JUDGMENT B.M. Thulasidas, J.: The appellant stands convicted under Sec.302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. He was alleged to have stabbed to death one John alias Thambi on 1.10.1989, at about 8.00 p.m., from near the Arrack shop of P.W.3, whom he was alleged to have abused following his refusal to give arrack on credit that the deceased heard as he came there and tried to reason with him to send him away. The First Information statement, Ex.P-1 as given by P.W.1, an eye witness, to P.W.9, on the basis of which Crime No. 154 of 1989 of Rajapuram Police Station was registered. P.W.10 investigated the case. He held inquest from the mortuary of the Government Hospital, Kanhangad on 2.10.1989 and as per Ex.P-7 report he recovered M.O.12 to M.O.16. As per Ex.P-2 scene mahazar, M.Os.1 to 11 were seized. Post-mortem was conducted by P.W.6 who issued Ex.P-4 certificate. The deceased had (ante-mortem) “An incised wound elliptical in shape 4 cm × 2 cm obliquely placed on the front of the right side of chest. It is 6 cm below the right Sternoclavicular joint and 4 cm, to the right of the midline, upper and of the wound is slightly rounded compared to lower end which is more sharp. On probing wound is directed downward and medially and is entering the thoracic cavity.” He also found: “The inter costal muscles below the 3rd rib cleanly cut. The 4th rib is sharply cut at the stern costal junction. On opening the thoracic cavity, a cut of 2 cm length is seen on the medial border of the right lung overlying the heart, in line with the external wound. There is incised wound on the pericardium overlying the right auricle (alrium) 3 cm. × 1/2 cm. and some collection of blood in the pericardial cavity. There is an incised wound 2 cm. × 0.4 cm., over the upper and anterior part of right alrium and has entered the right alrial carity. There is incised wound on the pericardium overlying the right auricle (alrium) 3 cm. × 1/2 cm. and some collection of blood in the pericardial cavity. There is an incised wound 2 cm. × 0.4 cm., over the upper and anterior part of right alrium and has entered the right alrial carity. Right thoracic cavity contains about 600 ml of blood Right lung is adherent to the thoracic wall due to fibroses of the upper part of lung and is smaller in size.” and opined that the deceased died of haemorrhage and shock due to the injury to the heart, which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, and maintained that M.O.1 could have caused it. The accused was arrested at 3.00 p.m. on 4.10. 1989 from the road at Chemberi in Panthady Village and as per Ex.P-8 statement, M.O.1 was seized under Ex.P-5 mahazar. M.Os.2 and 3 were also seized from him under Ex.P-3. After completing the investigation he laid the charge-sheet. 2. P.Ws.l to 10 were examined, Exs.P-1 to P-9 and M.Os. 1 to 7 were marked. When questioned under Sec.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he denied the incriminating circumstances and put forward a case of self-defence and grave and sudden provocation offered by the deceased. No witness was examined in defence. Ex.D-1 was marked. 3. We heard counsel for the appellant and the Public Prosecutor. 4. That death of John alias Thampi was homicidal following the fatal stab injury caused by the accused in the incident that happened at 8 p.m. on 1.10.1989 is not in controversy. The place of incident had been identified by P.W.10. Ex.P-3 is the scene mahazar. There were telltale marks of the occurrence at the place. P.Ws.1 to 3, who are familiar with the accused and the deceased, had given acceptable evidence about the incident. P.W.3 who was employed in the arrack shop deposed that on 1.10.1989, around 8 p.m. the accused came consumed 100 ml. of arrack and paid Rs.5 being the price. He left the shop but soon returned and wanted him to give 100 ml. more on credit, that he refused since Rs.4.50 was already due from him in connection with a prior transaction. He went away but came again and after showing a five rupee not demanded 100 ml. of arrack that he gave him. He left the shop but soon returned and wanted him to give 100 ml. more on credit, that he refused since Rs.4.50 was already due from him in connection with a prior transaction. He went away but came again and after showing a five rupee not demanded 100 ml. of arrack that he gave him. But he did not pay the price, told him to collect it if he could and left showering abuses to which he did not respond but said that he shall speak to him afterwards. Just at that time the deceased, who had been hearing the volley of abuses came and asked the accused to go home. But he retorted that even if he were asked to do so by his father he would not have obliged and asked the deceased what business he had to advise as he did. There followed a scuffle between them when P.W.1 was heard to call the deceased and he proceeded in the direction of his shop. That was all that he saw and couple of minutes later after he heard that the accused stabbed the deceased, he came out of the shop to find the deceased running towards the shop of P.W.1 and the accused walking away towards the west. He and two others went after the deceased, who in the meanwhile, fell near the pepper-vine in the compound of Anthony bleeding profusely. A jeep was brought by P.W.1 and the deceased was first taken to a private Doctor, who advised his removal to a Hospital immediately. But before he reached the Government Hospital, Kanhanged he died. The evidence of this witness is consistent and free from any sort of ambiguity. The suggestion that he colluded with others to foist a case against the accused after due deliberation was indeed unmerited. 5. P.Ws.1 and 2 had allegedly seen the incident. They corroborated P.W.3 as to its background and stated the accused stabbed the deceased following his intervention in the quarrel with P.W.3. The accused who fell when he was pushed by the deceased, got up, went after him and plunged his dagger standing right in front. All these they witnessed happened in trice. They corroborated P.W.3 as to its background and stated the accused stabbed the deceased following his intervention in the quarrel with P.W.3. The accused who fell when he was pushed by the deceased, got up, went after him and plunged his dagger standing right in front. All these they witnessed happened in trice. They maintained - and that was also the case of P.W.3, which was believable - that he was not there, which indeed belied the suggestion that the injury he sought to inflict upon the accused after he fell during the scuffle with the deceased, who gave the call to strike was received by him by accident. The oral evidence is quite clear that the assailant was the accused himself and that the incident did not take place as alleged by him. P.Ws. 1 and 2 could have made no mistake since they witnessed the actual stabbing from their respective places, so near the place of incident, that was well-lighted. There is no doubt that they could have heard and seen all that had happened between P.W.3 and the accused and that between him and the deceased. They are indeed natural witnesses and their testimony carried the ring of truth. 6. We see conflicting strands in the defence the accused had put forward. The one that was sought to be made out through suggestions to the witnesses is unbelievable and that which he set up when questioned under Sec.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is against the evidence and circumstances. Rightly his counsel did not seriously canvass the same. What was urged was that the accused did not attack the deceased deliberately or after premeditation, but when he had lost self-control under the influence of liquor and on grave and sudden provocation, that therefore, the offence if any he had committed is not murder. That he was then under the influence of liquor can be accepted; but that did not provide an excuse for what he had done upon the deceased, who no doubt had sought to pacify him in his quarrel with P.W.3, but was rebuffed that led to a scuffle resulting in the accused falling down, following a forcible push that the deceased gave. What will be grave and sudden provocation will depend upon the facts and circumstances and also the temperament of the person concerned. What will be grave and sudden provocation will depend upon the facts and circumstances and also the temperament of the person concerned. There is no hard and fast rule and each case must be decided upon its facts. From what had been proved, the deceased just did not rest content to play the role of a pacifist, but sought to do something more. When the accused made it clear to him that he was not willing to abide by his advice, he should have left him alone and not precipitated a situation that led to a scuffle between them in which the accused who had been pushed fell down. By his conduct he had shown where his sympathies lay and whose cause he was interested to espouse, that naturally must have upset and provoked the accused to attack him, that he did with dagger he carried. In our view, momentarily the accused would have lost self-control by the sudden provocation that he had from the deceased, which certainly could not be dismissed as not grave by his standard. From the circumstances we should discount that he had the intention to kill or inflict such injury as was most likely to cause death. He has committed only culpable homicide not amounting to murder coming under the first part of Sec.304, I.P.C. 7. We set aside his conviction under Sec. 302, I.P.C. find him guilty under the first part of Sec.304, convict and sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8 years. 8. The appeal is disposed of as above. V.K.-----Order accordingly.