JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal by accused Ratansingh against the judgment of the learned Session Judge, Merta dated May 5, 1982 convicting the appellant under section 304 Part-I, IPC and sentencing him to eight years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further undergo three months like imprisonment. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that the deceased-victim Lalsingh was a resident of village Ladpur, Distt. Nagaur. The accused is also a resident of the same village. The relations between them were strained due to their loyalty to different factions of the village. 3. On 5-3-81, the ration sugar was being sold in the Dharamshala of village Ladpur. P.W. 2 Bajranglal was selling the sugar, while P.W. 6 Ram Copal was making entries in the Sale Register. P.W.. 7 Mangilal was weighing the sugar. P.W. 1 Malasingh and some other persons were also there. The accused came there a little before 7 p.m. and purchased the sugar. He then sat in the room, in which the sugar was being weighed and started helping in taking the sugar out of the bags. At about 7 p.m. the deceased-victim Lalsingh also came there to take sugar. Seeing the accused distributing the sugar, he refused to take sugar. He asked Bajranglal and others to drive out the :accused from the room. He said, he would not take the sugar as it has become impute due to touch of the accused. He also addressed abusive and insulting words to the accused. The accused came out of the room and struck two blows with a dhariya on the neck of the victim and one on his back. He thereafter ran away. Lalsingh fell down and there was profuse bleeding from his wounds. His clothes got red with the blood. The injuries proved fatal and he passed away then and there within a few minutes. P.W. 8 Raghunath Singh the brother of the deceased, on being apprised of the incident, immediately went to police station, Makarana and lodged written report Ex. P/12 of the occurrence at about 00.40 hrs. in that very night. The police registered a case and proceeded with investigation. The Station House Officer- P.W. 10 Shrerusingh immediately rushed to the scene of occurrence and prepared the inquest report. He also prepared the site-plan. The blood-stained catch and the clothes of the deceased were seized and sealed. P/12 of the occurrence at about 00.40 hrs. in that very night. The police registered a case and proceeded with investigation. The Station House Officer- P.W. 10 Shrerusingh immediately rushed to the scene of occurrence and prepared the inquest report. He also prepared the site-plan. The blood-stained catch and the clothes of the deceased were seized and sealed. The post-mortam examination of victim's dead- body was conducted on 6-3-81 by P.W. 9 Dr. A.K. Sharma the then Medical Officer-in- charge, Government Dispensary, Makhana. He noticed injuries on the neck and back of the victim's body caused by some sharp object. In his opinion, the cause of death was hemorrhage due to extensive injuries to the neck involving big vessels:. The post-mortam examination report is Ex. P13. The accused was arrested on 11-3-81. In consequence of the information furnished by him, while under police costody, Dhariya (Ex. 1) with which the offence as committed, was recovered from his house, On the conclusion of investigation, the police submitted a challan against the accused in the court of the Munasif and Judicial Magistrate, Makarana who in his turn committed the case for trial to the court of Session ,Judge, Merta. The framed judge framed a charge under section 302. IPC against the accused to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed absolute innocence. He put forward the defence of "Alibi' and averred that he was in some other village at the time of the alleged occurrence. According to him, he was falsely implicated due to his strained relations with the deceased-victim. During trial, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses while in defence 2 witnesses were examined. On the conclusion of trial, the learned Judge held that the accused had caused the death of the victim, but that was on account of grave and sudden provocation given by the victim. He held that the victim had addressed abusive, filthy and insulting words; such as untouchable', 'dishonest' and 'enemy' to the accused. He. therefore, found that the act of the accused amounted to an offence under section 304-I and not under section 302, IPC. The plea of alibi was rejected as being totally false. The accused was, consequently, convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. Hence, this appeal. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused-appellant and the Public Prosecutor. I have also gone through the case file carefully. 5. The plea of alibi was rejected as being totally false. The accused was, consequently, convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. Hence, this appeal. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused-appellant and the Public Prosecutor. I have also gone through the case file carefully. 5. In the memo of appeal, the accused challenged his conviction. But keeping in view the overwhelming evidence of the four eye-witnesses viz. P.W.1 Mal Singh, P.W. 2 Bajranglal, P.W. 6 Ram Gopal and P.W. 7 Manglilal and the extra judicial confession of the accused trade before Gunianarani (P. W. 3). The learned counsel appearing for the accused thought it proper not to challenge the conviction. We frankly conceded that lie was unable to assail the conviction. The learned counsel confined his arguments only on the question of sentence. It was urged that the sentence awarded was unduly harsh and heavy. What was done by the accused sax in a fit of anger and momentary impulse. As such, a lenient view in the matter of sentence should be adopted. 6. In reply, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that for an offence tinder section 304-1. the sentence of 8 years can, by no means, be said to be excessive and no reduction is, therefore, called for. 7. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the respective submissions. The acequacy of punishment has always remained a baffling question. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to what would be adequate punishment in a given case. However certain broad factors such as gravity of offence, the circumstances in which it was committed the presence of aggravating and extenuating circumstances, the age of the accused, the provocation, if any, and like such things have sprung up from judicial pronouncement, which furnish guide-lines, are taken into consideration in awarding the punishment. The court should pass such sentence as his crime in each case. The punishment must be neither too severe nor too lenient. Attempt should be made to have a proportion between the gravity of the offence and punishment imposed. 8. It would be profitable here to have a reference to the golden rule of ancient Hindu, Jurisprudence in matter of awarding punishment. The punishment must be neither too severe nor too lenient. Attempt should be made to have a proportion between the gravity of the offence and punishment imposed. 8. It would be profitable here to have a reference to the golden rule of ancient Hindu, Jurisprudence in matter of awarding punishment. Manu-the first Jurist of global eminence and recognition said Centuries ago in Chapter VIII of his Manu-smriti:- vuqcU/ku ifjKk; ns'k dkykS prRor%A Lokjk ijk/kkS pkyksD; n.M n.Mns"kq ikrnsr~A Translated into English, it means that while awarding the punishment, the piece, time, nature of offence and such like matters should be taken into consideration. This is more or less in consonance with the modern guide-lines in the matter of awarding the punishment. 9. Now, in the instant case, what the accused did, was in a fit of anger and momentary stimulus. The deceased-victim addressed disperging and insulting abusive words to the accused, such as 'untouchable', 'enemy' and dis-honest'. At times, bitter words hit harder than the bullet. One may bear an injury to his exterior but it is difficult to chew the injury to his inner self. It was the deceased- victim, who had invited the whole trouble. Had he not addressed disperging and insulting abuses to the accused, there was no occasion for the accused to hit him. The accused was deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation given by the victim. It was the stimulus at his instance, which invited his killing. 'Taking all the factors into consideration, the sentence of eight years appears to lie somewhat excessive. The ends of justice would be evenly balanced, if it is reduced to six years. 10. In the result, the appeal of accused Ratan Singh is partly allowed. His conviction tinder Section 304 Part-I, IPC is maintained, but that sentence of eight years is reduced to six years. The sentence of fine is maintained. *******