ORDER A.A. Desai, J. - The Additional Sessions - J. Judge, Amravati by ORDER, dated 17.11.1988 recorded a finding of conviction for an offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code against appellant-accused Mahadeo for having committed murder of his daughter-in-law Chandrakala on 4.9.1987 at about 12 noon, by giving blows with the aid of a sickle: The conviction amongst others, is based on dying declaration (Ext. 24) tendered by deceased Chandrakala to Executive Magistrate and eye account of P.W. 1 Shantibai and P.W. 6 Shriram. 2. Shri Daga, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, has not disputed the finding of conviction. However, he urged that taking into consideration the facts as made apparent on record by the prosecution, the act of the accused could not be covered under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. He submitted that the accused assaulted deceased Chandrakala while he lost control and was under grave and sudden provocation. He further made a submission that the act of the accused is covered by the first exception to section 300 of Indian Penal Code. In the submission of the learned Counsel, the accused could be punishable at the most for the offence under section 304, Part I of Indian Penal Code. 3. Shri Paranjape, the learned additional Public Prosecutor, opposed this submission. According to him, there was no cause for the accused being provoked. Even otherwise, a little annoyance could not be either sudden or grave. The accused mercilessly dealt three blows on the person of deceased Chandrakala with a sickle, which is a deadly weapon and as such, accused is guilty of the under and it has been rightly held by the trial, Court that he is liable to be punished under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. In view of this rival claim, we propose to examine the material on record. 4. Undisputedly, the accused and deceased are relations. The accused is an old man of 60 years of age. The deceased in her dying declaration (Ext. 24) stated that accused asked her as to why she was going as a labourer on others work and the suddenly inflicted blows. P.W. 2 Ramrao, who is' a brother-in-law of deceased, lodged First Information Report (Ext. 18). To this witness, there was a definite suggestion by the defence that there was rumour in the village that deceased Chandrakalabai had illicit relations 'with Chindhu Lande. P.W. 2 Ramrao, who is' a brother-in-law of deceased, lodged First Information Report (Ext. 18). To this witness, there was a definite suggestion by the defence that there was rumour in the village that deceased Chandrakalabai had illicit relations 'with Chindhu Lande. No doubt, this witness presented his innocence in this behalf. 5. P.W.6 Shriram is the eye-witness, who has stated that before assault, he saw that accused asked something to deceased and then gave blows. As per version of this witness, the deceased after assault, disclosed to this witness that accused asked deceased why she was going for a work in the field of Lande. Thereupon deceased questioned the accused as to who was he to make such query and, therefore, the accused gave blows. Considering this material on record which has reference even in the dying declaration, it is clear that the accused, who is a near relation of deceased and also elderly person of the village, questioned the deceased and suggested that she should not attend the work of a particular person. Upon this suggestion, deceased Chandrakala replied the accused in a derogatory manner and also questioned his authority in this behalf, which in all probability, could provoke a person like accused who did not anticipate such behaviour or reply from a young lady like Chandrakala. Such provocation was necessarily sudden and in the background as discussed equally grave. We, therefore, find support to the submission as advanced by the defence that the accused dealt blows while he lost self control since he was provoked suddenly and as such provocation was grave in nature. In view of this, we agree with the submission as canvassed by Shri Daga. We feel that the act of the accused is covered by the first exception to section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. We, therefore, pass the following order: 6. Appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code as recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati vide order dated 17.11.1988 are hereby set aside. Instead, we convict the appellant-accused for an offence punishable under section 304, Part I of Indian Penal Code and direct him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and pay a fine of rupees one thousand. In case of default, he suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. Instead, we convict the appellant-accused for an offence punishable under section 304, Part I of Indian Penal Code and direct him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and pay a fine of rupees one thousand. In case of default, he suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. Appeal allowed.