JUDGMENT Nesargi, J.- This appeal is directed against the convictions and sentences passed on the appellants by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum in Sessions Case No. 25 of 1978. The Additional Sessions Judge has convicted appellant No.1 (A-1) for having committed an offence punishable under section 304 (Part-I, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 6 months. He has convicted appellant No. 2 (A-2) for having committed an offence punishable under section 304 (Part-I), Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 6 months. He has also convicted A-2 for having committed an offence punishable under section 34, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 month. He has directed that the substantive sentences passed on A-2 should run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case is that the deceased Honnavva is the wife of A-1. A-2 is the elder brother of Honnawa. The deceased Balappa Yallappa Holeppagol was a close friend of A-1. During the night between 15th December,1977 and 16th December, 1977 Honnavva was sleeping in their house in Kolyanatti, Taluk Bailhongal, District Belguam. The said village is within the jurisdiction of the Police Station at Nesargi. A-2 was sleeping outside this house. A-1 had gone to his nearby field to keep watch over the standing crop. A-2 heard some sound, woke up and said some one entering the house. He shut the door and latch for it from outside. He then went to the field where A-1 was present and informed him about this fact. Both of them returned to the house and peeped through a chink in the door. They saw Honnawa and Balappa sleeping in a compromising position. They being provoked, that too suddenly by this sight, opened the door and went inside. A-1 had sickle M.O.2 in his hand. A-2 had axe M.O. 1 in his hand. They, with those weapons cut on Honnawa and Balappa and killed them. They then went to the Police Station at Nesargi at 9 a.m., on 16th December, 1977. P.W. 7 Venkappa Bhimappa Kittali, P.S.I, was present in the Police Station. A-1 had sickle M.O.2 in his hand. A-2 had axe M.O. 1 in his hand. They, with those weapons cut on Honnawa and Balappa and killed them. They then went to the Police Station at Nesargi at 9 a.m., on 16th December, 1977. P.W. 7 Venkappa Bhimappa Kittali, P.S.I, was present in the Police Station. The clothes of A-1 and A-2 were profusely stained with blood. A-1 was having sickle M.O.2 in his hand, and A-2 was having axe M.O.1 in his hand On getting information from them P.W. 7 collected Panchas including P.W. 6 Basavantappa Rudrappa Maduval. He seized and sealed M.O.1 under Panchanama Ex.P-4; M.O. 3 shirt of A-2 under Panchanama Ex.P-5; M.O.2 sickle under Panchanama Ex. P-6 and M.Os. 5 and 6 which are shirt and dhoti on the person of A-1 under Panchanama Ex. P-7. He registered a case in Crime No. 96 of 1977 and issued F.I.R. as per Ex. P-13. He arrested the accused and interrogated them. A-2 voluntarily stated that he had hidden a handle of an axe, would show the place and produce the same. He led the Panchas and Police to the place and produced M.O. 7 handle of an axe, which was seized and sealed under Panchanama Ex P-8. He went to the spot and held inquest proceedings over the dead bodies. By that time P.W. 12 Nadagaop Bhimarayappa Terani, C.P.I, arrived at the spot and took up investigation from P.W. 7. It is further the case of the prosecution that before going to the Police Station both the accused had met P.W.4 Kallappa Yallappa Pattanad and P.W. 5 Rudrappa Gangappakallur and told them that as they had seen Honnawa and Balappa sleeping in a compromising position in the house, they had cut and killed them, and they were going to the Police Station. P.W. 12 completed the investigation and placed the charge-sheet. 3. Both the accused have in their statements recorded under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, admitted each one of the circumstances appearing in evidence against them. They have even admitted that they had made extra judicial confessions as sworn to by P.Ws. 4 and 5. 4. P.W. 12 completed the investigation and placed the charge-sheet. 3. Both the accused have in their statements recorded under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, admitted each one of the circumstances appearing in evidence against them. They have even admitted that they had made extra judicial confessions as sworn to by P.Ws. 4 and 5. 4. The appeal, as is clear from the records; came up for hearing before Range Gowda, J. On hearing Sri B.G. Naik, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants-accused, Range Gowda, J., has referred the case for disposal to a Division Bench in view of the fact that there is divergence of views expressed by this Court in regard to sentencing on such facts and circumstances. He has referred to two Division Bench decisions of this Court viz., State of Mysore v. Ramaji Ramappa Malagi1 and Chaiavadi Marappa v. State of Mysore2 5. In view of the fact that each one of the circumstances appearing in evidence against the appellants has been admitted by them in their statements recorded under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, and further in view of the fact that Sri B.G. Naik, fairly submitted before us that he would be arguing only on the question of sentence and that the appeal at this stage is limited only to the question of sentence, we consider it appropriate not to go into the evidence adduced by the prosecution in proof of the facts and circumstances relied upon to establish its case. 6. It is now well settled that such acts committed under such circumstances are covered by Exception 1 to section 300 , Indian Penal Code, and as such persons committing such offences would be guilty of the offence punishable under section 304 (Part-I), Indian Penal Code. We hold that the conviction and sentence passed on A-2 by the Additional Sessions Judge for having committed an offence punishable under section 342, Indian Penal Code, does not appear to be warranted in view of the simple fact that Balappa had entered the house of A-1 and Honnavva, in which A-2 also was residing, to commit adultery with Honnavva and as such had himself committed the offence of criminal trespass. 7. The question that arises for consideration is what should be the guidelines for imposing sentence under such facts and circumstances. 8. 7. The question that arises for consideration is what should be the guidelines for imposing sentence under such facts and circumstances. 8. There cannot be any doubt that both the appellants-accused had acted together in cutting on Honnavva and Balappa by means of sickle and axe under grave and sudden provocation, which had deprived each of them of the power of self control. These acts caused the death of Honnavva and Balappa. 9. In Criminal Appeal No. 455 of 1966 the Division Bench of this Court has, on coming to the conclusion that the concerned accused had acted in a similar manner on grave and sudden provocation because he had seen his wife Jambavva in the company of another person-a paramour, sentenced the concerned accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. 10. In Ramaji Ramappa Malagi's case1the Division Bench of this Court has imposed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 100 and in default rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days. 11. There is one more decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported In re Lagama Appayya Naik and others2. In this case, the sentence imposed is rigorous imprisonment for 7 years under similar facts and circumstances. In none of these decisions is there any guideline for imposing sentence. 12. It is now settled that the question of sentence is a matter of discretion which has to be exercised in a judicial way and when judicial discretion is exercised in the matter of sentence, the superior Court will not lightly interfere with such exercise of judicial discretion (vide Sarjug Rai & others v. State of Bihar3). 13. What is important to bear in mind, in this case, is that A-1 is the husband of Honnavva, Balappa is said to be his close friend and A-2 is the elder brother of Honnavva,and A-1 and A-2 had the shock of their life in finding Balappa and Honnavva in the company of each other that too in their house in the middle of the night between 15th December, 1977 and 16th December, 1977. The natural reaction of an ordinary-human being is to act in the very manner as the present appellants have acted. The natural reaction of an ordinary-human being is to act in the very manner as the present appellants have acted. Therefore, we feel justified to observe that the appellants have acted in a natural manner in cutting with sickle and axe on Honnavva and Balappa, and hence their acts are natural acts resulting out of a reaction of an ordinary human beings. But, even such acts are made penal by the penal law. The reason being to discourage commission of homicide. At the same time, we are of opinion that the facts and circumstances giving rise to such natural acts, which are made penal by the Code, should be carefully taken into consideration while exercising judicial discretion in imposing sentence. 14. In Hussain v. Emperor4 Young, C.J., has under such facts and circumstances observed as follows: “The more self-control is lost-and therefore the more Exception-1 applies to the case-the more likely are numerous injuries to be inflicted.” This observation was made as the Sessions Judge had taken into account while imposing sentence, the fact that numerous injuries had been inflicted by the concerned accused on seeing the deceased in the act of sleeping with his wife, and that too at night. It was held that under such facts and circumstances the proper sentence to be imposed was sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and not a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 3 years as had been done by the Sessions Judge. 15. In the decision in Emperor v. Mendi Ali5 Braund, J., who found that the accused was so sorely provoked as to be deprived completely of his power of self-control, held that the maximum sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years was excessive; that the number and nature of injuries inflicted by the accused lost Significance, and that the proper sentence to be imposed was sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 5 years. 16. These two decisions have been cited with approval in the decision in Raj Kishore v. The State1 In the said case the wife of the accused had committed the act of adultery with the deceased Chandra Kishore and the accused attacked the deceased so as to kill him. Exception 1 to set section 300, Indian Penal Code, was held applicable. These two decisions have been cited with approval in the decision in Raj Kishore v. The State1 In the said case the wife of the accused had committed the act of adultery with the deceased Chandra Kishore and the accused attacked the deceased so as to kill him. Exception 1 to set section 300, Indian Penal Code, was held applicable. Agarwala, J., observed as follows: “Sentence in such cases should be so low as is commensurate with nature of offence as the facts would justify it. But at the same time, it should not be so low as to encourage commission of homicide.” Sentence of four years was reduced to sentence of two years. 17. In view of our conclusion that the acts committed by the appellants were in fact the result of the natural reaction of the appellants as ordinary human beings and those natural acts have been made penal, we hold that the sentence in such cases should be so low as to be commensurate with the nature of the offence, taking into consideration the nature of the acts committed, but at the same time it should not be sufficiently low as to encourgage commission of homicide. Bearing these guidelines in mind we consider that sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 3 years on each one of the appellants for having committed the offence punishable under section 304 (Part-I), Indian Penal Code, would be just and adequate. 18. We, therefore, allow the appeal of A-2 partly and set aside the conviction and sentence passed on A-2 Shankar Ballappa Kagi for having committed an offence punishable under section 342, Indian Penal Code, by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum, in Sessions Case No. 25 of 1978. We confirm the conviction passed on the appellants for having committed an offence punishable under section 304 (Part-I), Indian Penal Code, and modify the sentence imposed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum, to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years. S.V.S. ----- Ordered accordingly.