JUDGMENT DAUD, J. :- This appeal takes exception to the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant for the commission of an offence of murder punishable under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Deceased Rajendra alias Harischandra Devkate, appellant, Rajendra Sukhadeo Tengal and Sanjay Jaysing Sonavane were all students of Chaturchand Tulajaram College at Baramati in the Pune District. In the month of March, 1988, the College was having its annual examinations. That there would be trouble at the examinations was apprehended and a police posse was deputed to the College to maintain law and order. Appellant, Rajendra Tengal, Sanjay Sonavane and deceased Rajendra had all come to the College on 24-3-1988. There occurred a heated exchange between the appellant and Rajendra. Rajendra died the same day as the result of an incised wound penetrating the epigastric region. The same day the appellant was apprehended. 3. The prosecution case was that appellant with the assistance and in furtherance of a common intention shared by him with Tengal and Sonavane stabbed Rajendra with an intent to kill. This was a premeditated murder. A fortnight or so prior to the occurrence appellant had purchased a knife which he had got honed and which he was carrying with him on 24-3-1988. He was interrogated by P.S.I. Sutar (P.W. 10) and in the presence of the panchas made a statement to the effect that he had concealed a knife at his home and that he would produce the same. This statement was recorded at Ex. 28. In pursuance of the statement, the knife was discovered and attached under Ex. 29. 4. Appellant pleaded not guilty - his defence being that appearing in answer to question No. 24 put to him in his examination under S. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 :- "On the date of incident I had been to Ravindra's room. His room is near college. I saw crowd already assembled near college. At that time Rajendra alias Harischandra i.e. the deceased called me near him. He checked by pocket. He demanded money from me. I refused. He got angry. He beat me with slap. I tried to avoid slap. At that time my hand touched his nose. He got angry. He took out his sandal and beat me on my face. Many boys were trying their level best to restrain him from beating me. He checked by pocket. He demanded money from me. I refused. He got angry. He beat me with slap. I tried to avoid slap. At that time my hand touched his nose. He got angry. He took out his sandal and beat me on my face. Many boys were trying their level best to restrain him from beating me. I got angry because he bet ( ?) me with sandal. I pushed him. He fell down. Boys who were present there were pacifying him and restrained him. Even then he got up and demanded knife from Vasanta. Many boys were catching hold of him seeing that he should not behave in such a manner. In that scuffle the very knife which he had taken from Vasanta caused injury to him. At that time there were about 100-125 students present. I immediately left the place. I do not know what happened later on." 5. The prosecution sought to establish the charge by relying upon the testimony of two eye-witnesses viz. P.W. 3 Bhalchandra and P.W. 5 Hanumant. Next, it sought to take sustenance from the evidence of witness who claimed to have sold and honed the knife to and at the instance of the appellant. The third set of witnesses were those who spoke to appellant telling the Investigating Officer of having concealed the knife at his home and recovering the said knife from the place indicated. On this evidence, the argument was that the appellant and committed murder punishable under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, or, in the alternative, that Rajendra's death was due to an accident, or in the exercise of the right of self defence, or that at any rate it amounted to culpable homicide, not amounting to murder punishable under S. 304, Part II of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Judge upheld the prosecution version of appellant having committed murder punishable under S. 302 and imposed on the appellant a sentence of imprisonment for life. In appeal, learned counsel Mr. Rangari repeats the stand taken by him for the appellant in the trial Court. While we do not agree that the death of Rajendra was due to an accident or that appellant had acted in exercise of the right of self-defence, we uphold the defence that the slaying of Rajendra. amounts to no more than man slaughter punishable under S. 304, Part II. While we do not agree that the death of Rajendra was due to an accident or that appellant had acted in exercise of the right of self-defence, we uphold the defence that the slaying of Rajendra. amounts to no more than man slaughter punishable under S. 304, Part II. Having come thus far we take into consideration the facts of the case and hold the appellant to be entitled to the benefit of S. 4 read with S. 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958(Act). The appeal is substantially allowed with the conviction being altered to that for an offence punishable under S. 304, Part II of the Indian Penal Code and the appellant being given the benefit of probation under S. 4 of the Act. Our reasons for so doing are as follows : 6. First, we shall take up the defence of the appellant about the death of Rajendra being the result of an accident in which he played no part at all. The two eye-witnesses to the occurrence are Bhalchandra and Hanumant. Both of them have given a consistent and truthful account of how the killing took place. They speak of a heated exchange in progress between appellant and deceased Rajendra. It was Rajendra who first took recourse to violence by slapping the appellant. Upon this Rajendra's hands were gripped by Tengal and Sonavane. Appellant whipped out a knife and stabbed Rajendra in the stomach. That sent Rajendra reeling to the ground and he passed away. The witnesses have remained unshaken despite a very strenuous cross-examination. It may be noticed that Bhalchandra and Hanumant make no effort to put the blame for the start of the occurrence upon the appellant. Far from so doing they admit that it was Rajendra who provoked the appellant into the retaliatory at of whipping out a knife and striking him on the stomach. The theory of the knife somehow piercing the stomach of Rajendra it the pushing and pulling of the event does not carry conviction. Having regard to the size of the wound, the depth thereof and the force with which the blow must have been struck, we cannot but exclude the possibility of the injury being the result of an accident. The, next question would be whether the appellant acted in exercise of the right of self-defence ? Having regard to the size of the wound, the depth thereof and the force with which the blow must have been struck, we cannot but exclude the possibility of the injury being the result of an accident. The, next question would be whether the appellant acted in exercise of the right of self-defence ? There is no evidence to show that Rajendra had any weapon in his hand or that the slap or the first blow inflicted on the appellant was of such a nature as to spell danger to the life or limbs of the appellant. It was not therefore necessary for him to flush out his knife and inflict the fatal blow that he did on the person of Rajendra. Moreover, it does not appear that the knife blow was inflicted with a view to prevent Rajendra from striking the appellant more than once. The blow seems to have been inflicted as a retaliation for what Rajendra had done. Having come thus far, we are now faced with the question of whether what the appellant did amount to murder or manslaughter ? The plea of the lesser offence was negatived by the learned trial Judge by taking into consideration the purchase, honing and carrying of the knife by the appellant and the force with which the blow was inflicted as also the place chosen for inflicting the blow. We cannot agree with this reasoning. The atmosphere in the college was tense. Trouble was apprehended, and to such an extent, that a police force had to be detailed at the campus for the maintenance of law and order. Appellant's purchasing a knife and keeping it honed, could be for the legitimate reason of being armed so as not to be caught unawares by the rowdy elements of the College. Bhalchandra and Hanumant have denied that Rajendra was part of the anti-social elements responsible for the tense atmosphere in the College. But Rajendra's character is very well brought out in his slapping the appellant. It could not have been for any good reason, for, had it been so, the witnesses would have made a reference to the words which really angered Rajendra. In this situation, we see no reason to exclude the defence of the appellant about the deceased demanding money from him and being angered and slapping him when the demand was turned down. In this situation, we see no reason to exclude the defence of the appellant about the deceased demanding money from him and being angered and slapping him when the demand was turned down. Rajendra's brother complainant-Ramchandra has tried to port ray himself and his family as paragons of virtue. The contrary suggestions put to him have been denied. He is however careful not to give a definite answer when faced with the suggestion of Rajendra having been reported for anti-social activities not only to the Principal of the College, but also the police station. Mr. Rangari at one stage wanted to challenge Exs. 28 and 29 on the basis of a slight error in the testimony of P.S.I. Sutar. Exs. 28 and 29 bear the date 25-3-1988 and Panch P.W. 9 Pratap Gawde also testifies that the incidents referred to in Exs. 28 and 29 were recorded on 25-3-1988. Whether by inadvertence or otherwise the date of Exs. 28 and 29 given in P.S.I. Sutar's deposition is shown to be 29-3-1988. The mistake is obvious and has to be ignored. To revert to the main issue, we do not agree with the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the stabbing proved against the appellant would amount to murder. It would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder and this is because of the First Exception to the definition of murder as appearing in S. 300 of the Indian Penal Code. The said Exception reads as follows :- "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." In the instant case, it was deceased Rajendra who brought on himself his death. He picked up a quarrel with the appellant by demanding money from him and attempting to search pockets of the garments that appellant had on his person. To this extent we believe the appellant. This is because the act of Rajendra in slapping the appellant shows that he was angry and the anger cannot be explained, otherwise than by what appellant says. To this extent we believe the appellant. This is because the act of Rajendra in slapping the appellant shows that he was angry and the anger cannot be explained, otherwise than by what appellant says. According to the appellant Rajendra's anger as on account of not finding any money in the pockets of the appellant or not being allowed to inspect the pockets on account of the resistance put up by the appellant. Slapping the appellant was a provocative act and the provocation was grave and sudden for Rajendra had no business to ask for money from the appellant or slap him upon the unlawful demand being refused. The Exception is subject to various Provisos which are detailed in S. 300 and these are as under :- "First - That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person. Secondly . . . . Thirdly - That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence." Here, it was not the appellant who provoked or sought provocation to be slapped so as to have a readymade excuse to kill Rajendra. It a no one's case that the act of Rajendra in slapping the appellant was itself a lawful exercise of the right of private defence. This is because neither Bhalchandra nor Hanumant speak of appellant uttering any threat or making a gesture indicative of violence being in the offing so as to compel Rajendra to inflict the slap which invited retaliation in the form of a knife blow. Therefore we cannot sustain the conviction under 5.302, but convert the same to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The question now would be whether this conclusion would attract the first or the Second Part of S. 304, I.P.C. ? The First Part is attracted where the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. In the instant case, the argument that the fact that the appellant was armed would show that he was bent on causing death cannot be sustained. The First Part is attracted where the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. In the instant case, the argument that the fact that the appellant was armed would show that he was bent on causing death cannot be sustained. The carrying of a knife and its being kept in readiness is not attributable to any intention in the mind of the appellant to use it at the first available opportunity to commit murder. On the contrary, the atmosphere in the College was such as to make reasonable persons to apprehend violence and therefore be armed to meet any untoward contingency. The more appropriate inference is that angered at the slapping inflicted on him, the appellant unthinkingly brought out the knife and used it to inflict a deadly wound on the stomach of Rajendra. The act done has to be attributed knowledge that it was likely to cause death but without any intention on the part of the doer to cause death or cause such bodily injury as was likely to cause death. Appellant therefore is found guilty, under the Second Part of S. 304, I.P.C. 7. In respect of the sentence, the appellant was 18 years old at the time of the trial. This took place in September, 1988, whereas the crime was committed in the last week of March, 1988. Appellant is a first offender and the circumstances of the case do not indicate a necessity to impose a sentence of imprisonment upon him. In respect of the sentence, the appellant was 18 years old at the time of the trial. This took place in September, 1988, whereas the crime was committed in the last week of March, 1988. Appellant is a first offender and the circumstances of the case do not indicate a necessity to impose a sentence of imprisonment upon him. In fact, appellant will have to be dealt with under S. 6(1) of the Act, which reads as follows :- "When any person under twenty-one years of age is found guilty of having committed an offence punishable with imprisonment (but not with imprisonment for life), the Court by which the person is found guilty shall not sentence him to imprisonment unless it is satisfied that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it would not be desirable to deal with him under S. 3 or S. 4 and if the Court passes any sentence of imprisonment on the offender, it shall record its reasons for doing so." Here, there are no reasons why we should deviate from the policy underlying the aforementioned Section. In fact, there is everything in favour of the appellant getting the benefit of probation. He was young at the date of the occurrence being under twenty-one years of age. Rajendra was the first to provoke the violence. The demand made by Rajendra upon the appellant was unlawful. No young person in his teens could have been expected to take Rajendra's bullying meekly. Appellant did what was expected of him viz. giving the bully as good, if not better, than he got. Unfortunately, while retailing appellant committed an offence. Therefore there is no reason why a sentence of imprisonment should be recorded against the appellant. Justice will have been done by not imposing a sentence of imprisonment on the appellant at all and directing his release on his executing a bond without sureties in the sum of Rs. 1,000/-. The bond shall be in force for a period of one year as from the date of its execution. The bond shall be to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. As soon as the bond is executed the appellant shall be released forwith unless wanted in connection with some other offence. Appeal allowed as above. Appeal allowed.