ORDER Having heard Ms. Halida Khaten learned amicus curiae and Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the respondent-State of Rajasthan we do not find any scope for interference with the concurrent findings of fact. Of course learned counsel for the appellant made an attempt to show that the act of the accused is covered by Exception No. 1 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code and that he was gravely and suddenly provoked. But all that the counsel could pick out in support of the said contention was that the motive alleged for the murder is the illicit relationship which the deceased- Shinshpal had with the daughter-in-law of the accused. That is not enough for us to feel that at the time when the incident happened accused got suddenly and gravely provoked. The burden is on the accused to establish that aspect of course in the nature of the defence strategy adopted by him (alibi) normally it is difficult for him to establish the circumstances which would afford him the benefit of Exception No. 1. Even apart from the particular defence strategy adopted by him in the Trial Court, if accused had succeeded in highlighting circumstances to show that he was gravely and suddenly provoked then it is possible for him to contend that the act was covered by 1st Exception to Section 300. But unfortunately, there is no circumstance available in the prosecution evidence for making out the said Exception. 2. For the aforesaid reasons we dismiss this appeal. Appeal dismissed. *************** Parallel Citations of other Journals : Ram Kishan v. State of Rajasthan, 2001(4) Supreme 434 00019