JUDGMENT B. P. DAS, J. — This appeal is directed against the order of conviction dated 27.4.1994 in S.T. No. 149/93 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sundargarh, convicting the appellant under Sec. 302, I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R. I. for life. 2. The brief facts, leading to this appeal in short are as follows : On 10.4.1993 at 10.P.M. informant Kartikeswar Patra of Koliposh presented a written report before the Lahunipara Police Station alleging that on the same day at about 3.30 P.M. accused Chhala Munda of Deogharia had killed deceased Samu Munda of village Landamunda near Turikhodi Nala by means of one Langal Luha (ploughshare). The case was registered on his report and investigation was made and ultimately after investigation charge sheet under Sec. 302, I.P.C. was submitted against the accused-appellant. 3. Prosecution has examined as many as seventeen witnesses in all. P.W.1 is the Grama Rakhi, who is the informant and who proves the F.I.R. marked as Ext. 1 P.W.2 is the Ward-Member of the village who speaks that the accused came running to her and stated that he had murdered a man. She says that by then the accused was holding a ploughshare, in his hand, P.W.3 is an eye-witness to the occurrence as he was very much present near the place of occurrence and saw the accused assaulting an old man. He is also the person who disclosed this fact to the Grama Rakhi. P.W.4 is a post-occurrence witness who states that the accused came to his house with a ploughshare and asked him for food. The ploughshare was stained with blood. He stated that the accused was chased, caught-hold of and was kept in custody of one Beh¬era. P.W.10 is the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and found the following external injuries : (i) Lacerated decomposed wound sagitally situated over the head towards the left side of the mid line causing mutilation to the head. The injury is ante mortem in nature and size of 10" x 3½" deep into the cranial cavity. Bones of the skull fractured into many small pieces and are unidentifiable. The brain matter is absent in the cranial cavity which has become fluid and decom¬posed. The injury has involved the left orbit causing fracture and dislocation of upper and lateral orbital margin Membrance of the brain decomposed. Bones of the skull fractured into many small pieces and are unidentifiable. The brain matter is absent in the cranial cavity which has become fluid and decom¬posed. The injury has involved the left orbit causing fracture and dislocation of upper and lateral orbital margin Membrance of the brain decomposed. (ii) Lacerated injury c.c.m. 1 c.m. x 12 c.m. deep below the left side of the mandible causing fracture of the mandible. (iii) Lacerated wound 4 c.m. x 1 c.m x ½ c.m. behind the left side ear. The injury is situated horizontally. (iv) Lacerated wound 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. x ½ c.m. in front of left ear situated horizontally. (v) Lacerated wound of left pinna causing evultion of outer edge of 1" long. (vi) Lacerated wound over the middle of the left seen 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. horizontally, and (vii) Lacerated injury below lower lips of the left side 3 c.m. x ½ c.m. horizontally, and (viii) Bruise 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. over the upper part of left cheek at the level of left ear lope. According to him cause of death probably due to shock and coma from brain damage. The age of the injury is about 36 to 72 hours prior to the post mortem examination. The injuries found on the body of the deceased are sufficient to cause the death of a person. P.W.12 is the star witness of the prosecution, who is none-else than the wife of the deceased and who was present throughout the occurrence. It is also an admitted fact that the accused is the brother of P.W.12 i.e., the wife of the deceased. In her deposition she has categorically stated as follows : “The deceased was my husband. About a year back I along with my deceased husband had gone to Khuntgaon bazar. It was a Saturday. On our return I along with deceased husband took liquior under a banion tree near Koliposh. The accused assaulted my deceased husband without any reason by means of a ploughshare. M.O.II is that ploughshare, as a result of the assault my husband died at the spot. The accused assaulted on the fore head of my deceased husband by means of M.O.II causing bleeding injuries. After assault, the accused fled away from the spot. The accused is my brother. My deceased husband had married my mother first. My mother left my deceased husband. The accused assaulted on the fore head of my deceased husband by means of M.O.II causing bleeding injuries. After assault, the accused fled away from the spot. The accused is my brother. My deceased husband had married my mother first. My mother left my deceased husband. So my deceased husband married me again. Out of this grudge, the accused assaulted my deceased husband.” 4. The plea of the accused is one of denial. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant takes a plea that the present appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitts that examination of the material objects i.e. the ploughshare after considerable delay creates serious doubt about genuineness of the case of the prosecution. 6. That apart, as per the learned counsel for the appellant, there is contradiction in the evidence of P.W.3 who in his exami¬nation-in-chief stated that he has seen the entire occurrence but in the cross-examination he has denied to have seen anything and also tries to take advantage of delayed examination of weapon of offence by P.W.10 i.e., the Doctor. Be that as it may, due to the contradictions so indicated and the delayed examination of M.O.II, we are not inclined to to discard the entire evidence of the prosecution and to give a clean acquittal to the appellant. 7. The F.I.R. story has been duly corroborated by the evi¬dence of P.W.12 as well as by medical evidence and the evidence of P.W.17, i.e., the I.O. 8. From the evidence on record, there is nothing to disagree with the findings of the learned trial Judge that the death of the deceased was of homidical in nature and the appellant is the author of the said crime. Now we have to see whether the convic¬tion and sentence under Sec. 302, I.P.C. as has been done by the learned Sessions Judge is justified ? The learned counsel for the appellant relying upon the story of the F.I.R. as well as the evidence of P.W. 12 submits that the admitted fact being that the deceased first married to her mother and left her mother and married to her, is enough to give provocation and lead to heat of passion which ultimately resulted in giving blow on the head of the deceased. There is no evidence of premeditation. There is no evidence of premeditation. In the case of Mandangi Samburu v. State reported in 1985 (I) O.L.R. 271, a Division Bench of this Court made an observation that the appel¬lant belong to aboriginal tribe and is inflammable by nature. In the case of K.M.Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra reported in A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 605, it has been held that no abstract standard of reasonableness can be laid down. What a reasonable man will do in certain circumstances depends upon the customs, manners, way of life, traditional values etc. in short, the cultural, social and emotional background of the society to which an accused belongs. 9. Here is a case where the appellant belongs to aboriginal tribe, illiterate and it is also the admitted fact that the deceased not only kept his mother first but after leaving the mother kept his sister which is quite intolerable and humiliating to the accused in the society they live and naturally bound to giverise to uncontrollable pressure in the mind of a son and in such circumstances, it is not unusual taking consideration of the social background of the appellant to commit murder. The restraint of a prudent sophisticated man cannot be expected from the appel¬lant. Accordingly in absence of premeditation, we hold that the appellant committed the offence under Sec. 304, Part-I, I.P.C. and not under Sec. 302, I.P.C. 10. Accordingly, for the reasons as aforesaid the appeal is allowed in part. The conviction of the appellant is converted from one under Sec. 302, I.P.C. to that under Sect. 304, Part-I, I.P.C. and we sentence him to undergo R.I. for eight years. M. PAPANNA, J. I agree Appeal allowed in part.