JUDGMENT 1. The appellant in this case has made a clean breast of the crime by the following statement in answer to the last question put to him, under S. 313. Cr. P. C. " eSaus dSyk'kh dks ekjk Fkk ysfdu ns[kus okyk dksbZ ugha FkkA xokgku >waB cksyrs gSaA eSa mWaV xkM+h ij dke djus tk jgk Fkk eSaus mls jksVh cukus dks dgk rks dSyk'kh cksyh fd eSa rsjh vkSjr ugha gwWa " tks rsjh tSjckuh gks mlls jksVh cuok bl ij eq>s xqLlk vk x;k& eSa mYVh nkWaryh ls ekjuk pkgrk Fkk ysfdu lh/kh yx xbZ& vkSj dqN ugha dguk gSA 2. In view of the above, Shri Vimal Chaudhary, the learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the appellant, has not challenged the finding of the trial Court that, the appellant is responsible for the death of his own wifeKailashi. Even then we have examined the record of the case and gone through the statements of Srinarain (PW 1), Ramhet Lal (PW 2), Mst. Bhonri (PW 3), Veerpal (PW 4), Badrilal (PW 5), Sripal (PW 6), Babukhan (PW 7), Lilaram, ASI (PW 8), Kailash Chand (PW 9), Dr. P. C. Sethi (PW 10). 3. We are convinced that the finding of the trial court that the accused-Prabhualal S/o Sanwalia is responsible for the death of his wife Kailashi is well founded on the evidence and no interference is required. So now, the finding arrived at by the learned trial Court, that the act of the accused cannot be covered by S. 304, IPC and the accused is guilty of the offence under S. 302, IPC requires consideration. 4. It is obvious that so far as the evidence is concerned, nothing has come on record to show as to what was the real motive of crime. The witnesses have not stated the genesis of the crime. In view of that, we have got no hesitation in accepting the statement made under S. 313 Cr. P, C., by the accused. Wherein he has made a clean-breast and admitted to have killed his wife and then mentioned the circumstances, in which it was done. 5. The witnesses have not stated the genesis of the crime. In view of that, we have got no hesitation in accepting the statement made under S. 313 Cr. P, C., by the accused. Wherein he has made a clean-breast and admitted to have killed his wife and then mentioned the circumstances, in which it was done. 5. The circumstances put in answer to the last question in the statement of the accused are that he asked her wife to serve him meals but his wife refused to do so with a taunt that she is not his wife he should expect services of the food only from his kept wife (Rakhil). 6. The submission of Shri Chaudhary is that the circumstances put in answer to the last question would enrage and infuriate the accused and the words used by the wife of the accused would amount to grave and sudden provocation causing deprivation of the power of self-control of the accused, who inflicted injuries on Kailashi, his own wife and therefore, the case is covered by exception of Section 300, IPC. Which runs as under : Exception 1. When culpable homicide is not murder 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. The above exception is subject to the following provisions: First - That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person. Secondly - That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law; or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the power of such public servant. Thirdly - That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence. 7. Secondly - That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law; or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the power of such public servant. Thirdly - That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence. 7. In support of his contention, Shri Chaudhary has placed reliance upon the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Atmaram v. The State (AIR 1967 Punjab & Haryana 508) wherein their Lordships held, that it could not be denied that I the foul words uttered by the deceased woman to her husband that he should have satisfied his lust with his sister would be sufficient to provoke such a degree of frenzy aid resentment in the man situated in the position of the accused as would make him lose all power of self control and that the offence committed by the accused was not murder but one which was covered by the provisions of S. 304, part I of Penal Code. 8. We would not like to express any opinion so far as the expression of the learned Judges is concerned, that even now in villages, the women are treated as chattels and personal properties, as in our opinion, this is to be deprecated and judicial recognition would only encourage it. 9. However, we have got no hesitation in acknowledging and accepting as a fact in the conditions of Society where the challenge by the wife to the husband for serving the food and further the taunt that he should expect from the kept wife could have caused grave and sudden provocation though it may not be justified and in the present age it requires changed outlook. 10. We are of the opinion that the admission of the accused taken, as a whole, certainly constitutes the great grave and sudden provocation for him and as he was suddenly enraged and the fatal blow has clearly been traced to the influence of passion arising from that provocation and the accused has struck in the heat of passion, the offence would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder and, not murder. 11. 11. The accused Prabhulal, in the instant case, used the weapon of scythe (Dantali) which is sharp edged weapon and struck the three successive blows and, therefore, it would be assumed that he intended to cause such bodily injury which was likely to cause death even though he may have no such intention to cause such death. 12. In view of the above, the accused Prabhulal's offence would fall under Section 300 Exception 1 of, IPC. Consequently, the appeal is partially allowed. The conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur camp at Gangapur City, under Section 302, IPC is set aside. But, the accused Prabhulal S/o Sanwalia, b/c Mali, Resident of Naogaon P. S. Gangapur is convicted and sentenced under Section 304, Pt. II, IPC to undergo eight years' rigorous imprisonment. The accused appellant Prabhulal would get benefit of Section 428 Cr. P. ring which he remained in jail during trial, inquiry, investigation, and after conviction. *******