B. N. KATJU. J. Sompal has filed this appeal against the judgment of Sessions Judge, Rampur dated 31-10-75 passed in Sessions Trial No. 113 of 1975 convicting him under, sec. 302 I. P. G. and sentencing him to death. The case of the prosecution is that Sompal appellant is the son of Girdhar deceased. He was married but as he ill treated his wife she was living with her parents since about a year and a half before the occurrence. He asked his father a number of times to bring his wife from the house of her parents but his father refused to do so and told him that as he was in the habit of beating his wife and was living separately from him he could not take the responsibility of bringing her back from the house of her parents. On 30-4-75 at about 7 p. m. Girdhari deceased and his younger son Bhagwati Prasad (P. W. 5) brought bundles of grass from the jungle to their house in village Khandia. Shortly thereafter the appellant came there from his room and told the deceased that he should bring his wife otherwise he would teach him a lesson. On hearing this the deceased scoided the appellant and told him that he would not go to bring his wife. The appellant immediately thereafter went to his room which was at a distance of about three paces and brought an open knife and gave a blow on the head of the deceased with the knife. When Bhagwati Prasad (P. W. 5) tried to save the deceased the appellant told him not come near otherwise he would also be assaulted. Bhagwati Prasad then ran towards the door rasingan alram on hearing which Shiv Charan (P. W. 6) and others came to the place of occurrence and the appellant thereafter went inside his room and bolted it from inside. They asked the appellant to open his room but he did not do so. They then bolted the room from outside. The deceased died on the spot as a result of the injury received by him. The first information report was lodged by Bhagwati Prasad (P. W, 5) at police station Azim Nagar at 10 p. m. on the same day (30-4-75), the distance of the police station from the place of occurrence being two miles. The deceased died on the spot as a result of the injury received by him. The first information report was lodged by Bhagwati Prasad (P. W, 5) at police station Azim Nagar at 10 p. m. on the same day (30-4-75), the distance of the police station from the place of occurrence being two miles. The first information report was lodged in the presence of S. O. Sukhvir Singh (P. W. 11 ). He came to the place of occurrence and found the appellant in his room which was bolted from outside. On his persuasion the appellant came out of his room and told him that he had hidden the knife (Ext. L) in his room and took it out from a corner of his room and gave it to him. The knife was stained with blood. The prosecution examined two eye witnesses namely Bhagwati Prasad (P. W. 5) and Smt. Dharamia (P. W. 1) Shiva Charan (P. W. 6) deposed that when he along with others went inside the house of the deceased on hearing shrieks he found the appellant standing in front of his room armed with a knife and the deceased was lying in a pool of blood in the Angan of the house. The appellant thereafter went inside his room and bolted it from inside. He and others asked him to come out of the room but as he did not do so they bolted the room from outside. The appellant made a confession before H. S. Beniwal, Munsif Magistrate Rampur P. W. 13 on 1-5-75 which runs as follows : " Mere tatha mere baap (Sri Girdhari Lai) ka apsi jhagra tha mere baap Girdhari Lal ne ab se terah saal huye mujhe ghar se nikal diya tha aur yani mere baap meri bibi ko mere Bhai Prem Singh ke sath sulana (bad fell) karana chahata tha wah mujhse dekha nahi gaya-bar-dasht nahin kiya gaya-jis par mujhe narazi hui gussa aya aur maine apane pita Giradhari Lal ko kal sham ko chaku maar diya jo uske bayin taraf gardan par laga. Main use jaan se marana chahata tha uske bad ftli ki wajan se usko maine chaku mara. " The post mortem examination was conducted by Dr. Main use jaan se marana chahata tha uske bad ftli ki wajan se usko maine chaku mara. " The post mortem examination was conducted by Dr. B. R. Bhatnagar (P. W. 2) on 1-5-75 and the under mentioned ante mortem external injuries were found on the body of deceased :- (1) Punctured wound 2 cm. x 1/2 cm. x brain cavity deep on left pinna of ear lower part just below the (P. T.) meatus. The margins were sharp. (2) Abrasion 1 cm. x 1 cm. on the outer part of right arm in the middle. (3) Abrasion in an area of 3 cm. x 2 cm. on the back of the right elbow. On internal examination the left temporal bone was found to be fractured and the membrance was cut and lacerated and the brain was also lacerated. In the opinion of Bhatnagar, the injuries found on the body of the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. That appellant pleaded not guilty and stated he was implicated falsely by the witnesses. He denied having made the confession (Ex. ka-15) before the Magistrate. He also stated that his wife was not staying with him for the last about two years and that he used to scold his wife when she committed mistakes which was objected to by the deceased and he used to say that he (would make her sleep in his house. His wife however did not like to sleep in the house of the deceased. The trial court after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the guilt of the appellant and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned earlier. Bhagwati Prasad (P. W. 5) narrated the prosecution case as mentioned earlier. He however admitted in his cross-examination that he did not mention in the first information report lodged by him that the appellant told the deceased at the time of the incident that if he did not fetch his wife he would teach him a lesson. Bhagwati Prasad (P. W. 5) narrated the prosecution case as mentioned earlier. He however admitted in his cross-examination that he did not mention in the first information report lodged by him that the appellant told the deceased at the time of the incident that if he did not fetch his wife he would teach him a lesson. He also admitted that he did not mention in the first information report that the appellant threatened to assault him in case he came near him Smt. Dharmia (P. W. 1), the mother of the appellant, also supported the prosecution case and stated that when the deceased had put the bundle of grass in the Angan of his house at the time of the incident the appellant came there and told him to bring his wife back but the deceased did not reply. He again asked him to bring his wife back. The deceased then told him that he did not wish to be involved in the matter and that he should bring his wife but him-self. The appellant thereafter went inside his room and brought a knife and assaulted the deceased. Both these witnesses have admitted that the wife of the appellant was not staying with the appellant since a year and a half before the occurrence, ft has also been admitted by Smt. Dharmia (P. W. 1) that on earlier occasions the appellant brought his wife from the house of her parents. Both these witnesses have not stated that the deceased ever brought the wife of the appellant from the house of her parents prior to the occurrence. In these circumstances we are not prepared to accept the statements of both these witnesses that the appellant asked the deceased to bring his wife from the house of her parents at the time of the incident. It may also be mentioned, that according to the statements of both these witnesses such requests were made by the appellant to the deceased on several earlier occasions also. There was, therefore, no adequate reason for the appellant to have lost his temper at the time of the incident if the deceased had refused to bring his wife from the house of her parents. There was, therefore, no adequate reason for the appellant to have lost his temper at the time of the incident if the deceased had refused to bring his wife from the house of her parents. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the evidence of both these witnesses that the appellants assaulted the deceased with his knife at the time of the occurrence is reliable but their evidence that immediately before the assault the appellant asked the deceased to bring his wife back from the house of her parents and the deceased refused to do so cannot be relied upon. The evidence of Shiva Charan (P. W. 5) appears to be reliable as nothing has been brough out in his cross-examination to demolish his testimony and the evidence of recovery or the blood-stained knife at the instance of appellant from his kotha furnished by Sukhvir Singh S. O. (P. W. II) also appears to be reliable and furnishes strong corroboration to the evidence of both the eye witnesses that the appellant assaulted the deceased with his knife (Ext. 1 ). The result is that the immediate motive set up by the prosecution which was intimately connected with the assault of the deceased cannot be accepted. It was admitted by both the eye witnesses that the appellant first came to the place of occurrence empty handed. Some thing thereafter must have happened which made the appellant lost his self control and go to his room which was only at a distance of three paces and bring his knife from there and assault the deceased which has been suppressed by the prosecution. Considering the fact the deceased was the father of the appellant we are of the opinion that the possibility of the appellant having lost his self control as a result of grave and sudden provocation given by the deceased cannot be ruled out. It may be mentioned that the confession of the appellant made to the learned Munsif Magistrate indicates that the grave and sudden provocation which made the appellant lose his self control was the immoral conduct of the deceased. Admittedly only one blow was given by the appellant to the deceased which proved fatal. In these circumstances the appellant cannot be held guilty under sec. 302 I. P. C. but is guilty under sec. Admittedly only one blow was given by the appellant to the deceased which proved fatal. In these circumstances the appellant cannot be held guilty under sec. 302 I. P. C. but is guilty under sec. 304 Part I, I. P. C. and deserves to be sentenced to seven years R. I. This appeal is accordingly allowed in part. The conviction of the appellant under sec. 302 I. P. C. and the sentence of death awarded to him thereunder are set aside and instead he is convicted under sec. 304 Part I, I. P. C. and is sentenced to seven years R. I. The appellant is in jail. He shall serve out the sentence awarded to him. The reference made by the learned Sessions Judge for the confirmation of the sentence of death awarded to the appellant is rejected. .