Judgment :- Gokulakrishnan, J. The appellant was charged for having caused the murder of his father Ramaswami Servai by cutting him with an arrival on his right shoulder, neck abdomen and other parts of his body indiscriminately, at about 10 a.m. on 5th May, 1978 at Chadurvedamangalm. Village, Ramanathapurajn District. 2. The prosecution is that P.W.1 is the mother of the accused P.W.l married a person 32 year back and divorced him-Subsequently according to P.W.1, the deceased married her, and the accused was born to them, no doubt, P.W.1 has turned hostile in this case. The reason is obvious. The prosecution has sought to prove its case relying on the evidence of P.Ws. 2 to A, P.W, 6 and P.W.7 (the Village Munsif) who is supposed to have recorded the statement Exhibit P-3 from P.W. 1. 3. According to the prosecution, at about 10 a.m. on 5th May, 1978 the accused was climbing the palmyrah tree belonging to the deceased for the purpose Of cutting palmyrah leaves for putting roof to their hut and P.W. 1 the mother of the accused, was standing near the tree.; At that point of time, the deceased Ramaswami Servai, after’ taking bath in the Oprani called Siddhanendal Oorani, Was coming from the West. On seeing the accused climbing the tree, the deceased Ramaswami Servaj scolded him beat him with the umbrella in his hand and pulled him from the tree. The accused fell down. Immediately, thereafter, the accused got up and with the aruval he had in his hand, gave a cut on the right shoulder of the deceased. On receiving the cut injury on the shoulder, the deceased Ramaswami Servai ran towards the east. Unfortunately, Ramaswami Servai fell down stumbling over a bund nearby. It is in the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 that at that point of time, the accused cut the deceased with the aruval indiscriminately on his neck and stomach, It is also the evidence of P.W.2 that P.W.1 shouted asking the accused not to cut. On seeing this, P.W.2 rushed towards the accused after leaving the bulls. The accused threatened P.W.2 stating that if he came near, he would also cut him. One Sivagnanam and P.W.3, who were ploughing the land nearby, also came running to the spot. On seeing the accused threatening P.W.2, they also stopped without coming near the accused. On seeing this, P.W.2 rushed towards the accused after leaving the bulls. The accused threatened P.W.2 stating that if he came near, he would also cut him. One Sivagnanam and P.W.3, who were ploughing the land nearby, also came running to the spot. On seeing the accused threatening P.W.2, they also stopped without coming near the accused. After this, the accused ran towards the west with the aruval. P.W.1 was crying near the body of Ramaswami Servai. On receiving the injuries, Ramaswami Servai died on the spot itself. 4. P.W.1 went to the house of P.W.7. the Village Munsif of Chadurvedamangalam, at 1.30 p.m. on 5th May, 1978 and gave a complaint P.W.7 took down the complaint to the dictation of P.W 1, and after reading out the same to P.W.1 got her thumb impression in the same. The said complaint has been marked as Exhibit P-4 in this case. After recording the first information report, P.W.7 went to the scene of occurrence, and found Ramaswami Servai lying dead with a number of cut injuries. Hence P.W. 7 proceeded to Nainarkoil Police Station and gave Exhibit P.3 to the writer of thePolice Station(P.W.10). After handing over Exhibit P-3 P.W.7 returned to the village and was near the dead body until the police arrived at the scene of occurrence. 5. According to P.W. 10, the station writter, while he was at Nainarkoil Police Station at about 5.15 p.m. on 5th May, 1978 P.W. 7 came to the Police Station and handed over the report Exhibit P-3.P, W.10 registered the case on the strength of Exhibit P-3 as Crime No. 370 of 1978 on the file of Nainarkoil Police Station under section 302, Indian Penal Code. After registering the case, P.W. 10 sent express reports to the superior authorities Exhibit P-3 and a copy of the first information report Were sent to the Court by about 6 P.M.on that day. A copy of the first information report was sent to the Inspector of Police, Ilayangudi. After despatching these express reports. P.W.10 sent a constable to the scene of occurrence for the purpose of guarding the dead body. 6. A copy of the first information report was sent to the Inspector of Police, Ilayangudi. After despatching these express reports. P.W.10 sent a constable to the scene of occurrence for the purpose of guarding the dead body. 6. P.W.11, the Sub-Inspector of Police, who was in charge of the Circle on that particular day, received the express report by about 8 p.m. That day, on receipt of the said report, P.W. 11 took up the investigation and visited the scene of occurrence at about 10.30 p.m. At the scene of occurrence, he saw P.W.7. P.W.11 sent constables for apprehending the accused, but the accused was not to be found. With the help of a pertromax light, P.W.11 prepared the observation mahazar Exhibit P-4. He also recovered M.O.2 (dhoti) M.O.3. (towel), M. O. 4 (Umbrella) and M.O.5. (Chappals) under Exhibit P-5. Exhibit P-9 is the rough plan prepared by the Sub-Inspector of Police. Between 1 a.m. and 5 a.m. on 6th May, 1978, P.W.11 held the inquest over the dead body of Ramaswami Servai. During inquest he examined P.Ws.l, 2,6,7 and others. Exhibit P-10 is the inquest report. After finishing the inquest, the Sub-Inspector sent the body to the Paramakudi Government Hospital with a requisition Exhibit P-l for the purpose of conducting the post mortem examination. 7. At about 7.30 a.m. on 6th May, 1978 P.W.12 (the Inspector of Police) came to the scene of occurrence, and took up further investigation. P.W.12 verified the investigation so far done by P.W.11 and examined P.W.3, P.W.4 one Sivagnanam and others. P.W.12 went to Paramakudi and examined the doctor. P.W.5 and also the constable (P.W.8) who took the dead body to the doctor. He sent the material objects seized by P.W.ll to the Court. He also gave a requisition to the Paramakudi Sub-Magistrate to sent the material objects for chemical analysis. 8. P.W.5, Dr. S.R.Mohan, Medical Officer attached to the Government Hospital, Paramakudi on the strength Of the requisition Exhibit P-1 received from P.W. 11, conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Ramaswami Servai at 3 p.m. on 6th May, 1978. P.W. 5 noticed the following external injuries: 1. An incised sharp edged injury on the back of the right shoulder 3“X 1½” X I“in size. 2. P.W. 5 noticed the following external injuries: 1. An incised sharp edged injury on the back of the right shoulder 3“X 1½” X I“in size. 2. A wide gaping cut injury on the right scapular area 6”X 3“X 1½” There was a fracture of right scapular, detached from its muscle attachment, obliquely placed. 3. An incised injury 2“X1”X ½“seen close to injury No.2 vertically placed. 4. An incised injury 4” XI“seen just below the injury No. 2 transversely placed. 5. An incised injury on the back of the left shoulder 2” X1“X1” vertically placed. 6. An incised gaping injury on the left axillary region, obliquely placed 4“X2” XI“in size. 7. An incised injury close to injury No. 5 l”X½“X½” in size. 8. A wide gaping incised injury of the right side neck extending obliquely from the middle of the front of the neck to the occipital prominence. The neck was hanging only with the left Side heck muscles. On dissection, it had severed all the neck, muscles, vessels and vertebra. 1st cervical, vertebra bad been completely detached from the 2nd one. 9. An obliquely placed incised injury on the right cheek, extending from the“chin to the right ear. There was fracture of right maxilla and mandible. 10. An obliquely placed incised injury on the right side occipital region 4”X½“X½” in size. 11. A wide gaping incised injury on the abdomen extending from the right anterior Superior iliac spine towards the epigastic fossa through which all the intestines had excelled out. P.W. 5 was the opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock; and haemorrhage On account of the multiple injuries especially due to the injuries on the neck and abdomen, viz.. injuries 8 and 11. According to the doctor,, death would have occurred about 30 hours prior to autopsy. P.W. 5 was further of the Opinion that all the injuries could have been caused by one and the same share edged weapon like an aruval, that injuries Nos. 8 and 11 were necessarily fatal and that death Would have been in stantaneous. Exhibit P.2 is the post mortem certificate issued by P.W. 5. 9. The accused surrenaered before the Sub-Magistrate’s Court at Ramanathapurarn, on 8th May, 1978. P.W. 12, the Inspector of Police, examined the accused at the Sub Jail, Bamarathapuram on 11th May, 1978. After the investigation, P.W. 2 filed the charge-sheet on 9th June,1978. 10. Exhibit P.2 is the post mortem certificate issued by P.W. 5. 9. The accused surrenaered before the Sub-Magistrate’s Court at Ramanathapurarn, on 8th May, 1978. P.W. 12, the Inspector of Police, examined the accused at the Sub Jail, Bamarathapuram on 11th May, 1978. After the investigation, P.W. 2 filed the charge-sheet on 9th June,1978. 10. When the accused was examined under section 313;Criminal Procedure Code he completely denied the offence alleged against him and stated that there was no enmity between him and his father, that he was not at all connected with this case, and that as he was told that a false has been faisted on him, he surrendered before the Court. The accused did not have any witness to examine on his side. 11. The learned Sessions Judge of Ramanathapuram Division at Madurai, on evidence of the prosecution, found the accused guilty under section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. 12. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred this appeal. 13. Mr. N. Natarajan, the learned Counsel appearing far the appellant, submits that there is inordinate delay in examining the eye witnesses, that the evidence of P.W. 2, is highly artificial and that P.W.2 could not have been present at the scene of occurrence. The learned counsel also criticised the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4 stating that they are tutored witnesses. Finally, the learned Counsel submitted that in any event, the offence committed by the accused would fall under Exception I to section 300, Indian Penal Code arid as such the accused can be convicted only under section 304, Indian Penal Code. 14. We have been taken through the judgment of the Court below and also the evidence oh record.P.W.1, the mother of the accused and also the wife of the deceased, who has given Exhibit P-3 to P.W.‘7 according to the prosecution, has turned hostile, Mr. Natarajan. the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that Exhibit P-3 should be taken into account for the purpose of finding out the actual words uttered by the deceased at about the time of the occurrence, and that from these words we can easily spell out grave and sudden provocation on the part of the accused. 15. Mr. Natarajan. the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that Exhibit P-3 should be taken into account for the purpose of finding out the actual words uttered by the deceased at about the time of the occurrence, and that from these words we can easily spell out grave and sudden provocation on the part of the accused. 15. Mr. Sivalingam, the learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand, submitted that Exhibit P-3 cannot at all be looked into, as it has not been proved that it was given by P.W.1. 16. We have carefully gone through the evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 7 and P.W. 11, which is relevant for this purpose. P.W.1 is stated to have given the complaint Exhibit P-3 to P.W.7 and it is stated by P.W.7 that he wrote down Ex.P-3 to the dictation of P.W.1: P.W. 11 the Sub Inspector of Police who first took up investigation, has questioned P.W.1 and took her statement. It is clear from the reported decisions that the first information report cannot be substantive evidence. P.W. 1 has denied having given any such statement. When cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor in the trial Court after treating her as a hostile witness, P.W.1 stated that her thumb impression was taken on a white paper, and that she has never made any statement to P.W.7, P.W.7 in his evidence has stated that he recorded Ex.P-3 to the dictation of P.W.1. He also stated that he took the thumb impression of P.W. 1 in Ex.P.3.P.W. 1 was not cross-examined by the prosecution with reference to Ex.P-3 at all. The cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor in the trial Court was with reference to her statement made to the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.W.11. There is no suggestion to P.W. 1 in her cross-examination by the prosecution that she gave Ex.P-3 to P.W. 7 and that what is contained in Ex.P-3 is as per her narration to P.W. 7. Nothing has been elicited in the chief-examination of P.W.7 with reference to the contents in Ex. P-3. P.W. 7 has only stated that Ex.P-3. was recorded by him to the dictation of P.W;1. There is absolutely no difficulty in coming to the conclusion, and it is also the prosecur tion case that Ex.P.3.is the first information reffer. The first information report can-not become substantive evidence. P-3. P.W. 7 has only stated that Ex.P-3. was recorded by him to the dictation of P.W;1. There is absolutely no difficulty in coming to the conclusion, and it is also the prosecur tion case that Ex.P.3.is the first information reffer. The first information report can-not become substantive evidence. It can be used either for corroboration or for contradicting the maker of it. P.W.1 has not been asked as to whether the thumb impression found on Ex.P.3. is that of her thumh impression. In the absence of evidence it is impossibly to construe that the prosecution has proved either the thumb impression inEx.P-3 as that of P.W.1 or the contents as given by P.W.1. Even apart from this, Ex. P-3 which is in the nature of the first information report, cannot be taken as substantive evidence, since nothing in Ex.P-3 was used either to corroborate or contradict the evidence of P.W.1. We may also note that P.W.1, apart from disowning Ex.P-3 has turned hostile in this case. Hence, in our opinion Ex.P-3, has to be eschewed completely and we cannot take into account any of the averments made in Ex. P-3. 17. The eye witnesses to the occurrence proper are P.Ws.2 and 3. As far as P.W.2 is concerned, he was examined even during the inquest itself. Mr.Natarajan, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, criticised the evidence of P.W.2 stating that P.W.2 has not come forward to inform either the Village Munsif or the police about the occurrence proper till 10 p.m. on the night of the occurrence. The occurrence took place at ablut 10 a.m. on 5th May, 1978. But P.W.2 was brought by the police from his house only at 10 p.m. that right when the police had arrived at the scene of occurrence for the purpose of holding the inquest. 18. The evidence of P.W.2 as regards the occurrence proper is cogent and clear. This witness has stated that while Ramaswajni Servai was coming after taking his bath in Siddhanendal Oorani, the accused was climbing the palmyrah tree belonging to Ramaswami Servai. This witness further states that P.W.1 was standing near the tree at that time. On seeing the accused climbing the tree, Ramaswami Servai the deceased scolded the accused beat him and pulled him down from tree with the help of the umbrella. This witness further states that P.W.1 was standing near the tree at that time. On seeing the accused climbing the tree, Ramaswami Servai the deceased scolded the accused beat him and pulled him down from tree with the help of the umbrella. It is the further evidence of P.W. 2 that the accused fell down from the tree and immediately thereafter, he got up, and with the aruval he had in his hand, dealt a blow on the right shoulder of the deceased. It is his further evidence that the deceased, after receiving this cut, ran towards east, but he fell down stumbling over the bund nearly. As soon as hefell down, the accused with the help of the aruval cut Ramaswami Servai on his neck, stomach and other parts of bis body. P.W.1 was shouting stating "Don’t cut, don’t cut.‘ This evidence of P.W. 2 has not been shaken in cross-examination. It is no doubt true that this witness, as stated by the learned Counsel for the appellant, did not inform anybody until he Was called by the police at about 10 p.m. on the night of hne occurrence. This witness, who is aged 22 years, got frightened and he was also threatened by the accused when he ran towards him at the time of the occurrence. P.W .2 states that he went to his house and slept and he was territly afraid and that is why he had not informed the same to anybody. From the circumstances of the case, we are of the. view that the evidence of P.W. 2 is trustworthy. The police after arriving at the scene of occurrence, brought to the scene of occurrence the Villagers and neighbours. In that process, the Sub-Inspector of Police and others have brought this witness also to the scene of occurrence. At the inquest itself, this witness had narrated the occurrence he had seen that morning. The only suggestion made in cross-examination to this witness is that he did not see the occurrence proper and that he is deposing falsely out of fear for the police. This suggestion was flatly denied bp P.W.2. We have absolutely no hesitation inplacing reliance on the testimony of this witness. 19. The only suggestion made in cross-examination to this witness is that he did not see the occurrence proper and that he is deposing falsely out of fear for the police. This suggestion was flatly denied bp P.W.2. We have absolutely no hesitation inplacing reliance on the testimony of this witness. 19. Apart from the evidence of P.W.2, we have the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4, P.W.3 along with his son Sivagnanam, had been to his land be about 7 a.m. on the occurrence day for the purpose of ploughing the same. This land is near the place where the occurrence has happened. According to this witness, he heard a noise by about 9 a.m. coming from the western side-When this witness and his son looked towards that direction, they saw the accused Kuma-resan chasing Ramaswami Servai, the deceased, from west to east. It is the further evidence of this witness that while Ramaswami Servai was running towards the east, he fell down stumbling over a bund. Immediately thereafter, the accused Kumare-san with the aruval cut on the stomach, neck and other parts of the body of Ramaswami Servai. This witness has also stated that at about that time P.W.2 came running towards the scene of occurrence. When the accused saw P.W.2 the accused stated that if P.W.2 came near him he would also cut him, on hearing these words, it is in the evidence of P.W.3, P.W.2 stopped and P.Ws.3 and 4 also stopped without going near the accused or the deceased. After this incident the accused ran with the aruval towards west. When P.W.3 and others went near Ramaswami Servai, they found that his life was extinct. Except suggesting to this witness that he had not seen the occurrence and that he is deposing falsely, no other suggestion has been made by the defence. This suggestion was flatly denied by P.VV.3. Mr.N.Nata-rajan the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, criticised this witness, statimg that he has not informed any body about the occurrence till about 10 am. the. next day. It is only at 10 A.M.on 6th May, 1978P.W.12, the Inspector of Police, examined him- But this witness has explained in his chief-examination itself as to why he has. not informed this to anybody. According to him, after seeing the incident he and his son went to their house. There was heavy rain. the. next day. It is only at 10 A.M.on 6th May, 1978P.W.12, the Inspector of Police, examined him- But this witness has explained in his chief-examination itself as to why he has. not informed this to anybody. According to him, after seeing the incident he and his son went to their house. There was heavy rain. Shortly thereafter, his son and himself had been to Ramanathapuram in order to pay the loan amount to the Co-operative Bank. After paying the loan amount at the Go-operative Bank situate at Ramanathapuram, P.W.3 along with his son, stayed with his another son at Ramanathapuram, and returned to the scene village the next day. On 6thMay, 1978, itself, the Inspector of Police, P.W.12, examined him-There is absolutely nothing strange in the explanation offered by this witness. The son had murdered his father and that too, in the presence of his own mother. There is no need for this witness to take up the responsibility of making the complaint when especially he had a pressing personal work at Ramanathapuram, as stated by him in his Chief-examination. We do nothave any hesitation to place reliance on the testimony of this witness. 20. The next witness examined by the prosecution is P.W.4. No doubt, this witness was not examined at the inquest. Only the next day at about 10 a.m. or 11 a.m. the police examined him. This witness saw the accused Tunning with an aruval and when he went near the scene of occurrence, he saw Ramaswami Ssrvai lying dead with cut injuries. P.W. 4. had gone to that place for the purpose of getting grass. Mr. N. Natarajan made a comment as regards this witness going near the scene of occurrence for cutting grass. It has been elicited in his cross-examination that he had told the police that he went to the scene of occurrence for the purpose of cutting grass. But P.W.12, the Inspector of Police, had stated that P. W. 4 did not say so, but stated that he went to the Scene of occurrence for the purpose of cutting leaves. P.W.4 has also told the Inspector of Police that he did not get any leaves and so he returned without the leaves. The discrepancy pointed out, in our view, will not in any way, affect the veracity of the evidence given by this witness. P.W.4 has also told the Inspector of Police that he did not get any leaves and so he returned without the leaves. The discrepancy pointed out, in our view, will not in any way, affect the veracity of the evidence given by this witness. Owing to faulty memory, this witness would have deposed before the Sessions Court that he went to gather "grass" instead of "leaves”. 21. As far as the delay in examining P.W.4. P.W.4 has stated that he got afraid about the incident and did not inform the same either to his brother or to his father or to his mother. In cross-examination, this witness stated that he did not know about the police making enquiries in the village, on the . date of the occurrence. 22. Thus, from the evidence of P.Ws.2, 3 and 4,we are convinced that the prosecution has brought out the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. We are also convinced that the accused was responsible for inflicting all the injuries deposed byP.W.5 the doctor, on Ramaswami Servai. We have extracted the injuries found on the body of Ramaswami Servai as descrided by the doctor in the paragraph supra. Ex.P-2 is the post mortem certificate issued by the doctor P.W.5. According to P.W.5, injuries; 8 and 11 are necessarily fatal and death would have been instantaneous. Thus, the prosecution, both through the eye witnesses and through the doctor P.W.5, has established that Ramaswami Servai died of homicidal violence and that the accused was responsible for causing his death. 23. We have next to consider as to whether the accused has committed the offence owing to grave and sudden provocation. Exceptional to section 300,‘Indian Penal, Code reads as follows: "Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident". 24. It has been observed by the authors who have written commentaries on this Exception to section 300., Indian Penal Code, that anger is a passion to which good, and bad men are both subject,and mere human frailty and infirmity ought not to be punished equally with ferocity or other evil feelings. 24. It has been observed by the authors who have written commentaries on this Exception to section 300., Indian Penal Code, that anger is a passion to which good, and bad men are both subject,and mere human frailty and infirmity ought not to be punished equally with ferocity or other evil feelings. Homicide committed in the sudden heat of passion on great provocation,-ought to be punished; but in general it ought not to be punished so severely as murder, it ought to be punished in order to teach men to entertain a peculiar respect for human life; itought to be punished in order to .give men a motive for accustoming themselves to govern their passions; [and in some few cases it ought to be punished with the utmost rigour. Especially if a person commits murder in a grave and sudden provocation, we have to consider the same as a temporary loss, and hot the permanent or utter absence of reason and self-control. Such loss of self-control must be shown by the defence to have been caused by the gravely and suddenly provocative acts or conduct of the victim. 25. Keeping the abovesaid principles in mind, we have to took into the evidence on record to see whether the exception pleaded by the learned Counsel for the appellant will enure to the benefit of the appellant herein. 26. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased, and the accused is the son of both P.W.1 and the deceased. The evidence of P.W.1 is that her son has studied upto 10th standard and that her son had not quarrelled with the deceased for over 20 years. The evidence of P.W. 2 is to the effect that the accused and P.W.1 were living separately from the deceased RamasWami Servai. According to this witness, they were living so far over a number of years. He has further stated that RannsWami Servai had a lot of properties. The deceased gave to the accused about three items of properties, two years prior to the occurrence and at about the time of the occurrence, the deceased had taken back those properties from the accused. He has further stated that RannsWami Servai had a lot of properties. The deceased gave to the accused about three items of properties, two years prior to the occurrence and at about the time of the occurrence, the deceased had taken back those properties from the accused. After taking back the properties from the accused, it is in the evidence of P.W.2, the deceased mortgaged the properties to Siva-gnanam- It is the further evidence of this witness that on the date of the occurrence, RamasWami Servai pulled down the accused from.the tree with the help of art umbrella while the accused was climbing the tree belonging to the deceased. It is also the further evidence of P.W. 2 that: the deceased scolded the accused at the time when he pulled him down from the ; tree-:. The, accused fell down. Immedia- teiy thereafter it is in the evidence- of P. W.2, the accused cut on the right shoulder of the deceased and also chased him and cut him subsequently as we have described in the paragraphs supra. In cross-examination, P.W.2. has specifically stated that the deceal sed Ramaswami Servai has not only taken back the lands given to the accused, but also was spending the money indiscreetly. 27. P.W.3, in his evidence, has stated that the deceased had taken back the lands from the accoused and had given them to the son of P.W.3 and another on mortgage. This witness had also stated that the deceased Ramaswami Servai was spending unnecessarily the income from his properties. In cross-examination, this witness has further stated that when his son Arunachalam took the land on othi from the deceased, the accused was displeased over the same. 28. P.W. 6, who is also a resident of Chaturvedamangalam, has stated that the deceased was spending the income from his properties unnecessarily and that the deceased was taking his food in the house of this witness for about four months prior to the occurn rence. It is the further evidence of P. W 6 that ten days prior to the occurrence the accused Kumaresan came to his father’s house and demanded a share in the properties. The deceased refused to give any property. The accused, according to the evidence of P. W. 6 left the place stating that he would see the deceased at the proper place. The deceased refused to give any property. The accused, according to the evidence of P. W. 6 left the place stating that he would see the deceased at the proper place. This witness has also stated that the deceased had taken back the land which he had given to the accused four years prior to the occurrence and gave it to the son of P.W. 3 on mortgage The evidence given by these witnesses, apart from proving a strong motive for the accused to commit the murder of the deceased, establishes that the accused did not do anything until the date of the occurrence and there was absolutely no direct quarrel or show of violence by the accused to the deceased. In this background we have to consider as to how and why the accused thought it fit to attack the deceased brutally on the date of the occurrence. The evidence on record clearly .establishes that the deceased, after marrying P.W.1, the mother of the accused, left her without even protecting her, from the date of birth of the accused. P.W.1 has educatedthe accused upto the 10th standard . Was protecting him. In this stage of affairs, the deceased had also taken back the land Which he had given given to the accused four years prior to the occurrence, and gave it to the son of P.W.3 on mortgage. The accused had also demanded some property from the deceased, and this is spoken by P.W.3. The prosecution witnesses have clearly stated that the deceased without giving a pie for the maintenance of P.W.1 and the accused, was spending the income from the properties indiscreetly and unnecessarily. On the date of the occurrence, the accused had gone to the palmyrah tree belonging to the deceased and was trying to cut the palmyrah leaves in order to cover their hut. P.W.1 was then standing near the tree. The deceased, who had already wounded the feelings of P.W.1 and the accused who were in a poor condition, came that way after taking bath in the oorani nearby and scolded the accused. The scolding by the deceased is spoken to by P.W.2. Not only did the deceased scolded the accused, but he also pulled him down from the tree with the help of the umbrella he Was having. On account of this, the accused fell down. The scolding by the deceased is spoken to by P.W.2. Not only did the deceased scolded the accused, but he also pulled him down from the tree with the help of the umbrella he Was having. On account of this, the accused fell down. Immediately, the accused who was having suppressed emotions all the while, was provoked by the deceased and as a result of which he cut the deceased on his right shoulder with the aruval he was having. Even though the accused has chased the deceased to a certain distance and cut him several times, all these things took place in the spite of a second before the violent passion could subside. It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused sought for the aruval and went in search of the deceased for the purpose of committing the murder. The whole thing happened due to the behaviour and provocative Words of the deceased himself. Viewed in the background of this case, the behaviour of the deceased and the words uttered by him clearly spell out that there was a grave and sudden provocation on the part of the accused as a result of which he cut the deceased Rama-swami Sarvai on his shoulders, stomach and neck. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we are inclined to give the benefit of Exception I to section 300, Indian Penal Code. We, therefore, modify the conviction imposed by the learned Sessions Judge into one under section 304 (Part I), Indian Penal Code. 29. In the result, we convict the appellant under section 304 (Part I), Indian Penal Code. and sentence him to undergo imprisonment for a period of five years. Subject to the modification regarding the conviction and sentence, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.