JUDGMENT Khare, J. -- 1. Appellant Sukka has been convicted under section 302 Indian Penal Code for committing murder of his wife Bhagwatibai. 2. On 3.6.1985 at about 9x a.m. deceased Bhagwatibai was beheaded with axe Article 'A' near the public tap in Kisani Mohalla, Gairatganj. This axe belonged to Jhirilal (PW -3). According to his evidence his son-in-law accused Sukka took this from his house at about 8 a.m. Prembai (PW 2) is mother of the deceased. She has deposed that she saw the accused using this art. near the mango tree. Shortly, thereafter, deceased Bhagwatibai was found with bleeding injuries at a short distance from that tree and the blood stained axe Article' A' was lying beside her. On the basis of this strong piece of circumstantial evidence the accused was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for both the sides and after going through the entire material on record we are of the opinion that the FIR made by the accused on 3.6.1985 at 9.25 a.m. could not be completely discarded. The motive for the commission of this offence is clearly discernible from this FIR. This confessional part of the FIR is not admissible. But non-confessional part of the FIR can be used against the accused as evidence of conduct under section 8 Evidence Act. The motive for commission of the crime and the relationship of the accused with the deceased do not amount to confession and can be used. (Bheru Singh v. State of Rajasthan [ (1994) 2 SCC 467 . An admission in favour of the accused can be taken into account to examine whether the case falls under Exception I to section 300 particularly when there is no direct evidence disclosing as to how the attack took place. It has been so held by the Supreme Court in Murli v. State of Rajasthan ( AIR 1994 SC 610 ). 6. In the present case the accused lodged the FIR immediately after the incident. It is stated in the FIR by him that in the evening of the previous day he saw his wife cutting jokes with Ganesh. He asked Ganesh that he should not talk to her in this manner. He was keeping an eye upon his wife. 6. In the present case the accused lodged the FIR immediately after the incident. It is stated in the FIR by him that in the evening of the previous day he saw his wife cutting jokes with Ganesh. He asked Ganesh that he should not talk to her in this manner. He was keeping an eye upon his wife. He saw that at about 2 0' clock in the night when the other women were busy in the marriage function his wife quietly went inside the room and she was followed by Ganesh. After sometime he saw Ganesh committing sexual intercourse with his wife. On seeing him Ganesh ran away. This incident enraged 'him. Next morning he again saw Ganesh smoking while lying near his wife. He saw that she was dressing hereself at that time. They were laughing and marry making. On seeing him Ganesh left that place. He tried to persuade his wife to withdraw hereself from the wrong path but she did not respond giving an impression that she saw justifying what she was doing. 5. It must be reasonably presumed that the statements made by the accused shortly after the commission of the crime in his FIR are true. This would bring the case under Exception I to section 300 IPC. It is always a question of fact whether the provocation In a particular case was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder. The accused saw his wife having sexual relation with Ganesh in the night. He must have lost the power of self control. Again in the morning he saw his Wife cutting jokes with Ganesh. She gave a very cold response when she was dissueded to do so by the accused. In such a situation the provocation caused to the accused belonging to an aboriginal tribe must be hold to be both grave and sudden. Recently, in Bonda Devesa v. State of A.P. (1996) 7 SCC 115 the Supreme Court has held that the Court must look into the socio-economic back ground of the accused to ascertain whether the case is covered by the plea of grave and sudden provocation. That was also a case of an accused belonging to aborigina tribe. In our opinion the present case is covered by Exception I to section 300 IPC. 6. In the result the appeal is partly allowed. That was also a case of an accused belonging to aborigina tribe. In our opinion the present case is covered by Exception I to section 300 IPC. 6. In the result the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant under section 302 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment are set aside. Instead he is convicted under first part of section 304 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for ten years. He has already remained in jail for this period and he should be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.