R. N. Aggarwal, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant Bhupinder Singh was tried byshri D. C. Aggarwal, Additional Sessions Judge, on the charge of murderingmanjit Kaur, alias Billo, resident of A-308, Pandav Nagar, Delhi. Theadditional Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offence charged withand sentenced him to imprisonment for lile. Against his conviction andsentence the accused has filed this appeal. ( 2 ) THE case for the prosecution is this. Gian Kaur (PW 1) with herfamily including the daughter Manjit Kaur resided at A-308, Pandav Nagar,manjit Kaur was married to Amrik Singh of Bharatpur. She left Amrik Singhsome years back and started living with the mother. Manjit Kaur marriedtilak Raj of West Patel Nagar and lived with him for some years. Manjit Kauralso left Tilak Raj and again returned to the house of her mother. Accusedbhupinder Singh was a friend of Kuldip Singh (brother of Manjit Kaurbhupinder Singh used to visit Kuldip Singh and during his visits he came toknow Manjit Kaur. They developed intimacy with each other and about22 months before the occurrence they married and started living as husbandand wife in the upper room of house A-308, Pandav Nagar. ( 3 ) THE case for the prosecution further is that on 11/08/1980 therewas a quarrel between Manjit and Bhupinder over money and Manjit said tobhupinder that if he could not bear her expenses she would go to Tilak Raj. Manjit left on 11/08/1980 and returned to 12/08/1980 at about1. 30 p. m. On the asking of the mother as to where she had gone thereafterwent upstairs. After about half-an-hour both Bhupicder and Manjit camedown and talked to each other outside the house. Bhupinder asked Manjit notto visit other men in future but she did not obey him and left. Bhupinderwent back to his room. Manjit returned the next day, i. e. 13/08/1980at about 9. 30 p. m. and went upstairs. ( 4 ) THE case of Gian Kaur further is that at about 12. 30 am. she heardthe shrieks of her daughter hai Maa MAIN MAAR DEE . Gian Kaur rushedupstairs. She found the room bolted from inside. She peeped inside theroom through the chinks in the door and saw Bhupinder Singh giving kirpanblow on the chest of Manjit. Gian Kaur forced the door open and she sawbhupinder holding a kirpan in his hand. 30 am. she heardthe shrieks of her daughter hai Maa MAIN MAAR DEE . Gian Kaur rushedupstairs. She found the room bolted from inside. She peeped inside theroom through the chinks in the door and saw Bhupinder Singh giving kirpanblow on the chest of Manjit. Gian Kaur forced the door open and she sawbhupinder holding a kirpan in his hand. On the asking of Gian Kaur as towhat he had done Bhupinder replied that he bad taught her a lesson for goingout and thereafter ran away. ( 5 ) GIAN Kaur went to the police station and made a cryptic reportex Public Witness 17/a that her son-in-law had injured her daughter Manjit Kaur with aknife. Assistant Sub-Inspector Didar Singh reached the spot and he recordedthe detailed statement Ex. Public Witness 5/a of Gian Kaur. The Assistant Sub-Inspectoralongwith his endorsement Ex. Public Witness 17/b sent the report Ex. Public Witness 5/a to thepolice station for normal registration of the case on the basis of which theformal report Ex. Public Witness 5/b was recorded at 2. 20 am. ( 6 ) THE accused was arrested on 14/08/1980 from near Shadipurbridge and he was found wearing pant P-7 and shirt P-8. The pant was foundstained with blood. On chemical examination the blood on the pant was found. to be human blood. The blood group could not be determined. ( 7 ) PUBLIC Witness 4 Dr. Ramani conducted the post-mortem on the dead body ofmanjit Kaur on 14/08/1980 at 3. 30 p. m. and he found the followinginjuries on her person : "1. Incised wound l/2 x2/10xmuscle deepen the left side frontof the chest 2i" above the left nipple. 2. Incised wound 3/4" X 2/10" X just below the left nipple. 3. Incised wound li"x 1/4" x on the left costal margin. 4. Incised wound 2" x2/10" X muscle deep on the middle of leftarm. 5. Incised wound l"xl/2"xmuscle deep on the left arm 2 inchesabove the front of left elbow. 6. Incised wound 11" X I/2"x muscle deep on the medical side ofthe left knee. 7. Incised wound 1"x 1/2" X muscle deep on the laternal aspect ofleft thigh. 8. lccised wound I" x^"x muscle deep on the left knee laternalaspect. 9. Incised would 2^"x I" muscle deep on the middle of shin. ( 8 ) THE doctor gave the opinion that injury no. 7. Incised wound 1"x 1/2" X muscle deep on the laternal aspect ofleft thigh. 8. lccised wound I" x^"x muscle deep on the left knee laternalaspect. 9. Incised would 2^"x I" muscle deep on the middle of shin. ( 8 ) THE doctor gave the opinion that injury no. 2 was sufficient to causedeath in the ordinary course of nature. The other injuries were found to besimple. ( 9 ) PUBLIC Witness 2 Amrik Singh is the first husband of Manjit Kaur. Public Witness 2 gaveevidence that he was married to Manjit in the year 1964-65 and she remainedwith him as his wife for 8 or 9 years and that thereafter she deserted him. Hefurther testified that Manjit was a woman of loose character and she hadbecome a vagabond. ( 10 ) PUBLIC Witness 1 Tilak Raj is alleged to be the second husband of Manjit Kaur. PW I gave evidence that he had known Manjit Kaur but he had no illicitrelations with her. The witness was declared hostile and was cross-examinedby the public prosecutor. In cross-examination by the counsel for the accusedpw 1 stated that Manjit Kaur had illicit relations with Inder Raj who wasresident of C-162, West Patel Nagar and she waslivingwithhim. PW14kuldip Singh, brother of Manjit gave evidence that Manjit was married toamrik Singh and she became vagabond and deserted Amrik Singh, that afterdeserting Amrik Singhshe started living with them at A-308, Pandav Nagar,that thereafter she started living with Tilak Raj in his house house at Westpatel Nagar, that she also deserted Tilak Raj and started moving withbhupinder Singh. ( 11 ) AS regards the Occurrence, Public Witness 14, stated that on the night of13th- 14/08/1980 he was sleeping in his house and that he had heard anoise that his sister had been murdered by some one, but he had not seen anyperson causing injuries to her. Kuldip Singh was also declared hostile and wascross-examined by the Additional Public Prosecutor, Kuldip Singh in crossexamination by the counsel for the accused stated that they used to ask Manjitkaur not to stay out in the night but she never agreed to their request and"continued visiting people outside during night. Kuldip Singh was also declared hostile and wascross-examined by the Additional Public Prosecutor, Kuldip Singh in crossexamination by the counsel for the accused stated that they used to ask Manjitkaur not to stay out in the night but she never agreed to their request and"continued visiting people outside during night. ( 12 ) PUBLIC Witness 16, Gian Kaur, mother of the deceased, gave evidence thatmanjit Kaur was first married to one Anank Singh and that after she leftamrik Singh she started living with Tilak Raj of Patel Nagar as his wife andthat Manjit also left Tilak Raj and thereafter started living with Bhupindersingh as his wife. Gian Kaur deposed that Manjit Kaur and Bhupinder usedto live in the upper room as husband and wife. She further testified that onthe morning of 11/08/1980 Manjit had left for Jahangirpuri and hadreturned on 12th August, 19^0 at about 10 or II p. m. and that she bad againleft and returned on 13th August at about 9. 30 p. m. ( 13 ) THE above discussed evidence shows that Manjit Kaur was a womanof loose character and she was in the habit of staying out for days and nightstogether with other men. ( 14 ) THERE are three witnesses to the occurrence. Public Witness 10 Sadhu Ram,pw II Karan Singh and Public Witness 16 Gian Kaur. PWs 10 and II lived in theneighbourhood of Public Witness 16. Public Witness 10 gave evidence that on the night of 13th 1 4/08/1980 he was sleeping outside his house and he was aroused from hissleep on hearing the noise and alarm and that he ran towards A-308, Pandavnagar and he was Bhupinder Singh from his back running away. The witnessfurther stated that Manjit Kaur and Bhupinder Singh were living as husbandand wife for the fast about 3 or 4 months. In cross-examination the witnessstated that earlier he had never gone to the house of Manjit Kaur and that onthe night of the occurrence he had gone to her house for the first time. Thewitness further deposed that Manjit Kaur was living with Tilak Raj for 3 or 4months before the incident. ( 15 ) PUBLIC Witness II supported the statement of Public Witness 10. Thewitness further deposed that Manjit Kaur was living with Tilak Raj for 3 or 4months before the incident. ( 15 ) PUBLIC Witness II supported the statement of Public Witness 10. In cross-examination thewitness stated that his house is in the third land of the house of Manjit Kaur,and that he had "erlier never gone to the house of Manjit Kaur, and that healso not known the accused. ( 16 ) PUBLIC Witness 16 Gian Kaur gave evidence that on hearing the shrieks ofmanjit she had gone upstairs and seen Bhupinder Singh giving blows withkirpan to Manjit Kaur. ( 17 ) EX. Public Witness 17/a is the earliest report that was made by Gian Kaur atpolice station. The said report was recorded at 12. 15 a. m. The report madewas that her son-in-law had injured Manjit Kaur by causing injuries with aknife. The name of the son-in-law is not given. The statement Ex. Public Witness 5/awas recorded sometime at 2 in the night. Public Witness 14 Kuldip Singh has not supportedthe prosecution case at all. Public Witness 14 gave evidence that tie did not see any personcausing injuries to Manjit Kaur. The presence of Kuldip Singh in the house atthe time of the occurrence is both natural and probable. It is a little amazingthat Gian Kaur did not awake Kuldip Singh and told him of what badhappened. Public Witness 14 Kuldip Singh does not say that Bhupinder Singh livedalongwith Manjit Kaur in the upper room of the house. The testimony ofpws 10 and 11 regarding living of Manjit Kaur and Bhupinder Singh togther inthe house is not very convincing. PWs 10 and 11 in cross-examinationadmitted that they had never earlier gone to the house of Manjit Kaur. Infact, Public Witness 10 says that Manjit Kaur was living with Tilak Raj for the last 3 or4 months before the incident. On the evidence produced on the record it maynot be safe to hold that Bhupinder Singh and Manjit Kaur were living togetherin the upper room of the house as husband and wife. It is possible thatbhupinder Singh also had picked up friendship with Manjit Kaur and he maybe visiting her. From the evidence of Gian Kaur it is clear that on 11th and 12/08/1980 Manjit Kaur had stayed out even during the night and shebad returned to the house on the 13/08/1980 at about 9. It is possible thatbhupinder Singh also had picked up friendship with Manjit Kaur and he maybe visiting her. From the evidence of Gian Kaur it is clear that on 11th and 12/08/1980 Manjit Kaur had stayed out even during the night and shebad returned to the house on the 13/08/1980 at about 9. 30 p. m. Manjitkaur was leading an extremely loose life and, in our opinion. It may not besafe to hold that the time of the occurrence it was only Bhupinder who waswith Manjit Kaur. The possibility that Tilak Raj or some other person mayhave come to visit Manjit Kaur cannot be ruled out. ( 18 ) THERE is another angle to the case. Even assuming that it wasbhupinder Singh who had committed the crime there is sufficient materialon the record showing that the crime was committed on a suddenand grave provocition. Manjit Kaur in her first statement to the police (PW 5/a) has stated that on 11/08/1980 Bhupinder bad told Manjit thatshe should not visit other men in the future but she had not obeyedhim and left the house and that thereafter she had come on 13/08/1980 at about 9. 30 p. m. It is possible that Bhupinder may have askedher as to where she had gone and on being told that she had gone totilak or some other men Bhupinder may have lost his control onhis passions and committed the crime. The state of the mind of the person haslo be gathered from the proved facts we are of the considered view that on thefacts and circumstances appearing in the case a man in the position ofbhupinder Singh could lose the power of self control and commit the crime,it is true that in this case there is no pleas by the accused that he had actedon grave and sudden provocation but we find that there is sufficient materialon the record for the inference that the crime was the outcome of grave andsudden provocation. ( 19 ) FOR the reasons stated we allow the appeal and set aside theconviction and sentence of the appellant and direct that he be set at liberty.