JUDGMENT 1. 1. The appellant Daya Ram has been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, by his judgment dated February 19, 1973, under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having committed the murder of his uncle Harlal by striking him on the neck with a Pharsa. 2. The conviction of the appellant rests on the direct testimony of the two eye-witnesses, namely, Ram Lal P.W. 1 and Kanhaiyalal P.W. 2. Their version is that on September 16, 1972, at about 6 a.m., the appellant with his companions went to the field of the deceased on the outskirts of the village and started cutting the grass. The deceased protested against this and thereupon a quarral arose between the appellant and the deceased. During the course of the quarrel, the appellant, who was armed with a Pharsa, struck the deceased on the neck resulting in his death. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of these witnesses. They are both uncles of the appellants and brothers of the deceased. Their evidence finds corroboration by the testimony of P. W. 6 Shri Ram and P. W. 7 Rangilal. These witnesses are all natural witnesses and they were working on their fields nearby. There can therefore be no doubt that the appellant caused the death of the deceased by striking him on the neck with a Pharsa. 3. The short question for consideration is whether in striking the deceased Harlal, the appellant acted under "grave and sudden provocation" and therefore his act comes within Exception 1 to section 300 I.P.C. 4. It is pointed out from the testimony of Ranglal P. W. 7 that the deceased asked the appellant and his companions not to cut the grass, but they persisted in doing so and thereupon he uttered the words "if you are the real son of your father, then you should cut the grass". It is urged that appellant, on hearing the abuse, lost his self-control and therefore Exception 1 to section 300 I.P.C. is attracted. We are afraid, the contention cannot be accepted. For the purposes of Exception 1 to section 300, the test of grave and sudden provocation is whether a reasonable person, belonging to the same class of society as the accused, placed in the situation in which the accused was placed, would be so provoked as to lose his self-control. We are afraid, the contention cannot be accepted. For the purposes of Exception 1 to section 300, the test of grave and sudden provocation is whether a reasonable person, belonging to the same class of society as the accused, placed in the situation in which the accused was placed, would be so provoked as to lose his self-control. The words uttered by the deceased Harlal were, "Tere baap ka moot ho to chare kaat", i.e. if he was born of his father, he should cut the grass. This was nothing but a common abuse. Merely because there was a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased in the course of which he uttered the abuse and the appellant lost his temper and in a fit of anger killed him, it cannot amount to grave and sudden provocation. This may amount to sudden provocation, but riot grave provocation. Thus this provocation only entitled him to the lesser penalty of imprisonment for life, but the case would not be covered by Exception 1 to section 300 as there was no grave and sudden provocation.The result, therefore, is that the appeal fails and is dismissed. *******