Judgment : 1. The appellant, husband of P.W.1 Muniammal, was tried for an offence punishable under Sec.302, I.P.C. for having caused the death of the paramour of P.W.1 at 2.00 AM. on 1.8.1984 near Muniappaswamy temple, four furlongs east of Thottaranahalli road-junction, in the road leading to Karimangalam from Marendahalli by attacking the deceased with koduval on his left leg, head and face under the first charge and also for an offence punishable under Sec.324, I.P.C. for having caused simple injuries with M.O.1 to P.W.1 under the second charge. He was found guilty under Sec.326, I.P.C. under the first charge and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and under the second charge he was found guilty and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Hence the appeal. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that on the facts put forth by P.W.1 the offence would fall under Sec.335, I.P.C. and prayed to convict the appellant under that Section, taking a lenient view. The evidence of P.W.1 shows that she was in illicit intimacy with the deceased, taking advantage of the absence of her husband in the village for a long period. Her further case is that her intimacy was known to her husband and her husband has warned her several times. In spite of that, she continued her intimacy with the deceased. On the fateful day and fateful hour, P.W.1 and the deceased were seen by the accused while they were returning after a night-show. This according to the learned counsel for the appellant, is sufficient to provoke the husband to harm the deceased as well as P.W.1.I entirely agree with the reasoning adopted by the learned counsel for the appellant. Provocation need not be by positive words or section. Mere seeing ones wife in the intimate company of her paramour will also generate provocation. This according to the learned counsel for the appellant, is sufficient to provoke the husband to harm the deceased as well as P.W.1.I entirely agree with the reasoning adopted by the learned counsel for the appellant. Provocation need not be by positive words or section. Mere seeing ones wife in the intimate company of her paramour will also generate provocation. To see the wife in the company of a paramour at the dead of night even though alleged to have been returning from a second show is sufficient provocation for the husband, especially when he has warned his wife not to have any affair with the deceased and as such the injury caused, though considered to be grievous in nature, since the deceased died 15 days after the incident due to septicaemia would squarely fall under Sec.335, I.P.C but not under Sec.326, I.P.C. and the simple injury caused to P.W.1 would fail under Sec 334 I.P.C and not under Sec.324, I.P.C. as such, the conviction of the appellant for the offences under Sec.326 and 324, I.P.C. are set aside. Instead, he is found guilty under Sec.335 and 334 I.P.C for having caused grievous injury on the deceased and simple injury to P.W.1 on provocation. Taking into consideration the lapse of time I find that the ends of justice will be implement if the appellant is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Sec.335, I.P.C. and one month under Sec.334, I.P.C. and accordingly the appellant is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Sec.335, I.P.C. and one month under Sec.334, I.P.C. the sentences to run concurrently. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant brought to my notice G.O.Ms.No.180, Home (Prisons IV) Department, dated 28.1.1989, and G.O.Ms. No.781, Home (Prisons C) Department, dated 11.4.1990, and contended that the remission of six months granted under each of the above Government orders shall inure to the appellant herein. 4. Under the former G.O. issued on the eve of the Birth Anniversary of late Dr.C.N. Annadurai, life convicts have been granted remission of sentence by one year and all other convicts six months. 4. Under the former G.O. issued on the eve of the Birth Anniversary of late Dr.C.N. Annadurai, life convicts have been granted remission of sentence by one year and all other convicts six months. Under the latter G.O. issued on the eve of the Birth Anniversary of Paventhar Bharadhidasan, all convicts excluding life-convicts have been allowed remission of sentence of six months I am satisfied that the revision petitioner herein is entitled to the remission of six months granted under each of the above two government Orders. 5. In the result, pursuant to the Government orders referred to above, I direct that the petitioner need not surrender before the prison authorities for undergoing the sentences of imprisonment imposed on him. Except to the extent indicated above, the appeal is dismissed in other respects.