JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is preferred against the judgment passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Nohar on November 1, 1985 in Sessions Case No. 3/84 by which he convicted accused-appellant Sultan for offence Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine two months' further rigorous imprisonment was awarded. He also convicted accused-appellant Mani Ram for offence Under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment. 2. Dogmatic attitude and intolerance for intercaste marriages resulting in brutal I murder of the younger sister Mst. Aashki aged 16 years, by caste Chamar and her boy friend Gulab aged 18 years by caste Mirasi is short and sad story of this case. On December 22; 1983 I at 12.30 P.M. a report was lodged at the police station Pallu, District Sri Ganganagar by Shanker, brother of deceased Gulab, wherein it was alleged by him that there was illicit relation between his younger brother Gulab and Bhura Meghwal's daughter Mst. Aashki. Two days earlier than the fateful day both of them left the village in the night. When they did not return in the morning enquiries were made. Bhura Ram, father of the girl Aashki along with his two sons Sultan and Maniram went in their search and on the previous night brought both of them in the village. Both of them were tied with ropes in a room. Shanker has further alleged that the members of his family went and requested to Shri Gulab but they did not agree and stated that they will take the boy to the police station. At about 9.00 or 9.30 A.M. Mani Ram was taking both, his brother Gulab and Aashki after tying their hands to the police station, he also followed them. They reached near Gangaram's field then Sultan accused son of Bhura and brother of Aashki armed with Gandasi, came running and after giving filthy abuses stated that he will kill both of them. Seeing this Mani Ram also exhorted and fell Gulab down on the ground. Sultan gave a Gandasa blow on his neck, as a result of which Gulab died. Seeing this Mani Ram also exhorted and fell Gulab down on the ground. Sultan gave a Gandasa blow on his neck, as a result of which Gulab died. He then turned towards his younger sister Aashki and gave another Gandasi blow on her, as a result of which she also expired. Safi and Moola saw this incident from a distance. Thus the report was lodged within 21/2 hours of the incident at a distance of 16 kms. The police immediately arrived at the spot and started investigation. Inquest report was prepared thereafter site plan and the site inspection memo were prepared. An autopsy of the corps of Gulab and Mst. Aashki was got conducted and post-mortem report obtained. After completing investigation a charge-sheet was submitted in the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Nohar against the accused Sultan and Maniram. Both of them were committed to Sessions for trial. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar to whom the case was entrusted for trial reach over the charge Under Section 302 and in the alternate Under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code to Sultan who who denied the charge and claimed to be tried. Charge for offence Under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code was read over to accused Maniram. 3. The prosecution examined 8 witnesses in support of its case. The accused-appellant Sultan examined Under Section 313 Cr. PC. stated that a day prior to murder his sister Aashki flead from the house so he went in her search with Gandasa in his hand next morning. When he was going towards Pallu on way he came across Aashki and Gulab who were embressing each other. Seeing them in this position he could not tolerate and gave a Gandasa blow on the neck of Gulab on which his sister told him that he has murdered his own brother-in-law. Hearing this he further got enraged and gave 2-3 Gandasa blows on the neck of his sister. There was none also at that point of time. Mani Ram however, denied the occurrence. No defence was led by the accused. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nohar convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as indicated above. 4. Two arguments have been advanced by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellants in view of the admission of the accused Sultan in his statement Under Section 313 Cr. Mani Ram however, denied the occurrence. No defence was led by the accused. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nohar convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as indicated above. 4. Two arguments have been advanced by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellants in view of the admission of the accused Sultan in his statement Under Section 313 Cr. P.C. First is that the incident did not take place in the manner alleged by the prosecution to the extent that the boy and the girl were kept ties with a rope in a room over-night and in the morning they were being taken to the police station duly tied with ropes by Mani Ram and consequently Mani Ram was also not present when the incident took place, his implication therefore, is false. Secondly that accepting the story doubtful by the accused and even not corroborated by the prosecution evidence the accused- appellants are entitled to get benefit of exception 1 to Section 300 Indian Penal Code as his act of killing Gulab and Aashki was the result of grave and sudden provocation. His submission is that so far as Moola named in the F.I.R. an independent witness is concerned, he has not been examined by the prosecution and the other eye- witness named Saffi who was examined as PW. 3, has been disbelieved by the learned trial court itself. Thus the only evidence is that of Shanker auther of the F.I.R., brother of the deceased Gulab who firstly is a highly interested witness and secondly his statement does not find corroboration from the post-mortem reports. Learned Counsel for the appellnts in support of his submission regarding grave and sudden provocation has placed reliance on Shanker Pandit v. State of Rajasthan: 1971 RLW page 486 , State of Rajasthan v. Kantilai. 1978 RLW page 230 , hire Govindan: 1975 Cri. L.J. page 114 and The State of Karnataka v. Kamalaksha: 1978 Cri. L.J. 290 . On the strength of the aforesaid case law it was submitted that offence Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code is not made out against the accused-appellants in the circumstances of this case and they can only be convicted for offence Under Section 304 Part 1 Indian Penal Code for which lesser sentence may be awarded. 5. Mr. L.J. 290 . On the strength of the aforesaid case law it was submitted that offence Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code is not made out against the accused-appellants in the circumstances of this case and they can only be convicted for offence Under Section 304 Part 1 Indian Penal Code for which lesser sentence may be awarded. 5. Mr. Singhvi appearing for the State supported the judgment of the trial court and submitted that the accused- appellant Sultan had left his house duly armed with a Gandasa which is a clear indication of the fact that he was provocated from the very beginning and was bent upon to use arm on Gulab and his younger sister moment he could trace them out the provocation therefore, was not sudden and unless it is sudden and grave provocation accused is not entitled to Exception 1 to Section 300 Indian Penal Code. The learned Counsel however, could not give proper reasoning to sustain the conviction of the accused-appellant Maniram as but for an exhortation as stated by Shanker no any overt act has been attributed to him. He submitted that there is no life in the appeal of Sultan and it should be dismissed. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and perused the entire record. We have also gone through the case law cited before us. 7. The controversy raised in this appeal is in a very narrow compas. It is neither denied nor it could be that two young lives have been lost because of the hot headedness of a brother who got enraged because his sister did not return home and left the home without the consent of the parents with a boy friend to contract marriage. The only point requires consideration is whether in the given circumstances of the case even if the statement of the accused is accepted as a whole he is entitled to the benefit of Exception 1 to Section 300 Indian Penal Code. To appreciate the point would be purposeful to refer to the evidence which has been led in this case. Dr. Hanuman Singh PW. 6 who performed the post mortem on the corps of Gulab and Aashki found the following injuries on their person respectively. Injuries of Gulab:- 1. Incise wound 21/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 " on middle of mandible. Mandible cut at the wound side. 2. Dr. Hanuman Singh PW. 6 who performed the post mortem on the corps of Gulab and Aashki found the following injuries on their person respectively. Injuries of Gulab:- 1. Incise wound 21/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 " on middle of mandible. Mandible cut at the wound side. 2. Incise wound 4 x 2 x 11/2 " direction downward to upward. Tail end on the right ear lobule and mandible cut at the side of wound. 3. Incise wound 41/2 x 2 x 2" 3 inch below the left mastoid process. Tail end on the posterior of neck. There were corresponding fractures of mandible and cervical vertibra resulting in instant death and cause of death was the aforesaid injuries and shock. Injuries of Aashki: 1. Incise wound 31/2 x 31/2 x 2" on posterior of neck. Horizontally placed and direction upward to downward on left side of the neck. 2. Incise wound 2x 1 x 1" on the base of lateral side of neck posteriorly. 3. Incise wound 21/2 x 1/2 x 1/2" on medial side of right leg. She too sustained fracture of vertebral column add instantly died as a result of the aforesaid injuries. The aforesaid injuries leave no doubt that both of them were brutally murdered and repeated injuries were inflicted on their neck. However, Dr. Hanuman Singh has ruled out the possibility of both the deceased having been tied by ropes as no marks of tying were found on the person of either of the two. In this back-ground statement of Shanker the only witness to the occurrence requires to be examined who stated that both Gulab and Aashki were kept duly tied by hands and fact whole night in the room of Bhuraram and in the morning also Maniram was taking them to the police station and at that time also the hands and fact of both of them were tied by ropes. His statement is that when Maniram was taken them accused Sultan suddenly came from behind a tree and after giving filthy abuses inflicted multiple blows by Gandasa on the person of Gulab and Aashki. This statement of shanker does not find corroboration from the medical evidence. Inquest report however, shows some redishness on the wrist and ankle portion of the deceased, but that alone is not enough to conclude that whatever Shanker is stating is a true story of entire incident. This statement of shanker does not find corroboration from the medical evidence. Inquest report however, shows some redishness on the wrist and ankle portion of the deceased, but that alone is not enough to conclude that whatever Shanker is stating is a true story of entire incident. From the perusal of statement it appears that he has tried to exaggerate the story in orderto implicate Maniram into the incident. It could be possible that Maniram might have earlier caught them and threatened them to take to the police station and as young boy and young girl they were accompanied by him, but even accepting his statement Sultan had suddenly came out from behind a tree and inflicted injuries on the person of both the deceased clearly indicates that he never shared in commission of intention for the purpose of killing either Gulab or Aashki. On the contrary even from the F.I.R. which was immediately lodged it is borne out that Maniram wanted them to take to the police station instead of handing over Gulab to his father and brother. This shows that he wanted to proceed in accordance with law rather than in taking law in his own hands. Hence implication of Maniram in the case is not established by the prosecution and his appeal deserves to be allowed. 8. Regarding the case of Sultan there is no denial of the fact that it is he who has inflicted multiple blows on the person of both the deceased. Assuming for a moment that the entire prosecution story is false and we accept his own statement as a whole, even then the question will arise as to whether from that statement he can claim benefit of Exception 1 to Section 300 Indian Penal Code which reads as under: "Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident." A bare perusal of the aforesaid section indicates that provocation must be sudden and grave. In Shanker Pandit v. State of Rajasthan (supra) the court considered the scope of Exception 1 to Section 300 Indian Penal Code but the facts giving rise to that case were totally different. In Shanker Pandit v. State of Rajasthan (supra) the court considered the scope of Exception 1 to Section 300 Indian Penal Code but the facts giving rise to that case were totally different. In that case the accused suspected his wife of having liaison with other person whom he saw entering his house, but when he entered the house he escaped. He having lost tamper murdered his own wife. The circumstance that when the accused went to his quarter and found the door of his house bolted from inside and it was on repeatedly knocks that his wife opened the door and he found that paramour escaped from a window, he murdered his wife. All these circumstances held to be sufficient to give rise to sudden and grave provocation. But that is not the position in the instant case. In State of Rajasthan v. Kantilal (supra) in appellant Kantilal about 7 years prior to the murder of Bhuri, his wife, had married her. After his marriage he went to Palanpur where he was doing some business and few days earlier closing his business he came along with Bhuri and his 3 children to Badgaon. Bhuri thereafter went to her mother's place and the appellant Kantilal entertained a suspicion about her character. Eight days prior to the murder he brought her back and thereafter one night he committed her murder and made a confession. There was no evidence except his extra-judicial confession where he has said that his wife provoked him to murder her and he lost self control due to sudden provocation causing as many as 24 injuries on her. A plea of insanity was also raised but the court rejected that plea considering however, that he was entitled to Exception 1 to Section 300 Indian Penal Code. In this case also the circumstances indicate that there was no sudden and grave provocation which resulted in mercilessly beating and there is no evidence that there was an intervening time for the accused to have thought cool mindedly the consequence of his action. Inre Govindan's case (supra) the wife was seen in compromising position with the younger brother of the accused and it was considered to be a case of sudden and grave provocation when the accused killed his brother. Thus the facts of this case are also totally different and not applicable in the instant case. Inre Govindan's case (supra) the wife was seen in compromising position with the younger brother of the accused and it was considered to be a case of sudden and grave provocation when the accused killed his brother. Thus the facts of this case are also totally different and not applicable in the instant case. Similar almost are the facts in The State of Karnataka v. Kamalaksha (supra). All these cases are cases where fidelity of the wife was in doubt. 9. The law regarding grave and sudden provocation has been considered by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Lee Chun-Chen v. Regina: 7963 All England Law Reports Vol. 1 p. 73 . Their Lordships laid down that there are three main elements which must be present and they are (1) the act of provocation, (2) Loss of self control, both actual and reasonables, and (3) retaliation proportionate to the provocation. Similar tests have also been laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in famous case K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1962 SC 605 wherein their Lordships held as under: (1) The test of grave and sudden" provocation is whether a reasonable man, belonging to the same class of society as the accused, placed in the situation in which the accused, was placed would be so provoked as to loss his self control. (2) 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 Indian Penal Code. (3) The mental background created by the previous act of the victim may be taken into consideration in ascertaining whether the subsequent act caused grave and sudden provocation for committing the offence. (4) The fatal blow should be clearly traced to the influence of passion arising from that provocation and not after the passion had called down by lapse of time, or otherwise giving room, and scope for premeditation and calculation. If the facts of the present case are looked into and the aforesaid tests are applied then it can be that by no stretch of imagination provocation could be called a sudden and grave. According to the accused himself he was knowing from before a day that his sister has eloped and he had gone in search of her next morning. According to the accused himself he was knowing from before a day that his sister has eloped and he had gone in search of her next morning. When he left his home he had not gone with an intention to go to the police station to lodge a report for missing his sister but he had gone with a Gandasa in his hand and the subsequent action that immediately on seeing both of them without even asking an explanation he started inflicting blows. Thus, it is not a question of loosing self control at the moment and so there was no occasion also to loose self control by a reasonable man to the extent of killing, particularly looking to the age of his sister and the boy. It was not a case where his intention to kill arose from sudden passion involving loss of self control by reason of provocation and thus cannot raise defence of provocation in the circumstances of the case. Infact here was a hot-headed person who never wanted to think coolally and left his house with an intention to do away with the boy who came from a different community and taken away his sister. At best it could be said that his provocation was sudden and grave for killing his sister who protested killing of the boy by saying that he has killed his own brother-in-law, but in no eventuality the act of killing the boy can be said to be sudden and grave. Considering the case as a whole we are not inclined to consider this case as one which falls within Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC. 300 Indian Penal Code. 10. The result of the aforesaid discussions is that we flow the appeal of Mani Ram, set aside his conviction and sentence for offence Under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code and acquit him of the aforesaid charges. He is on bail, he need not surrender to his bail bonds. We however, find no force in the appeal preferred by accused- appellant Sultan and dismiss the same.Appeal dismissed. *******