JUDGMENT M.K. Mukherjee, C.J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated October 31,1979, passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, convicting the appellant under section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life. 2. Bereft of details, the case of the prosecution is as under: 3. The victim, Smt. Ram Shri, used to live in village Murausi with her husband Puse (P.W. 1 ). The appellant was also a resident of the same village and his madhaiya was in front of the house of Pusc intervened by a lane. On October, 1978, at about 4 P.M., while Puse was sitting on the chabutra of his house, his wife was coming back home after fetching water from a nearby tap. When the victim came near his madhaiya the appellant hurled some filthy language towards her. This enraged Ram Sri and she told the appellant not to use such language and also chastised him. The appellant then brought out a pharsa from his house and assaulted Ram Shri, as a consequence whereof she fell down dead. Smt. Ramkali (P. W. 2), mother of Sri Pal (P.W. 4) and one Ranvir, who were nearby, came to the place of occurrence and started shouting. The appellant then ran away with the pharsa in his hand. Immediately thereafter, Sri Pal, who happened to be the nephew of Puse, also arrived there and heard about the incident. Sri Pal and Ranvin then went in search of the appellant and ultimately apprehended him in a field of the adjoining village Kanchanpur with the pharsa in his hand. They brought back the appellant to his village and kept him detained. 4. Thereafter, through the village Chaukidar, Puse sent a written report about the incident to the local police station and on the basis thereof, a case was registered against the appellant. S.I. Vedi Singh (P.W. 6) took up investigation of the case, and came to village Murausi. He took the appellant into custody and after inquest, sent the dead body for post mortem examination. On conclusion of investigation, he submitted charge sheet against the appellant. In due course, the case was committed to the court of Session. 5. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge levelled against him. He took the appellant into custody and after inquest, sent the dead body for post mortem examination. On conclusion of investigation, he submitted charge sheet against the appellant. In due course, the case was committed to the court of Session. 5. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge levelled against him. His defence was, as it appears from the trend of the cross-examination that the deceased had illicit connection with him for a pretty length of time and on the date in question she had come to his house. Hearing that, Puse came to his inadhaiya, dragged her out and killed her with a pharsa. 6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined six witnesses, but no witness was examined on behalf of the defence. Of the witnesses examined, Fuse (P.W. 1) and Smt. Ram Kali (P.W. 2) figured as eye-witnesses. In his testimony, P.W. 1 narrated the entire prosecution case, as stated earlier, and P.W. 2 fully supported him. The evidence of these two witnesses unmistakeably prove that the appellant had some Exchange of words with the victim and thereafter he assaulted her with pharsa on her head, as a result of which she fell down dead. Though they were cross-examined at length, nothing could be elicited therefrom to discredit them. It is, of course, true that they are close relations of the victim, but that cannot he made a ground to discard their evidence more particularly when even close scrutiny does not impair the same. 7. The evidence of these two witnesses gets corroboration from that of P.W. 4 who had apprehended the appellant along with pharsa. The other corroboration comes from the evidence of the doctor who held postmortem examination of the victim. From the evidence of Dr. R.K. Jain (P. W. 5) we get that the victim had two incised wounds on the head and one abrasion on the right scapular region. The two incised wounds fit in with the prosecution case that the victim was assaulted with pharsa on her head. The evidence of the doctor further proves that the death was caused due to the above injuries. It must, therefore, be held that the prosecution has been able to conclusively prove that the victim alied due to the injuries inflicted by the appellant. 8. The evidence of the doctor further proves that the death was caused due to the above injuries. It must, therefore, be held that the prosecution has been able to conclusively prove that the victim alied due to the injuries inflicted by the appellant. 8. Coming now to the defence case, we find that though P.W. 1 admitted that there was illicit relationship between his wife and the appellant for some years, no evidence was adduced by the appellant nor is there any material on record wherefrom it can he said that it was P.W. 1 who had actually assaulted the victim and caused her death. 9. The next question that falls for our consideration is that what offence the appellant has committed by causing the death of the victim. In the context of the admission of P.W. 1 that the appellant had illicit relation with his wife for some years, the overtures made by the appellant to the victim asking her to come to him as her husband was an asthma patient could not he said lobe unexpected. It necessarily means that the appellant did not also expect than to be rebuffed by her. In that context, it can be legitimately inferred that the appellant was provoked by the abusive language used by the victim and her chastisement. If the offence committed by the appellant is considered in this background, there is no escape from the conclusion that the offences committed by him is one under section 304 (i) of the Indian Penal Code and not 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 10. On the conclusion as above, we alter the conviction of the appellant to one under section 304 (1) of the Indian Penal Code and considering the fact that he is in jail for more that 13 years, we reduce the sentence imposed upon him to the period already undergone. Let the appellant be released forth-with unless wanted in connection with any other case. 11. The appeal is thus partly allowed.