BEHERA, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant stands convicted under section 302 of Indian Penal Code (for short, the Code) with having committed the murder of his wife Darpani on April 17, 1985 at Nuamanitri in the district of Dhenkanat by dealing a blow on her person by means of an axe (MO. I,) and sentenced there under to undergo imprisonment for life by thet Court of Session which had accepted the version of the prosecution based on the clear and acceptable evidence of the sole witness to the occurrence, namely, P. W. 3, who had spoken about the assault by the appellant on his wife by means of an axe and that of P. Ws. 4 and 5, two neighbours of the appellant, who were independent witnesses having no axe to grind against the appellant, with regard to an extra- judicial confession made by the appellant that be had killed his wife by an axe. ( 2 ) MR. B. S. Misra, the learned counsel for the appellant, has not seriously challenged the unassailable findings of facts recorded by the trial Court, but bas urged that the appellant had not committed an offence of murder punishable under section 302 of the Code, but had committed the act while being deprived of his power of self-control by the grave and sudden provocation offered by the deceased and had the knowledge that by his act, he was likely to cause the death of the deceased and could thus be convicted for culpable homicide not amounting to murder coming under the second part of section 304 of the Code. ( 3 ) THE test of grave and sudden provocation is whether a reasonable man belonging to the same Glass of society as the accused, placed in the situation in which the accused was placed, would be so provoked as to lose his self-control. In India, words and gestures may also, under certain circumstances cause grave and sudden provocation to an accused so as to bring his act within the first Exception to section 300 of the Code (See K. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra1 ). In India, words and gestures may also, under certain circumstances cause grave and sudden provocation to an accused so as to bring his act within the first Exception to section 300 of the Code (See K. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra1 ). ( 4 ) IT is an unfortunate case in which without any plan or premeditation, the appellant had killed his wife as the latter quarreled with the father of the appellant and inspite of protest of the appellant, abused his father in abusive languages where after also the adpellant's intervention was of no avail and the deceased continued to quarrel. It was in such circumstances that the appellant went inside his house, brought out an axe and dealt but one blow on the neck of the deceased which unfortunately proved fatal. He had undoubtedly committed the act while being deprived of his power of self control as a result of the grave and sudden provocation offered by the deceased. The case would clearly be coveted by the first Exception to section 300 of the Code. ( 5 ) AS has been held by this Bench in State of Orissa v. Prahalad Gadnayak2, it cannot be laid down as a proposition of law that when only one blow is dealt by an accused, the offence would not amount to murder punishable under section 301 of the Code. Each case would depend on its own facts and circumstances. ( 6 ) THE appellant had not committed any planned murder nor had he any premeditation. In a fit of utter anger being enraged at the grave and sudden provocation offered by the deceased, the appellant had dealt a blow on the person of his wife and killed her in the circumstances narrated above. It cannot reasonably be said that the appellant had the intention of causing the death of his wife or of causing such bodily injury, which was likely to cause her death. ( 7 ) THE proper and reasonable conclusion would be that the appellant had the knowledge that by his act, he was likely to cause the death of the deceased. His act would, therefore, amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder coming under the second part of section 304 of the Code. ( 7 ) THE proper and reasonable conclusion would be that the appellant had the knowledge that by his act, he was likely to cause the death of the deceased. His act would, therefore, amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder coming under the second part of section 304 of the Code. The learned Standing Counsel has fairly submitted that the appellant can properly be convicted under section 304 Part II of the Code in the circumstances of the case. ( 8 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code are set aside and in lieu thereof, he is convicted under section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years which would meet the ends of justice. Appeal allowed .