BEHERA, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant assails the order of conviction recorded against her under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (the Code, for short) by the learned trial Judge sentencing her to undergo imprisonment for life for committing the murder of her husband Rama Behera (to be described hereinafter as 'the deceased') on July 12, 1981 at Kakharupada in the district of Mayurbhanj. ( 2 ) THE order of conviction has been based on the unimpeachable evidence of the sole witness to the occurrence, namely, P. W. 3, who has testified that she had seen the appellant assaulting the deceased by means of a Kodala (M. O. I.), the clear and acceptable evidence with regard to the extra judicial confession made by the appellant before P. Ws. 4 and 5, who had gone to the spot after the occurrence to the effect that she had killed her husband by means of a Kodala, the voluntary confessional statement (Ext. 10) of the appellant which had duly and legally been recorded by the Judicial Magistrate that she had killed her husband by means of a Kodala, the recovery of M. O. I. and the wearing clothes of the appellant, all stained with blood, which on chemical and serological test, were found to contain human blood and the evidence of the doctor (P. W. 1) who had conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and had found a number of antemortem injuries which could be caused by M. O. I, sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The retracted confessional statements of the appellant has found sufficient assurance from the other evidence. ( 3 ) REGARD being had to the aforesaid clinching and unassailable evidence, Mr. Das, appearing for the appellant, has not challenged the finding recorded by the trial Court that the appellant had killed her husband by dealing strokes by means of M. O. I. Mr. ( 3 ) REGARD being had to the aforesaid clinching and unassailable evidence, Mr. Das, appearing for the appellant, has not challenged the finding recorded by the trial Court that the appellant had killed her husband by dealing strokes by means of M. O. I. Mr. Das has contended that the evidence including the confessional statement, read as a whole, would show that whatever had been done by the appellant had been done by her while she was deprived of the power of self-control by the grave and sudden provocation offered by the deceased and thus the act of the appellant would come within the purview of the first exception to Section 300 of the Code and would be culpable under Section 304, Part I of the Code. The learned Additional Government Advocate has candidly and fairly submitted that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the contention raised on behalf of the appellant in this regard should prevail. ( 4 ) HERE is a case in which a wife is alleged to have killed her husband. Although mysterious is the working of the human minds and at times, it is difficult for the prosecution to ascribe any motive for commission of an offence. in a case of this nature, a strong motive is necessary for committing such a gruesome act. P. W. 4, who had lodged the first information report, had stated about a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased which fact he had suppressed in the Court while giving his evidence. In her extra judicial confessions made before P. Ws. 4 and 5, the appellant had attributed acts of indecency on the part of her husband. In her confessional statement (Ext. 10), she had stated that while she and her husband were returning from the market, there ensued a quarrel between the two and her husband assaulted her by means of a split bamboo for which she ran away being chased by her husband. Thus in her earliest versions, the appellant had given out that there had been a sudden quarrel and the deceased had been chased the appellant to assault her. Her statements before P. Ws. 4 and 5 were that her husband had committed acts of indecency. Thus in her earliest versions, the appellant had given out that there had been a sudden quarrel and the deceased had been chased the appellant to assault her. Her statements before P. Ws. 4 and 5 were that her husband had committed acts of indecency. Even words and gestures in some cases may give rise to grave and sudden provocation, as enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of K. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1962 SC 605 . ( 5 ) IN view of what has been stated above, it would appear that after a sudden quarrel and having lost her power of self-control by the grave and sudden provocation offered by the deceased himself by his aforesaid acts, the appellant killed her husband in painful circumstances. The offence would thus be one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304, Part I of the Code as Exception 1 to Section 300 of the Code would apply to the facts of the case. ( 6 ) IN the result, the appellant is allowed in part. The order of conviction recorded against the appellant under section302 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence passed against her thereunder are set aside and in lieu thereof, she is convicted under Section 304. Part I of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced thereunder to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone by her which would meet the ends of justice. The appellant be set at liberty forthwith. ( 7 ) D. P. MOHAPATRA, J. : I agree. Appeal allowed in part. .