JUDGMENT S. K. Kaul, J. 1. THIS unfortunate occurrence is connected with the accused- appellant who committed murder of his own wife Smt. Jasoda. Admittedly, Gur Prasad, son of Jangli, used to live in village Mawai Brahman along with his wife. Villagers used to patrol every night in village in between the night of 12th and 13th of December, 1972, Naththa, Matra, Babu Ram Pandit, Faruq, Kifayat and others were on patrol duty. They finished patrol duty at about 4 a. m. at the house of Sheo Nandan Pradhan. Most of them were armed with Torches When some of them went towards the east of the house of Sheo Nan- dan Pradhan towards their houses and when they reached near the door of Sheodin, whose house is situate to the east of the house of Gur Prasad, they heard some noise coming from the house of Gur Prasad. Hearing this noise, these four persons stood on the Chabutra of Sheodin and when they flashed the torches, they found Gur Prasad giving sickle blows upon his own wife. These persons rushed towards the house of Gur Prasad and on their persistent knocking, Jangli, father of Gur Prasad, opened the door. The witnesses went inside the house and found the accused having come out of the Kothri after having murdered his wife. He had a sickle in his hand. Sambhar Chaukidar took possession over the sickle. Witnesses found Smt. Jasoda lying dead inside the Kothri. The Kurta and the Langot of the accused were soaked in blood. Sambhar, accompanied by Matru, Babu Ram and Naththa as well as taking with him accused and sickle, went to Beni Ganj where Sambhar dictated FIR on 13th of December, 1972, at about 9 a. m. The distance between the village in question and the police station Beni Ganj is 8 miles. We may note specifically that apart from other details that were mentioned in the FIR, on enquiry from the accused as to why he had committed the murder of his own wife, Gur Prasad replied that she had become immoral. She was not listening to his advice. He had, therefore, finished the matter once for all. Mohammad Razi, ASI, took up investigation. He interrogated Sambhar at the police station, He also interrogated the accused. He then went to the scene of occurrence and found the dead body of Smt. Jasoda lying inside the Kothri. She was not listening to his advice. He had, therefore, finished the matter once for all. Mohammad Razi, ASI, took up investigation. He interrogated Sambhar at the police station, He also interrogated the accused. He then went to the scene of occurrence and found the dead body of Smt. Jasoda lying inside the Kothri. He prepared the inquest report relating to this dead body and sent it for autopsy. Autopsy upon the body of Smt. Jasoda was performed by Dr. C. L. Chaudhary, Medical Officer Incharge, Sandila, Hardoi, on 14th of December, 1972 at 3.30 p. m. The following ante-mortem injuries were found upon the dead body :- 2. THE internal examination revealed that carotid artery and vein on the left side were cut below injury No. 1 along with other vessels. He also found that this woman was carrying 4 to 5 months child. Cut injuries, according to Dr. Chaudhary, were caused by sharp-edged weapon like sickle. Death, according to Dr. Chaudhary, of Smt. Jasoda, was caused due to injury of the neck which, in his view, was sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death. The Sub-Inspector took possession over blood-stained and nearby plain earth. He also took possession over blood-stained Kathri vide Ext. Ka- 9. He interrogated witnesses and prepared a site-plan with their help. After completing investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused and on that basis, he was asked to stand his trial under Section 392 IPC. 3. THE accused in his statement recorded before the Sessions Judge, admitted that Smt. Jasoda was his wife and she used to reside with him. He stated that he had given Hansiya blows upon his wife. Ultimately, his contention was that Smt. Jasoda had run away several times. He was extremely perturbed on that account. On account of bad character of his wife, he too had to face danger and was also beaten. He had kept patience, but his wife had again run away. She was absent throughout the night. In the early hours of the morning when she returned, he gave Hansiya blows upon her. 4. THE learned Sessions Judge, on an appraisement of evidence, found that the charge of murder was fully made out against the accused and, as such, he convicted and sentenced the accused to under go imprisonment for life under Sec 302 IPC. In the early hours of the morning when she returned, he gave Hansiya blows upon her. 4. THE learned Sessions Judge, on an appraisement of evidence, found that the charge of murder was fully made out against the accused and, as such, he convicted and sentenced the accused to under go imprisonment for life under Sec 302 IPC. It is in these circumstances that this appeal from jail has been preferred by Gur Prasad. That Gur Prasad was responsible for killing his own wife admits of no doubt. Apart from the witnesses examined in this case, Gur Prasad himself admitted that he had given sickle blows upon his wife. The question arises whether we should convict him under Section 302 IPC or does his case fall under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code. 5. THE tests laid down by the Supreme Court for the purpose of Exception 1 of Section 300 are whether a reasonable man, 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. Indeed, the mental background created by the previous act of the victim may be taken into consideration in ascertaining whether the subsequent act caused grave and sudden provocation for committing the offence. The fatal blow should be clearly traced to the influence of passion arising from that provocation and not after the passion had cooled down by lapse of time or otherwise giving room and scope for premeditation and calculation. No abstract standard of reasonableness can be laid down. What a reasonable man would do under certain circumstances depends upon the customs, manners, way of life, traditional values etc., in short, the cultural, social and emotional background of the society to which an accused belongs. In our vast country there are social groups ranging from the lowest to the highest state of civilization. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any standard with precision. It is for the Court to decide in each case, having regard to the relevant circumstances. 6. NOW, in this case nothing has been shown from the side of the prosecution as to what prompted the accused to commit murder of his own wife. Indeed, as the autopsy report reveals, the woman was carrying a child of 4 or 5 months. 6. NOW, in this case nothing has been shown from the side of the prosecution as to what prompted the accused to commit murder of his own wife. Indeed, as the autopsy report reveals, the woman was carrying a child of 4 or 5 months. No husband would, in the normal course of events, commit the murder of his own wife in that condition unless the circumstances were such that he found himself unable to control himself and committed the murder of his own wife. It is significant to note that even at the earliest stage when he was arrested, he had given a statement which finds place in the FIR to which we have made a reference in the above. In his statement recorded by the Sessions Judge under Section 342 old CrPC, he categorically stated that his wife had run away several times. He was perturbed on that account. On account of her bad conduct, he was also in danger. On the date of incident as well, she had run away in the night and when she returned in the early hours of morning, he inflicted sickle blows upon her. The accused belongs to the community of Raidas. Of course, it is not brought on record, but in a community to which the accused belongs, if immorality of a wife comes to be known, he has to pay a price for the same which the Biradari, to which he belongs, extracts from him. In the Madras High Court case reported in 1957 Criminal Law Journal 970 (In re Murugian alias Murugesan) Somasudaram and Basheer Ahmad Sayeed, JJ. observed that : "In a society where adultery is made punishable and where the lawfully wedded wife has not merely resorted to adultery but would also swear openly in the face of the husband that she would persist in such adultery and also abuse the husband for remonstrating against such conduct, we feel that we should take a more serious view of the psychological situation thus created to arrive at the conclusion whether it could not be a case of the husband loosing his self- control by reason of the provocation and whether such provocation was not grave and sudden enough to make him loose such self-control. The Court should view it as a psychological problem and not one where reasoning as to the legality or otherwise of the rights of parties is to be considered before the emotion of the man is roused to action. Each case has to be considered in the circumstances that prevail at the given situation and there can be no generalisation on such issues." Now in this case, we do not see why the statement of the accused should not be believed. That statement reveals under what mental agony the accused was leading his life in the company of his own wife who was persisting in her evil ways, so much so that ultimately probably he found that she was also carrying a child of another person. Finding his patience exhausted and having found her again missing in the night when he was waiting for her, it is obvious that he thought that his cut of agony was full. Of course, it is not brought out whether there was some talk between the husband and the wife, but we can anticipate some such talk between the husband and the wife with the result that the accused losing his balance of mind in that psychological situation committed the murder of his own wife. Tested at the anvil of these facts and circumstances, we think it is a fit case in which conviction should be recorded under Section 304 IPC. We feel a sentence of five years, RI under the circumstances would be adequate to meet the ends of justice. 7. WITH this modification in the conviction and sentence, the appeal is rejected. The appellant is in jail. He shall serve out the sentence awarded to him. He should be informed of this order through the Superintendent, Jail, in which he is at present admitted. Appeal dismissed.