JUDGMENT T. U. Mehta, C. J.—The appellant accused has been convicted under sections 302 and 201, I. P. C. by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kangra in Sessions Case No. 41 of 1976. For the offence under section 302, I. P. C. he has been sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500 and in default further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. For the offence under section 201, I. P. C. the accused appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to the payment of a fine of Rs. 300 in default of which he is ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. 2. The appellant-accused is said to have committed the murder of his young daughter aged about 1-½ years. The case of the prosecution is that at about 11-30 A. M. on 16-4-1976, the accused committed tins crime on being provoked by his wife who taunted him that though he had produced three children he had no capacity to maintain them. It is said that the accused was being taunted by his wife in this manner very often, but at the time of the occurrence the accused lost his head and took out a drat Ex. PI and pierced the body of the deceased child and thereafter cut it to several pieces.. He is said to have concealed the drat in an almirah of his house along with a shirt of the deceased. The head of the deceased was severed and was concealed in the oberi of his house. The arms and legs of the deceased were thrown away at a place called "Bhoot Nala". The trunk of the deceased is said to have been concealed in the kitchen garden of a neighbour. 3. The prosecution case is that Smt. Khema, the wife of the accused, who is not examined during the course of the trial, immediately informed about the incident to PW 5 Jagat Ram, who is a chowkidar of the village. Jagat Ram on receipt of this information sent another chowkidar Jharu Ram to give information about this incident to Lamberdar Hoshiar Singh, PW 2, and Pradhan Diwan Singh, PW 3, and himself went to the house of the accused along with Khema, the wife of the accused. He found that the accused had gone to take bath at a Baori. Jagat Ram on receipt of this information sent another chowkidar Jharu Ram to give information about this incident to Lamberdar Hoshiar Singh, PW 2, and Pradhan Diwan Singh, PW 3, and himself went to the house of the accused along with Khema, the wife of the accused. He found that the accused had gone to take bath at a Baori. Some time thereafter the accused returned to his house. Jagat Ram thereafter enquired from him as to why he killed his daughter. The accused is said to have told him that his wife used to nig him that he had produced three children, but could not provide food for them and, therefore, he killed the deceased. Thereafter the accused disclosed to Jagat Ram about the disposal of the different limbs of the deceased at different places. Jagat Ram thereafter did not allow the accused to leave the place. In the meanwhile, Lamberdar Hoshiar Singh, PW 2, came over to the house of the accused. He prepared a rukka which is treated as a first information report and sent the witness Jagat Ram along with that rukka to the police. Jagat Ram handed over that rukka to the police and from his deposition it is found that he also informed that police about the different places where the different Jimbs of the dead body of the deceased child were concealed as also the place where the weapon of the offence namely, the drat, was concealed. The police thereafter arrived at the house of the accused where the accused is said to have made the disclosure statement under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act as found at Ex. PE, After making this disclosure statement, he pointed out the place at which the head of the deceased was concealed in his oberi. At Ex. PF is the memo of this recovery. He also pointed out the almirah in which the mudamal drat and the shirt of the deceased were kept. These articles were recovered as per memo. Ex. PH. On his pointing out the police and the parties recovered the severed arms and the legs of the deceased from "Bhoot Nala" as found from the recovery Memo. Ex. PK The trunk of the deceased was recovered at the instance of the accused from the kitchen-garden of the neighbour as found from the recovery memo. Ex. PM. 4. Ex. PH. On his pointing out the police and the parties recovered the severed arms and the legs of the deceased from "Bhoot Nala" as found from the recovery Memo. Ex. PK The trunk of the deceased was recovered at the instance of the accused from the kitchen-garden of the neighbour as found from the recovery memo. Ex. PM. 4. From the person of the accused his pyzama was recovered as it was found stained with blood. Recovery memo in this regard is Ex. PL. 5. These articles were sent to the Serologist and it is fouud from the report of the Serologist Ex. PS that they were stained with human blood. 6. From the above evidence it is clear that the prosecution case is based on (1) the extra-Judicial confession said to have been made by the accused to PW 5, Jagat Ram and PW 2, Hoshiar Singh, (2) the disclosure statement and the discovery of the different articles mentioned above, and (3) the conduct of the accused. 7. As against this the defence of the accused is one of pure denial. 8. It was contended on behalf of the appellant-accused that the disclosure statement found at Ex. PE is of no legal importance in view of the fact that PW. 5, Jagat Ram, has admitted in his deposition before the court that when he went to give information about the incident to the police, he had disclosed the various places where the mudamal drat and the limbs of the dead body of the deceased were concealed by the accased. We have perused the deposition given by Jagat Ram in the trial court and we find that the above contention is correct. It is evident from the deposition given by Jagat Ram that before the so-tailed disclosure statement was made by the accused, the police already knew from Jagat Ram the places of hiding of different articles which are said to have been discovered pursuant to this statement. 9. It is evident from the deposition given by Jagat Ram that before the so-tailed disclosure statement was made by the accused, the police already knew from Jagat Ram the places of hiding of different articles which are said to have been discovered pursuant to this statement. 9. In our opinion3 however, this would not make any difference so far as the question of conviction is concerned, because we find by reference to the deposition of Jagat Ram himself that immediately after he went to the house of the accused, the accused himself not only confessed that he had committed the murder of his daughter but had also showed to him the different places where he had kept the different articles including the limbs of the dead body of the deceased. Jagat Ram is not found to have any reason to concoct false evidence against the accused. 10. We further find that even before the Lamberdar, PW 2, Hoshiar Singh, the accused admitted the crime which he has committed and had also shown to him the trunk of the dead body of the deceased. 11. We find that the extra-judicial confessions which the accused is found to have made before Jagat Ram, PW 5, and Hoshiar Singh, PW 2, have been made immediately after the occurrence. Though these extra-judicial confessions have been retracted, we find that they have been sufficiently corroborated by the facts and circumstances of the case and are, therefore, such which could be thoroughly depended upon to base the conviction. 12. Apart from the facts that all the different limbs of the dead body of the deceased were actually seen by Jagat Ram at the places shown by the accused and that thereafter even Hoshiar Singh, PW 2, found the trunk of the dead body of the deceased from the place pointed out by the accused, we must take notice of another fact that most of these articles were found from the house of the accused. It is difficult to believe that some stranger concealed these articles in the house of the accused. In this connection it should be noted that no time was left for manipulation of this evidence by others between the commission of the offence and the finding of these articles. Moreover, the accused was found to be putting on a trouser which was found stained with human blood. In this connection it should be noted that no time was left for manipulation of this evidence by others between the commission of the offence and the finding of these articles. Moreover, the accused was found to be putting on a trouser which was found stained with human blood. The accused has given no satisfactory explanation about this. Under the circumstances, we accept the trust worthy ness of the prosecution story and we find that the accused has been rightly convicted by the learned trial Judge for the offences under sections 302 and 201,1. P. C. 13. The question, however, is whether the accused is a person who can be classed with hardened criminals. The evidence produced by the prosecution itself shows very convincingly that at the root of this crime was the utter frustration resulting from stark poverty. The offence was committed by the accused being provoked by a pungent taunting from a nagging wife, Humiliation borne out of frustration seems to have momentarily caught hold of the accused, and in a fit of anger and helplessness he seems to have lost all the mental balance and thinking faculty. The provocation of this type would not, of course, bring the case under Exception No. 1 of section 300,1. P. C. for the simple reason that it was not given by the victim. The court is, therefore, not in a position to give any relief to the accused. However, looking to the circumstances under which the crime is committed, we strongly feel that this is one of the fittest case in which the State can exercise its own prerogative to commute the sentence. 14. It is evident that the root cause of this offence was not the criminality of the accused, but the social imbalance and economic disparity which are the inevitable draw-backs of an inequitable society which we unfortunately have. If the accused was unable to maintain himself and his family, and in the process, if he lost his head at a particular moment, the society has also to share the blame resulting from his act. To punish such a person who is himself the victim of socio-economic imbalances would be tantamount to put him at par with hardened criminals who commit the crime of a dastardly character after cold calculations. To punish such a person who is himself the victim of socio-economic imbalances would be tantamount to put him at par with hardened criminals who commit the crime of a dastardly character after cold calculations. One has yet to come across a father who would like to murder his own innocent infant child of 1-½ years unless he is impulsively inflamed by a mad temperamental fit of anger. One does not require great psychological insight to imagine the state of mind and the frustration through which the accused must be passing at his helplessness to maintain his family and to tolerate to type of taunting which dropped from the lips of his better half. To treat such a person at par with scheming and hardened criminals would be a mockery of justice. 15. Moreover, we find that the conduct of the accused soon after the incident was at once straight and simple. Heat once confessed his crime the moment he was confronted with the pertinent question by Jagat Ram and thereafter by Hoshiar Singh. Even after the police came, he had no hesitation in pointing out the different places at which he had concealed the severed limbs of his deceased daughter. This surely shows the conduct of a simple and unsophisticated rustic who was driven to this dastardly act by sheer force of circumstances. 16. We, therefore, recommend to the State Government that the term of imprisonment which is already undergone by the accused should be considered as quite sufficient, and he should at once be given a proper reprove by commuting the rest of the sentence awarded to him by the trial court. This would not only save the remnants of humanity in the make up of the accused, but would also save his starving family. 17. With these recommendations, we dismiss this appeal so far as the order of conviction is concerned. So far as the sentence of fine imposed by the learned trial Judge for both the offences is concerned, he do not fine any justification for the same and, therefore, the sentence of fine of Rs. 500 and Rs. 300 respectively for each of the offences under sections 302 and 201,1. P. C, is set aside. Appeal dismissed. -