Short Note : The prosecution case is this: A day prior to 29-11-1971, Maqbul Khan (P- W1) and Ramesh (PW 2) visited Munna laundry where the appellant was already present. Ramesh (P.W.2) pelted a stone towards a passing dog. The appellant remonstrated against the pelting of stone by Ramesh and manhandled him. Ramesh was a friend of the deceased and, therefore, the appellant directed him to report the matter to the deceased. Next morning, Maqbul Khan (PW1) and Ramesh (PW2) visited the laundry. The deceased came there and took away Maqbul Khan and Ramesh towards the Bajaria to chew betel leaves. Thereafter Maqbul Khan, Ramesh and the deceased Pappoo took their seats at the wall near the Bajaria railway station. Ramesh informed the deceased about the previous day's incident. After a while, the appellant appeared there and the deceased questioned him as to why he had manhandled Ramesh the previous day. This resulted in an exchange of filthy abuses between the appellant and the deceased. A scuffle ensued in which the deceased slapped the appellant who picked up a stick from the nearby Thela and assaulted the deceased with it which the deceased warded off Kalim (PW13) 'and Gafoor (PW 15) intervened. The appellant left the place uttering obscene words. After sometime, the appellant emerged out of a lane with a knife in his hand. In spite of obstruction by Kalim and Gafoor, the appellant assaulted Pappoo on his neck, shoulder and arms. Held: Gafoor Khan (PW 15) testified to a scuffle between the appellant and the deceased. Thereafter the appellant went away. Then he saw the appellant coming through a lane. He asked him not to fight, but he asked him to move away. Though he suppressed his having seen the assault which is clear from his hostile attitude, yet his evidence shows that the first quarrel had subsided and after sometime the appellant had returned duly determined to fight out the matter with the deceased. We are, therefore, of the view that the circumstances on record do not justify the test of grave and sudden provocation, because there is no evidence that the fatal blow could clearly be traced to the influence of passion arising from the provocation. We are, therefore, of the view that the circumstances on record do not justify the test of grave and sudden provocation, because there is no evidence that the fatal blow could clearly be traced to the influence of passion arising from the provocation. On the other hand, the prosecution evidence shown that there was lapse of time and the return of the appellant with a knife his hand determined to fight out, indicated that there was room for pre-meditation and calculation. The attack by the appellant on the deceased was thus deliberate and not as a result of loss of self control. The evidence of Dr. Hireshchandra (PW 16) established beyond doubt that the appellant had dealt repeated four knife blows on the deceased, all of which were stab wounds and injury No.4 was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, as it had cut the great vessels from the root in the thorax From the nature of the injuries and the weapon used, we are clearly of the view that the appellant launched repeated knife attack on the deceased and his intention was clearly to finish of his victim. 1963 JLJ 689 distinguished. AIR 1962 SC 605 relied on. Appeal dismissed.