JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Merta dated 13-10-1986 whereby the accused-appellant has been held guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC and has been sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to undergo one months R.I. 2. The facts necessary to be noticed for disposal of this appeal briefly stated are that on 19-6-1986 at about 330 p.m. a rumour was heard at Merta Bus Stand near tea hotel that a dead body was lying near Baipura Food Corporation Godown near Malolai Pond and that body is being eaten by the animals. Shankarlal, SHO, who received the information, went on the spot, recovered the dead body, got its post-mortem conducted. The dead body had Dhoti as a under garment and one shoe was there in one of his foot. His one shoe was lying at about 60 years. away from the dead body. On the examination of the dead body it was found that there was one injury of a sharp weapon. The dead body was then identified on account of the clothes and it was found to be that of Ram Karan. The accused Devia @ Deva Ram was arrested on 4-7-1986 and a dagger was recovered on his information and after investigation the accused was challaned. In reply to the charge the accused admitted his guilt and has admitted that he has murdered Shri Ramkaran. He has stated that at the time of occurrence he was aged about 22 years. The deceased was responsible for his vasectomy before eight years, i.e., when he was only 14 years old. Thereafter his Muklawa was done. Thereafter it is alleged that on the date of occurrence Ramkaran met the accused and told him whether he is able to co-habit with his wife or not, i.e., whether there is an erection in his penis or not? This infuriated the accused because firstly he got his vasectomy done at a very early age when he was only 14 years old and then he asked him the question as to whether he is able to co-habit with his wife, i.e., whether any erection of his penis is there or not. This infuriated the accused because firstly he got his vasectomy done at a very early age when he was only 14 years old and then he asked him the question as to whether he is able to co-habit with his wife, i.e., whether any erection of his penis is there or not. The accused's elder brother had no son and he too inspite of co- habitation with his wife did not get a son because of this operation and, therefore, when such a question was asked, he got highly enraged infuriated and in that fit of anger, i.e., grave and sudden provocation he dealt a dagger blow to Ramkaran which resulted in his death. This fact has been duly admitted by him. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the accused-appellant Shn J.P. Joshi, who has been appointed as amicus curiae to help the accused and we have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Mr. Bohra has fully supported the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. The learned counsel for the accused-appellant has submitted that the case does not travel beyond Section 304 part I IPC and in this respect he placed reliance on a decision rendered in Surinder Kumar v. Union Territory, Chandigarh reported in AIR 1989 SC 1094 . In this case it is alleged that only one dagger blow was given in the mid portion of the chest which of course is a vital organ but the manner in which the accused acted, was not very cruel and it can safely be stated that he acted under grave and sudden provocation. In the facts and circumstances of this case neither his elder brother nor he had any issue and still the man who was responsible for his vasectomy at the age of 14 years, tried to tease him by saying whether his penis erects or not then it can safely be said that in those circumstances one is bound to get grave and sudden provocation and, it was because of this that this blow was inflicted and, therefore; we are inclined to agree with Mr. Joshi that the case does not travel beyond Section 304 part I, IPC. 5. Joshi that the case does not travel beyond Section 304 part I, IPC. 5. Taking an overall view of the facts and circumstances of the entire case, we are inclined to hold that the ends of justice would be met in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case if the accused is sentenced to the period of his custody. 6. In the result, the appeal partly succeeds. The conviction and sentence of the accused recorded under Section 302 IPC is set aside. He is held guilty of the offence under Section 304 part I IPC. He is in custody since 4-7-1986 and, therefore, he has already remained in custody for eight years and, therefore, keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of this case it will meet the ends of justice if he is sentenced to the period of his custody for aforesaid offence. He is sentenced accordingly. 7. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly on merits. If the accused is not wanted in any other case, he be set at liberty forthwith.Appeal partly allowed. *******