Honble KOKJE, J. – The appellant was prosecuted for an offence under Sec. 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with Rs. 1000/- as fine. The prosecution case was that the appellant strangulated his old mother and caused her death. Narain lodged the FIR stating that the deceased had gone to a Camp which was held in the village for distribution of aid on behalf of the Govt. to the old and aged. The deceased also had gone to fill in the form for getting old age pension. – When the appellant knew of the sanction of old age pension to the deceased, he went to the spot where the camp was being held at about 2O Clock in the afternoon and dragged deceased Chunni Bai home and killed her there for the greed of money. It was also stated in the FIR that after killing deceased, appellant Bheru put a lock on the premises and went to Onkars home and confessed before him that he had killed Chuni Bai by throttling. It was stated in the FIR that the appellant Bheru was preparing for the funeral of the deceased. It was also stated that all these things were heard by the informant and one Mangu. It was further stated that the informant and Mangu went to Bherus house and saw that the dead body was lying there and Bheru confessed in their presence that he had done away with Chunni Bai. Bheru also told the informant not to spread the information about the death of Chunni Bai and also invited them to join the funeral. (2). In the Court, PW-1 Onkar before whom Bheru was said to have confessed the guilt turned hostile to the prosecution and he claimed ignorance about the manner in which Chunni Bai died. PW-2 Narain S/o Rupaji, the informant, supported the prosecution. So far as the cause of death of Chunni Bai is concerned in his cross-examination he stated that initially Onkar had told him that Bheru had confessed to him of having killed his mother and then Bheru himself repeated the confession before him. He stated that Chunni Bai used to live separately from Bheru, she had two sons Bheru and Narain and both were issue less. He also stated that he had seen Bheru taking Chunni Bai home from the camp. He stated that Chunni Bai used to live separately from Bheru, she had two sons Bheru and Narain and both were issue less. He also stated that he had seen Bheru taking Chunni Bai home from the camp. Bheru was scolding his mother as to why she was sitting in the camp like a beggar. He denied the sug- gestion that Bheru took Chunni Bai home scolding her for having gone to the camp for getting pension thus compromising on the status of the family. PW-3 Mangu S/o Kishna stated that he had seen Chunni Bai being taken home from the camp by the appellant and she was being beaten on the way. He heard after an hour of this that Chunni Bai had died. Narain had told him about this and Narain and Mangu went to Bherus house, where Bheru was preparing for the funeral of the deceased. He stated that when they asked Bheru as to what happened he said that he had lost his reason and his mother had died. This witness states that Muddekhan, Peerukhan and others were also present when this confession was made. Nothing of consequence came out in the cross-examination. PW-4 Narain S/o Moti, the brother of the appellant turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. His statement is not of much consequence as he was not present in the village on the date of the incident. PW-11 Peerkhan has also deposed about the confession made by Bheru in presence of many persons from the village. PW-12 Muddekhan also stated that Bheru had confessed in the presence of several persons. PW-8 Dr. P. C. Jain who had conducted the post- mortem examination proved his report and opined that the deceased died due to asphyxia caused by strangulation. She had burn injuries also which were anti-mortem. (3). The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no direct evidence of the appellant having caused the death of his mother. According to him the circumstantial evidence collected by the prosecution does not establish link between all the circumstances which may point to the appellant being the only person who could have caused the death of the deceased. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no direct evidence of the appellant having caused the death of his mother. According to him the circumstantial evidence collected by the prosecution does not establish link between all the circumstances which may point to the appellant being the only person who could have caused the death of the deceased. In the alternative, it was suggested that the case would fall under Sec. 304 IPC and not under Sec. 302 IPC because according to the learned counsel it is clear from the record that the appe- llant was agitated and provoked by fact that his mother went to the camp for applying old age pension and, thus causing an insult to him. According to learned counsel it has come in the evidence of the brother of the appellant also that mother was residing with the appellant and he was keeping her well. There was no motive for the appellant to have committed the crime. (4). The Learned Public Prosecutor supported the conviction and the sentence imposed on the appellant and submitted that apart from the fact that the appellant was the only man who was last seen together with the deceased and who had dragged her home immediately before her death scolding her for having gone to the camp and thus, compromising his status in the society. The learned Public Prosecutor also led stress on the evidence of extra judicial confession made before several witnesses immediately after the death was caused. As regards the argument about the case falling under Sec. 304 IPC the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the exercise of her right by the deceased to apply for pension according to her own sweet-will cannot be held to be an act which would provide such a provocation to the appellant to bring the case within the scope of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It was also contended that the provocation could not have been said to be grave and sudden. When the appellant dragged the deceased from the camp to his house and then killed her, it is sufficient indication that he had meditated over the action he was going to take, otherwise he would have assaulted her fatally on the spot at the camp itself. (5). Having heard the learned counsel and having gone through the record, we see no force in this appeal. (5). Having heard the learned counsel and having gone through the record, we see no force in this appeal. All the necessary facts have been adequately proved by the witnesses, though the motive which was alleged in the FIR was not proved in that manner. In the FIR it was stated that the appellant wanted to take away the money which the deceased was going to receive. This was not a fact and actually what has come out in the evidence is that the appellant was put off because of his mother going to the camp with a begging bowl compromising his status in the village. This would be of no consequence as to the essential facts in the case. After all the FIR was lodged by a third person according to his own under standing of the situation. The appellant himself says nothing about the cause of death of his mother and in his statement under Sec. 313 of the Cr.P.C. he claims that the deceased died a natural death being a lady of 70 years of age. When it was proved that the appellant was the only person who had dragged his mother to his house and within an hour she was found dead with burn injuries as also injuries suggesting strangulation by throttling and the appellant does not offer any explanation, but says the deceased had died a natural death, then this is a circumstance which will militate against him. (6). In the circumstances of this case, we find that the charge has been clearly brought home to the appellant. There is no force in the alternative argument also that the case would fall under Sec. 304 IPC. It is not a case of grave and sudden provocation. Association of her right to apply for old age pension by the deceased cannot be held to be a grave provocation to the appellant and in any case since he has dragged her home and then killed her, it could not be a sudden provocation either. The appeal is dismissed.