in his evidence that at that time P.W.15 Chennappa and P.W.16 Chikkamma were by his side. He also deposed that Chennappa P.W.15 cried out calling the appellant by his name. The appellant showed him the dagger. Thereafter the appellant left the place. Lingamma was lying there and she was dead. It is in his evidence that at that time P.W.15 Chennappa and P.W.16 Chikkamma were by his side. He also deposed that Chennappa P.W.15 cried out calling the appellant by his name. The appellant showed him the dagger. Thereafter the appellant left the place. Lingamma was lying there and she was dead. P.W.15 Chennappa and P.W.16 Chikkamma have also deposed substantially to the same effect. Although P.W.12 Dod-Chennappa has not witnessed the actual assault on the deceased, he rushed to the spot immediately after the occurrence and saw the accused running away. He has given evidence that he was stacking the crops gathered and brought by other coolies. At that time Chennappa, Master (P.W.15) shouted saying that the accused struck Lingamma. On hearing the same, he rushed to the spot and saw the accused going away from the field. He added that when he went near Lingamma, he saw that Lingamma was lying with injuries on her and she was already dead. 12. The first information in this case has been laid before the Police Patel, P.W.1 only?. few minutes after the occurrence. We find the name of the accused in the first information Exhibit P-1. It reached the Police Station House, Horahally, at about 7 p. m. All the eye, witnesses were examined by the Police at the time of the inquest. Hence there is no reason to think that the version given by them is a concocted one. There was absolutely no time for concoction. They are also disinterested witnesses and we see no reason for not believing them. No circumstances have been pointed out to us by Mr. Bharathi, amicus curia? appearing on behalf of the appellant, to induce us to disbelieve the evidence of these witnesses. It is satisfactorily proved by their evidence that the appellant inflicted injuries on the deceased Lingamma with the dagger M.O. 7 which resulted in her death on 29th November, 1968 at about 2 p.m. in the field belonging to Channappa, Master, P.W.15. 13. 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. 13. 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 P.W.7 Marga Bovi. The immediate provocation for the crime alleged by the prosecution was that the appellant saw Lingamma sleeping with P.W.7 in the field of one Chaluviah, on the morning of 29th November, 1968. To prove the same P.W.7 has been examined on behalf of the prosecution. He has deposed to the fact that he was sleeping with Lingamma in the field of Chaluvaiah at about 9 a.m. on 29th November, 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 P.W.7 is admitted by the appellant. The appellant has also admitted that he inflicted injuries on Lingamma with the dagger M. O. 7. It was however argued on behalf of the appellant that the appellant in his statement under section 342, Criminal Procedure Code, denied that the assault had taken place at 2 p.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 P.W.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 29th November, 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. Bharathi that this contradiction in the evidence of the witness is material and renders his evidence unreliable. Bharathi that this contradiction in the evidence of the witness is material and renders his evidence unreliable. As already observed, we have found the evidence of P.Ws. 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 P.W.7 cannot have any materiality. Therefore, we think the learned trial Judge was quite right in accepting the evidence of P.W.7 as he did. It is fully established by the prosecution that the appellant inflicted injuries with the dagger M.O.7 on the person of Lingamma, deceased, at about 2 p.m. on 29th November, 1968, in the field of Chennappa, Master (P.W.15) and that she succumbed to the injuries sustained by her. 14. 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 P.W.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 section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. 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 section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 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 P.W.7 in the morning of 29tb November, 1968 and the assault had taken place in the afternoon at about 2 p.m. 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 section 300, Indian Penal Code 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.........” 15. The remaining portion is not relevant for our purpose. 16. Exception 1 to section 300, Indian Penal Code 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.........” 15. The remaining portion is not relevant for our purpose. 16. 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 deprived the appellant of the power of self-control. 17. 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 deceased in the company of P.W.7 in the morning of 29th November, 1968 at about 8 a.m. in the field of Chaluviah; (2) he went to the field of Channappa, P.W.15 in the afternoon at about 2 p. m. armed with the dagger M.O. 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 P.W.10, shows that Lingamma had sustained numerous incised injuries on her person. These circumstances clearly indicate that the appellant had gone to the field of Chennappa armed with the dagger M.O. 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. 18. The Supreme Court in K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra1, 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 has 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 regained 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.” 19. 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 reasonably 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. 20. The learned Sessions Judge has sentenced the accused to the lesser sentence prescribed under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore the question of reduction of sentence does rot arise in this case. In the result, this appeal is disallowed, and the same is dismissed. S.V.S. ----- Appeal dismissed.