JUDGMENT 1. - The appeal is directed against the judjement of the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore dated January 31, 1983 convicting the accused Ukarda under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of the payment of fine to further undergo three months" rigorous imprisonment. 2. At about 10.30 a.m. on May 23, 1982, PW 1 Ratna Rebari of village Wadal appeared at Police Station, Raniwara District Jalore and verbally lodged report Ex. P 1 which was taken down in the Rojnamcha. It was stated therein that his sister Shrangi was married with the accused seven/eight years ago. She was living with the accused in village Paal situate a couple of kilometres away from his village. The accused was not sending his sister to her parentss' house. It was further stated that the accused's father Manra (PW 11) came to his house at sun-rise time and told him and his mother that Shrangi had expired on account of some ailment in her stomach. He and his mother immediately went to the accused's house in village Paal and found Shrangi's dead body lying on the floor in the Oasri. He sensed something foul. Shrangi had not met the natural death. The Station House Officer Hari Singh (PW 14), after recording the aforesaid report, arrived on the spot and initated an action under Section 174, Cr.PC. He prepared the inquest report Ex. P 3 of the victim's dead body. Some abrasions were found on her neck and inflation on her ears. He also suspected that the death was not natural. The post-mortem examination of the victim's dead body was conducted in the noon on the same day by PW 12 Dr. Bishnoi. He found some ante-mortem bruises and a pale groove over the victim's dead body. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was asphxia due to strangulation. He prepared the post-mortem examination report Ex. P 13. On the receipt of this post-mortem report, the Station House Officer prepared the FIR Ex.P 18 on the same day and registered a case under Section 302 Indian Penal Code against the accused. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was asphxia due to strangulation. He prepared the post-mortem examination report Ex. P 13. On the receipt of this post-mortem report, the Station House Officer prepared the FIR Ex.P 18 on the same day and registered a case under Section 302 Indian Penal Code against the accused. During investigation, it revealed that the accused had strangulated his wife Shrangi in the night between 22nd and 23rd May, 1982 and thereafter went to PW 8 Ranma and PW 13 Surta both residents of village Wada and confessed his guilt before them. He stated before them that his wife Shrangi wanted to go to her parent's house and he did not allow her. This led to some dispute and exchange of hot words batween them. Shrangi started abusing him and he lost the head. He thereafter strangulated her to death. The accused was arrested on May 24, 1982. After when the investigation was over, the police filed a charge sheet against the accused in the Court of the Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Bhinmal, who, in his turn, committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge framed a charge under Section 302 Indian Penal Code against him, to which he pleaded not guilty and faced the trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses and filed some documents. In defence, the accused examined one witness. He pleaded alibi and stated that in the fateful night, he was away in some other village. On the conclusion of the trial the learned Sessions Judge found the testimony of PW 8 Ranma and PW 13 Surta reliable and dependable. He accepted their evidence that the accused made an extra-judicial confession before them just after the incident that he had strangulated his wife to death. Taking this extra-judicial confession as sufficient to prove the guilt against the accused, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused as mentioned at the very out set. Aggrieved against his conviction, the the accused has taken this appeal. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel Mr. Doongar Singh for the appellant and the learned Pablic Prosecutor. We have also gone through the case file carefully. 4. Learned Counsel for the accused did not challenge the testimony of PW 12 Dr. Bishnoi relating to the cause of death. Aggrieved against his conviction, the the accused has taken this appeal. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel Mr. Doongar Singh for the appellant and the learned Pablic Prosecutor. We have also gone through the case file carefully. 4. Learned Counsel for the accused did not challenge the testimony of PW 12 Dr. Bishnoi relating to the cause of death. We have also gone through the statement of Dr. Bishnoi and find no reasons to distrust his opinion about the cause of death of Shrangi. The death of Smt. Shrangi was homicidal and not natural. She was strangled. 5. Mr. Doongarsingh also did not challenge the evidence of PW 8 Ranma and PW 13 Surta. He frankly conceded that he was unable to assail the evidence of these two witnesses that the accused went to them just after the incident and confessed before them that he had strangulated his wife Shrangi. The grievance raised by Mr. Doongarsingh is that the learned Sessions Judge crept into an error in not taking the entire statement of the accused into consideration which he made before these two witnesses. His statement consists of inculpatory as well as exculpatory parts. The inculpatory part was that he had strangled his wife. The exculpatory part was that the wife picked-up quarrel with him and abused him. The accused got angered and lost the head. He could not control himself. His act of strangulat his wife was an out come of momentary impulse He had no intention to commit her murder. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the inculpatory part of the confession but did not take into consideration the exculpatory portion. It was also argued that it was open to the learned Sessions Judge to accept the inculpatory part and to exclude the exclupatory but he could do so only when there was evidence to show that the self exculpatory part was untrue or was inherently improbable. Since there was no material on record to show that the self exculpatory part was wrong or untrue and since the self exculpatory part was not inherently improbable, the self exculpatory part should also be taken into consideration. If the self exculpatory part is taken into consideration, the offence made out would not fall within the offence of murder. The offence made out would be that under the Second Part of Section 304, IPC. If the self exculpatory part is taken into consideration, the offence made out would not fall within the offence of murder. The offence made out would be that under the Second Part of Section 304, IPC. It was, on the other hand, contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that the self exculpatory part was rightly dismissed and rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. We have taken the respective submissions into consideration. 6. Nedless to say that the only incriminating evidence connecting the accused with the killing of his wife is his extra-judicial confession made by him before PW 8 Ranma and PW 13 Surta. Now, both these witnesses have stated that the accused came to them and told them that in the proceding night his wife Shrangi picked-up quarrel with him. She wanted to go to her parents' house and he did not allow her. Shrangi thereupon started abusing him. It angered him and he lost the head. In those moments of anger, he pressed the neck of Shrangi and thus caused her death. The extra-judicial confession, thus, consits of two parts one inculpatory and the other exculpatory. The learned Sessions Judge accepted inculpatory part but observed complete silence on the exculpatory part. He did not hold that the exculpatory part was untrue or wrong or improbable. Perhaps he has left this job for us in this appeal. 7. The clinching question before us is whether the whole statement of the accused, which contains both inculpatory and exculpatory parts should be taken into account. According to us, the settled position in law is that the confession of the accused should be read and considered as a whole. If there is evidence to show that the exculpatory part is untrue or wrong, or where the exculpatory part is inherently improbable, the court has a right to reject and ignore it. But when there is no evidence on record that the exculpatory element in the confession is false or the exculpatory element is not inherenty improbable, the court should either accept or reject the confession as a whole and cannot accept only the inculpatory portion while rejecting the exculpatory element. 8. But when there is no evidence on record that the exculpatory element in the confession is false or the exculpatory element is not inherenty improbable, the court should either accept or reject the confession as a whole and cannot accept only the inculpatory portion while rejecting the exculpatory element. 8. In the instant case, there is no evidence or material on record to show that the exculpartory part of the accused's statement is wrong or false or that the self inculpatory part is inherently improbable, to which no credence can be given. In this state of affairs, the only safer course open to us is to read and consider the confession of the accused as a whole. It is not permissible that the inclupatory part should be accepted and the exculpatory part should be rejected. The exculpatory part is not inherently incredible which should be rejected or dismissed. 9. When the confession of the accused is taken into consideration as a whole, it discloses that Smt. Shrangi wanted to go to her parents' house and the accused was not allowing her. This led to a dispute between the husband and the wife. The wife started abusing the husband (accused). The wife's abusing him angered him and he lost the head. He could not contain his anger and pressed the neck of his wife Shrangi. His act of pressing the neck of his wife was the out-come of the sudden impulse. He had no intention or pre-design to put her to death. There was no premeditation on the part of the accused. He seized hold of her in a sudden temper and pressed her neck, resulting in her death. The accused never intended to cause such bodily injury to his wife so as to result in her death. The offence made out, in these circumstances, does not amount to culpable homicide amounting to murder. The offence made out would be that under the Second Part of Section 304, Indian Penal Code as the act was done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. 10. A very similar situation arose in Nanak and Anr. v. Emperor AIR 1931 Lahore 189 decided by a Division Bench of Lahore High Court. 11. 10. A very similar situation arose in Nanak and Anr. v. Emperor AIR 1931 Lahore 189 decided by a Division Bench of Lahore High Court. 11. For the reasons above, we are unable to maintain the conviction of the accused under Section 302, IPC. The offence made out against him is that under Section 304 Part II, IPC. 12. In the result, the appeal of accused Ukarda is partly allowed. His conviction under Section 302, IPC. and the sentence passed thereunder are set-aside. Instead, he is convicted under Section 304, Part-II, Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment. If he has served out the full term of his sentence, he shall be forthwith set at liberty if not wanted in any other case.Appeal partly allowed. *******