JUDGMENT The facts giving rise to this appeal are thus. The appellant along with his wife Sonkunwar Bai (since deceased) and the child were going on 12.5.1986 to the bank of river for fishing. On way, altercation took place between the two. During the altercation, the deceased slapped the accused across the face. On this the accused took out his bow and shot an arrow on the chest of his wife. The deceased cried for help. Hearing this, Phoolmatia Bai (PW 1) came there. She saw Sonkunwar Bai lying near the bank of the river; blood was oozing from her chest. On asking by PW 1 the deceased told that her husband shot an arrow on her chest, she will not survice. Then PW 1 asked the accused about it. Accused told PW 1 that first his wife had beaten him then he shot the arrow. After telling this, the accused took up the child and ran away towards Hando river. From the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is evident that the accused and his wife were living amicably. There was no enmity between the two. On the day of occurrence both were going for fishing. On way altercation took place between them. In that altercation, the deceased slapped the accused. Then the accused took out his arrow and shot it on her. The manner in which the occurrence took place is borne out from the statement of Phoolmatia Bai (PW 1) and the extrajudicial confession made by the accused before Phoolmatia Bai (PW 1) and Dharam Sai (PW 7) Patel of the village Jajgi. In the circumstances, the question for consideration is whether the act of the accused amounts to murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. A Division Bench of Kerala High Court in Madhav v. State of Kerala (AIR 1962 Kerala 258), in case of murder of the wife by the husband, by chopping, where the deceased threatened to leave the husband for ever without obviously any prior reason removed 'thali' from her neck and threw the thali on his face, it was held that the act of the wife was quite sufficient to make the husband to lose his self control and to give the accused benefit of Exception 1 to section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. In the present case, the accused and the deceased are illiterate and rural rustic. In the present case, the accused and the deceased are illiterate and rural rustic. Their way of life in which they live was of tribals with the traditional values in the background of the society. Tribals commonly keep bow and arrow or tangia with them in their dwelling places and whenever they go out, they keep bow and arrow with them and tangia for cutting wood. The accused and the deceased were living amicably. On the day of occurrence, both left their house with their child for fishing. On way altercation and quarrel took place. The deceased slapped the accused, at that juncture, the accused under the immediate impulse of grave and sudden provocation lost the self control, took out his arrow and shot it so as to inflict injury on the deceased. The act was not premeditated, nor from the circumstances there was any intention to kill his wife. In the circumstances, principle test of grave or sudden provocation, whether a reasonable man belonging to the same class of society, as the accused, placed in the situation, in which the accused was placed, would be so provoked as to lose his self-control, and the provocation must be such as would upset not merely a hot tempered or highly sensitive person but one of ordinary calmness is attracted. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to benefit of Exception I to section 300 IPC. The offence committed by him will not be a case of murder but a case of culpable homicide .not amounting to murder. Therefore, we convict him under section 304 Part I instead of section 302 IPC. The accused was taken into custody OR 18.5.1986 and since then he is in jail. He has served out the sentence of more than 11 years. Therefore, the sentence already undergone will meet the ends of justice. AIR 1962 SC 605 followed. AIR 1966 Kerala 258 relied on. Appeal partly allowed.