JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal by Mohan, who has been convicted and sentenced under Section 302 IPC. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that a report was lodged on July 16, 1979 by Radhey Shyam in the Police Station Ramganj Mandi alleging that he alongwith others went to Ramganj Mandi for seeing the picture in Cinema House. He was accompanied by Mohan, Satya Narain, Bhanwar Lal, Kailash and Prabhu. After seeing the picture Ram Kasam in Narain Talkies from 6.00 to 9.00 they went to Basant Talkies. Satya Narain and Bhanwar Lal than saw the picture Gangasagar in Basant. Talkies and other six went to Railway Station, Ramganj Mandi. 3. Jagdish on the plate form told Mohan that though he was Gujar by caste, he was having illicit relations with Chameli, who was Bhil Thakur by caste. There was altercation between Jagdish and Mohan which ultimately resulted in taking out a knife from trousers by Mohan and than Mohan stabbed Jagdish in his chest. Mohan ran away thereafter with the knife, Kailash, Prabhu and Latoo, who were present on the scene of occurrence, went to Basant Talkies and brought Satya Narain and Bhanwar Lal brother of Tagdish. Jagdish was unconscious. He was taken to Hospital, Ramganj Mandi. But before reaching the hospital Jagdish breathed his last. 4. A case was registered and after investigation the challan was filed. On commitment a charge was framed under section 302 IPC and 120 Railways Act against the accused, who denied the charge. The prosecution examined in all 13 witnesses and recorded the statement of the accused under section 313 Cr. PC. The accused pleaded that the witnesses were relatives and therefore, they were implicating him. 5. On the detailed consideration of the trustworthy evidence of the Prosecution the trial Court arrived at the conclusion that it was the accused Mohan Lal, who committed the murder of Jagdish by causing knife injury in the chest. The trial Cour, therefore, convicted the accused Mohan under Section 302 IPC and sentenced imprisonment for life. So far as the offence under section 120 Railways Act the appellant was acquitted. 6. Before this Court, Mr. Mehrish and Mrs. Shanta Gupta appearing for the accused have confined their submissions on the short point about the offence being under section 304 IPC only instead of under section 302 IPC. So far as the offence under section 120 Railways Act the appellant was acquitted. 6. Before this Court, Mr. Mehrish and Mrs. Shanta Gupta appearing for the accused have confined their submissions on the short point about the offence being under section 304 IPC only instead of under section 302 IPC. It was pointed out that obviously accused as well as the deceased were friends. They went to see the picture in the cinema together and they came out from the Cinema shot together on the plate form. There was no preplan or any earlier intention to commit any crime. It was pointed out that suddenly when they reached the plate form the deceased rebuked the accused for having illicit relations with Chameli inspite of the fact that the deceased was Gujar and Chameli was Bhil Thakur. This character and rebuke from the side of the deceased provoked the accused, who could not digest it and consequently he took out the knife which already he had, but gave only one blow in the chest of the deceased, which proved fatal. 7. Learned counsel on the basis of the above premises which are findings of the trial court and supported by the evidence of the prosecution also, submitted that the case cannot travel beyond Section 304 Part II. 8. The learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the appeal. According to him, there was enough time in between the alleged altercation between accused and the deceased and the injury caused to the deceased. It was also argued that in any case it cannot be said that it was such a case of sudden provocation. 9. We have given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. There is no doubt that the occurrence took place on the spur of moment without any prior meditation or planning. It is also undisputed that both the deceased and the accused came together and were friends and it was only the above altercation took place that the accused took out the knife which was again with him m his trousers. The fact that only one blow was given, is also significant. It is also undisputed that both the deceased and the accused came together and were friends and it was only the above altercation took place that the accused took out the knife which was again with him m his trousers. The fact that only one blow was given, is also significant. The language of the rebuke used by the deceased certainly cast aspersion on the character of the accused and therefore we are inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the accused-appellant that the occurrence took place on account of sudden and grave provocation. Consequently, we convert the conviction of the accused-appellant from Section 302 IPC to 304 Part I IPC. 10. We have been informed that the accused had already undergone the sentence of more than 5 years. The accused is a young lad of 19 years of age. In view of his young age and the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case we feel that it would meet the ends of justice if the accused is released on the sentence already undergone. 11. The appeal is partly allowed and the appellant is released on the sentence already undergone by him if not required in any other case. *******