(1) THE above appeal is preferred by the appellant, Madanlal who was aged about 18 at the time of occurrence challenging the correctness of the judgment made by the High court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. A. No. 576 of 1976 whereunder he stands convicted under S. 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The High court on appeal has confirmed the conviction and the sentence. Hence this appeal. (2) IT is seen from the records that leave was granted limiting the question to the nature of offence and quantum of sentence. Facts of the case are clearly set out in the judgment of the trial court as well as of the High court. It is, therefore, not necessary for us to reiterate the same ex- cept slating that the appellant on 27/08/1975 at about 9 p.m. in the area of village Khuyan Sarwar committed the murder of Ramlal by beating him with the handle of a hand pump and causing him serious injuries due to which injuries he died three days thereafter, namely, on 29/08/1975 at 6.30 p.m. The motive for the occurrence is rather painful. The relevant portion of the judgment of the High court regarding the motive reads as follows: "THE motive of the commission of the offence as disclosed by the accused to Lachhman Dass, Public Witness after he had been taken hold of by the eye-witnesses after the infliction of injuries was that he had not taken food for the last two or three days and had requested Ramlal, deceased, for meals. Ramlal having refused the same, the accused in a fit of anger and provocation inflicted injuries on him. (3) MR R.L. Kohli, Sr. Adv. appearing on behalf of the ap- pellant fervently pleaded that the facts and circumstances of this case when examined in the background of the motive, the offence would be one punishable under S. 304 Part II but not under S. 302 Indian Penal Code on the ground that Exception 1 to S. 300 Indian Penal Code will be attracted. We have scrutinised the evidence in detail as well as the circumstances at- tending the case. We have scrutinised the evidence in detail as well as the circumstances at- tending the case. Public Witness 4 Lachhman Dass in his evidence has stated as fol- lows: "ON our inquiry, the accused told us that he was feeling hungry for the last two or three days and he had requested Ramlal to provide him with meals but as he failed to do so, therefore, he had caused injuries to him." (4) OF course, this piece of evidence would not be sufficient to attract Exception 1 to S. 300 unless there are other circumstances justify- ing the invocation of Exception 1. Admittedly there was no other motive except the one above-mentioned for this occurrence. The appellant also did not come to the scene of occurrence armed with any weapon but he came with a begging bowl. As the High court has pointed out, the appel- lant when refused food by the deceased who was employed as a sewadar in the dera of Baba Sant Lal where, it is stated, free food was supplied, he in a fit of anger attacked the deceased suddenly on being deprived of the power of self-control. A careful analysis of the facts and circum- stances support our above view that the appellant had been deprived of the power of self-control at the reprehensible conduct of the deceased and gravely and suddenly was provoked. Even the subsequent conduct of the appellant did not reveal that he intended to cause the death of the deceased. The appellant admittedly did not run away from the scene of occurrence but he was very submissive and allowed himself to be secured by the witnesses at the scene itself. The deceased succumbed to the in- juries three days after his admission in the hospital. The appellant admittedly did not run away from the scene of occurrence but he was very submissive and allowed himself to be secured by the witnesses at the scene itself. The deceased succumbed to the in- juries three days after his admission in the hospital. As the totality of the facts and the attending circumstances of the case spell out that the appel- lant did not intend to cause the death of the deceased but caused the in- jury on sudden and grave provocation, with the knowledge that such in- jury was likely to cause death, we hold that the offence, committed by the appellant is one punishable under S. 304 Part II Indian Penal Code and not under Section 302 IPC, and hence we set aside the conviction under Sec- tion 302 Indian Penal Code and the sentence of life imprisonment imposed therefor but convict him under S. 304 Part II IPC. Coming to the question of sentence, it is stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that the ap- pellant had suffered the imprisonment for nearly four years. We, there- fore, feel that the ends of justice would be met by reducing the sentence to the period already undergone. Accordingly, the appellant is convicted under S. 304 Part II Indian Penal Code and the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone. The appeal is disposed of sub- ject to the above modification of the sentence.