JUDGMENT G. P. Mathur, J. 1. BARSATI alias Babu Ram has preferred this appeal against his conviction under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentence of imprisonment for life imposed by Vth Addl. Sessions Judge, Kanpur by the judgment and order dated 20.11.1980 in S.T. No. 336 of 1980. 2. THE case of the prosecution in brief, is that the appellant Barsati alias Babu Ram is the real brother of the deceased Mst. Samana, daughter of Bharose Godia. She was married to Ram Kishore with whom she had two children. She deserted Ram Kishore about eight years back and started living with her brother-in-law (elder sister's husband) Chhiddu as his wife. Shortly before the occurrence, it was rumoured in the village that she had developed illicit relations with Brij Lal Godia. On this issue, a panchayat was convened at about 9 p.m. on 27.5.1980 in which Mool Chand, Gaya Din, Nawab Khan, etc. of the locality had participated. THE panchayat was being held on the chabutra in front of the house of Ramadhar. There is a gali at a distance of about 20 paces from there and towards the east of the gali, there is house of Bhikhu. Mst. Samana was sitting in the gali at that place and the accused Barsati alias Babu Ram was standing on the chabutra in front of the house of Behari Lal and was hearing the discussions being held in the panchayat. Immediately after the panchayat was over, he picked up a gandasa and gave 3-4 blows to Mst. Samana and thereafter ran away. He was given a chase but could not be (apprehended). Mst. Samana died on the spot. A written F.I.R. of the incident was lodged by Behari Lal at 11 p.m. on 27.5.1980 at P.S. Sachendi, on the basis of which a case was registered under Section 304, I.P.C. The case was registered in presence of P.W 8 Mohd. Zahirul Hasan, S.O. of P.S. Sachendi. He immediately proceeded for the spot and held inquest on the body of the deceased. He prepared challan lash and other documents for the purpose of post-mortem examination of the body. The body was sealed and was sent for post-mortem examination. He also collected plain and blood stained earth from the spot and prepared a site plan. After recording statement of the witnesses, he submitted charge-sheet against the accused under Section 304, I.P.C. 3. He prepared challan lash and other documents for the purpose of post-mortem examination of the body. The body was sealed and was sent for post-mortem examination. He also collected plain and blood stained earth from the spot and prepared a site plan. After recording statement of the witnesses, he submitted charge-sheet against the accused under Section 304, I.P.C. 3. LEARNED Chief Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The Vth Addl. Sessions Judge, Kanpur, framed charge under Section 302, I.P.C. against the appellant on 9.9.1980. The charge was read over and explained to the appellant who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in support of its case examined eight witnesses including four eye-witnesses. In his statement under Section 313, Cr. P.C. the accused denied the case of prosecution and asserted that he had been falsely implicated on account of enmity. He examined two witnesses in his defence. The learned Sessions Judge believed the case of prosecution and convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. 4. WE have heard Sri O. P. Singh for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and have examined the entire record. Before adverting to the ocular testimony, it will be useful to refer to the medical evidence on record. P.W. 6 Dr. N. Hasan, Medical Officer Incharge, U.H.M. Hospital, Kanpur, conducted post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased at 5.30 p.m. on 28.5.1980 and found following ante-mortem injuries thereon. "(1) Incised wound 11 cm. 1.5 cm. bone cut on right parietal region ; 3.5 cm. above right ear. (2) Incised wound 15 cm. 2.5 cm. bone cut ; right above part of right ear cut and brain matter coming out from it. Right maxillary, right frontal and right parietal bones were cut. (3) Incised wound 5 cm. 1 cm. bone cut on right side vertex 4.5 cm. above injury No. 1. (4) Incised wound 6 cm. 1 cm. bone cut 4 cm. below to right ear lower end. (5) Punctured wound 3 cm. 2 cm. on the back of right axilla fold, muscle deep." The internal examination showed that the bones under injuries No. 1, 2 and 3 had been cut. The membranes of the brain had been cut and clotted blood was found therein. 1 cm. bone cut 4 cm. below to right ear lower end. (5) Punctured wound 3 cm. 2 cm. on the back of right axilla fold, muscle deep." The internal examination showed that the bones under injuries No. 1, 2 and 3 had been cut. The membranes of the brain had been cut and clotted blood was found therein. In the opinion of the doctor, death had occurred on account of shock and haemorrhage due to ante-mortem injuries. The witness has proved the post-mortem examination report prepared by him which is Ex. Ka-2 on the record. He further stated that the death could have taken place at 10 p.m. on 27.5.1980 and the deceased would have died immediately after receiving the injuries. 5. P.W. 1 Behari who is resident of Sachendi is the first informant of the case. In his examination-in-chief, he has stated that Mst. Samana was real elder sister of the appellant Barsati alias Babu Ram. She had deserted her husband and had put on the bangles given by her brother-in-law (elder sister's husband). Thereafter she developed illicit relations with Brij Lal. A panchayat was convened regarding the aforesaid conduct of Mst. Samana in which Mool Chand, Gaya Din, Nawab Khan, etc. were present. After the panchayat was over, he started for his house when he saw that Barsati was standing near the 'chapper' and Mst. Samana was sitting near the wall of house of Bhikhu at a distance of two or three paces from there. Barsati gave 3-4 blows to Mst. Samana and thereafter ran away. He dictated a F.I.R. of the occurrence to Barkau and lodged the same at the police station. He has proved the F.I.R. lodged by him which is Ex. Ka-1 on the record. 6. P.W. 2 Mool Chand is also resident of Sachendi. He has stated that a panchayat was held in front of the house of Ramadhar regarding the conduct of Mst. Samana which finished at 9 p.m. He along with Behari, Gaya Din, Barkau proceeded from there and while he was smoking a biri, he saw the appellant Barsati standing there and Mst. Samana sitting on the chabutra at the corner of the house of Bhikhu. The appellant Barsati then came out and after abusing Mst. Samana, gave 3-4 blows of gandasa to her and ran away. Samana sitting on the chabutra at the corner of the house of Bhikhu. The appellant Barsati then came out and after abusing Mst. Samana, gave 3-4 blows of gandasa to her and ran away. P.W. 3 Nawab Khan who is also resident of Sachendi has given a similar statement and has stated that after deserting her husband, Mst. Samana had started living with her elder brother-in-law as his wife and thereafter she developed illicit relations with Brij Lal regarding which a panchayat was held in which he had participated along with Behari, Mool Chand, Gaya Din, etc. The panchayat finished at 9.30 p.m. and while proceeding for his house, he started smoking a biri. He then saw Barsati coming out and giving 3-4 blows by gandasa to his sister Mst. Samana who was sitting at the corner of the house of Bhikhu. 7. P.W. 4 Gaya Din stated that a panchayat had been convened regarding the conduct of Mst. Samana which was over at 9.30 p.m. He further stated that after the panchayat was over, he came back and did not see anyone assaulting Mst. Samana. The witness was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the State counsel. He admitted to have given statement to the Investigating Officer of the case under Section 161, Cr. P.C. to the effect that the appellant Barsati had given 3-4 blows by gandasa to the deceased Mst. Samana. He also admitted that it was moonlit night and everything was clearly visible. He, however, stated that the aforesaid statement was given by him to the Investigating Officer on account of fear. 8. P.W. 7 Lallan Singh who was constable moharrir of P.S. Sachendi on 27.5.1980 stated that P.W. 1 Behari lodged a written F.I.R. of the occurrence at 11 p.m. on that day and on the basis of the same he registered a case in G.D. No. 24 and prepared a chick F.I.R. P.W. 5 Krishna Kant Pandey constable of P.S. Sachendi stated that the dead body was sealed in his presence and was handed over to him at 1.30 a.m. for being taken for the purpose of post-mortem examination and he had brought the same to the police lines in the morning. P.W. 8 Mohd. Zahiral Hasan was the Station Officer of P.S. Sachendi and the case was registered in his presence. P.W. 8 Mohd. Zahiral Hasan was the Station Officer of P.S. Sachendi and the case was registered in his presence. In his statement, he gave details of the various steps taken by him during the course of the investigation of the case. The defence taken by the appellant in his statement under Section 313, Cr. P.C. is a complete denial and false implication on account of enmity. He examined two witnesses in his defence. D.W. 1 Arjun stated that he had taken 18 bighas of land of Babulal Gupta on 'batai' (sharing of crop). His tubewell went out of order at about 8 p.m. and then he went to P.W. 2 Mool Chand and requested him to see why his tubewell was not working. Mool Chand came and when he was not successful in starting the tubewell, be called Nawab Khan P.W. 3 who also came there at 9.30 p.m. and they remained present there till about 11.30 p.m. He has further stated that he along with Mool Chand and Nawab Khan camelback to his house at about 12 in the night and then he came to know that Mst. Samana had been murdered and saw her body lying near the house of Bharose. D.W. 2 Babu Ram, head constable proved the entry regarding the receipt of dead body at police lines at 13.45 hours on 28.5.1980. 9. P.W. 1 Behari in his examination-in-chief merely stated that the appellant assaulted his sister 3-4 times but he could not see what was the weapon in his hand. It is noteworthy that the F.I.R. of the incident was lodged by him and there it is clearly mentioned that the assault was made by a gandasa. He has admitted that he had got the F.I.R. scribed by Barkau which had been read over to him and then he had put his thumb impression on the same. The F.I.R. was read over to him in Court also and he admitted that the same was lodged by him but stated that he had not dictated that the assault was made by a gandasa. He could not explain as to how the said sentence finds place in the F.I.R. When confronted with his statement under Section 161, Cr. The F.I.R. was read over to him in Court also and he admitted that the same was lodged by him but stated that he had not dictated that the assault was made by a gandasa. He could not explain as to how the said sentence finds place in the F.I.R. When confronted with his statement under Section 161, Cr. P.C., he admitted that the Investigating Officer of the case had recorded his statement but further stated that he had not told him that the appellant Barsati had a gandasa. He also admitted that he had clearly seen the appellant Barsati when he had assaulted Mst. Samana and he must have been carrying some weapon as the assault was made by him. It appears that P.W. 1 Behari has tried to support the appellant in Court by omitting to mention the weapon by which the assault was made. However, he corroborates the prosecution case regarding the time, place of occurrence and also the fact that the assault was made by the appellant Barsati. 10. P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 have corroborated the prosecution case in all its particulars, namely, time, place of occurrence and also the presence of Mool Chand. Both these witnesses have clearly stated that as soon as panchayat was over, the appellant Barsati assaulted Mst. Samana with a gandasa. The fourth eye-witness P.W. 4 Gaya Din no doubt did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. He, however, corroborates the prosecution case regarding the reason for holding the panchayat, namely, illicit relations of Mst. Samana with Brij Lal and also the factum of holding the panchayat which finished at about 9.30 p.m. Thus, testimony of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 establishes beyond any doubt that a panchayat was held regarding the conduct of Mst. Samana in having illicit relations with Brij Lal after she had started living as the wife of her brother-in-law Chhiddu. All the three eye-witnesses, namely, P.W. 1 Behari, P.W. 2 Mool Chand and P.W. 3 Nawab Khan have stated that Mst. Samana had deserted her husband Ram Kishore. P.W. 1 has stated in para 18 of his statement that she had two children from Ram Kishore. Thereafter she started living as wife of her elder brother-in-law (elder sister's husband) Chhiddu after he gave bangles to her. Thereafter, she developed illicit relations with Brij Lal. Samana had deserted her husband Ram Kishore. P.W. 1 has stated in para 18 of his statement that she had two children from Ram Kishore. Thereafter she started living as wife of her elder brother-in-law (elder sister's husband) Chhiddu after he gave bangles to her. Thereafter, she developed illicit relations with Brij Lal. A panchayat had been convened in the night of 27.5.1980 regarding the aforesaid conduct of Mst. Samana as Brij Lal was asserting that the aforesaid allegation was false. The site plan Ex. Ka-10 which has been proved by P.W. 8 Mohd. Zahirul Hasan, Investigating Officer of the case, shows that the panchayat was being held in front of the house of Ramadhar. There is a gali going east-west in front of the chabutra of the house of Ramadhar and after a distance of about 20 paces, another gali goes in north-south direction. Towards east of the gali, there is house of Behari, then there is a chapper and chabutra and across the gali there is house of Bhikhu in front of which also there is a chabutra. The appellant was standing on the chabutra in front of the house of Behari while the deceased Mst. Samana was sitting on the chabutra in front of the house of Bhikhu at the time when the panchayat was being held. It has also come in the testimony of the eye-witnesses that it was a moonlit night and there was good visibility. After the panchayat was over at about 9.30 p.m., P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 dispersed from there and they saw the appellant Barsati standing near chappar. He moved forward and gave 3-4 blows by gandasa to Mst. Samana. 11. THE post-mortem report shows that the deceased sustained four incised wounds and a punctured wound. THE gandasa is a heavy cutting weapon and normally it causes incised wound. P.W. 6 Dr. N. Hasan has stated that the injury Nos. 1 to 4 were possible as a result of a blow by a gandasa. Injury No. 5 is no doubt a punctured wound but its dimension shows that the same could have been caused by the corner of the blade of gandasa. Thus, the medical evidence completely corroborates the testimony of the eye-witness. 1 to 4 were possible as a result of a blow by a gandasa. Injury No. 5 is no doubt a punctured wound but its dimension shows that the same could have been caused by the corner of the blade of gandasa. Thus, the medical evidence completely corroborates the testimony of the eye-witness. It is note worthy that the incident took place at about 10 p.m. and a written F.I.R. of the incident was lodged by P.W. 1 Behari at P.S. Sachendi just after one hour at 11 p.m. THE F.I.R. was dictated to Barkau and its writing must have taken sometime. THE F.I.R. was, therefore, very promptly lodged wherein the complete details of the prosecution case was given. THE promptness with which the F.I.R. was lodged lends assurance to the prosecution case. Three eye-witnesses who have stated about the incident are wholly independent witnesses and nothing has come out in their cross-examination which may show that they had any reason to falsely implicate the appellant. Thus, the prosecution evidence fully establishes that it was the appellant Barsati alias Babu Ram who assaulted his sister Mst. Samana at about 10 p.m. on 27.5.1980 in Sachendi. 12. THE next question which requires consideration is what is the offence which has been committed by the appellant. THE appellant is the real younger brother of the deceased Mst. Samana. In his statement under Section 313, Cr. P.C. which was recorded on 21.10.1980, he gave his age as 22 years which means that he was 21-1/2 years at the time of the occurrence. THE learned Sessions Judge has not made any remark that the age given by him was not correct. THE testimony of the eye-witnesses shows that Mst. Samana was married to Ram Kishore with whom she had two children. She deserted him and started living as wife of her elder brother-in-law (elder sister's husband) Chhiddu about a year back. He is said to have given bangles to her. Thereafter she developed illicit relations with Brij Lal. It was on account of this conduct that a panchayat was convened in the village. THE testimony of the eye-witnesses further shows that the appellant was standing below the chapper of P.W. 1 Behari when the panchayat was being held on the chabutra in front of the house of Ramadhar. THE house of Ramadhar is almost opposite to the chapper of P.W. 1 Behari. THE testimony of the eye-witnesses further shows that the appellant was standing below the chapper of P.W. 1 Behari when the panchayat was being held on the chabutra in front of the house of Ramadhar. THE house of Ramadhar is almost opposite to the chapper of P.W. 1 Behari. THE appellant was thus hearing the talks and discussions which were going on in the panchayat. THE deceased Mst. Samana was also sitting in front of the chabutra of Bhikhu very close to the appellant. THE conduct of Mst. Samana in deserting her husband Ram Kishore with whom she had two children, then living as wife of her own brother-in-law Chhiddu and then developing illicit relations with Brij Lal was obviously reprehensible. She not only seriously affected the family life of her own sister but also did not care about the future of her own children of tender age for the lust of sex. This conduct must have been talked and discussed in the panchayat which continued for over an hour. THE licentious way of life of Mst. Samana which may have been hitherto a clandestine affair, became a matter for open discussion before the elders and respectable people of the locality. THE appellant who is younger brother of Mst. Samana must have felt greatly hurt and pained on account of the insult and humiliation, which had been brought to his family due to the conduct of his sister. This fact must have been agitating in his mind when the panchayat was being held. He seems to have completely lost his balance, picked up a gandasa and gave several blows by it to his sister who was solely responsible for the humiliation of the family. It was not a premeditated act and the incident took place all of a sudden at the spur of the moment. It is important to emphasise here that in the F.I.R. which was lodged within one hour of the occurrence and contains the first version of the incident, it is stated as under : ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]... The exact literal translation of the Hindi word "uttejit" is 'provoked'. The F.I.R. itself shows that the appellant was greatly provoked after hearing the discussions in the panchayat regarding the wrong deeds of his sister. This conclusively establishes that the appellant gave the gandasa blows to his sister as he was greatly provoked. 13. The exact literal translation of the Hindi word "uttejit" is 'provoked'. The F.I.R. itself shows that the appellant was greatly provoked after hearing the discussions in the panchayat regarding the wrong deeds of his sister. This conclusively establishes that the appellant gave the gandasa blows to his sister as he was greatly provoked. 13. THE whole doctrine relating to provocation depends on the fact that it causes or may cause a sudden and temporary loss of self-control, whereby malice which is formation of intention to kill or to inflict grievous bodily harm is negatived. There can be no universal rule as to what may amount to sufficient provocation so as to reduce the offence of murder into one of culpable homicide when the act is done with intent to kill. THE test in all such cases is firstly whether the accused was subject to such provocation as to cause a reasonable man to do what he did and secondly, whether the provocation was such that it influenced him so to act. THE test of reasonable man was laid down by the Apex Court in Nanawati K. M. v. State, AIR 1962 SC 605 , in following words : "Is there any standard of a reasonable man for the application of the doctrine of "grave and sudden provocation"? No abstract standard of reasonableness can be laid down. What a reasonable man would 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. In our vast country there are social groups ranging from the lowest to the highest state of civilization. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any standard with precision ; it is for the Court to decide in each case, having regard to the relevant circumstances." THE evidence shows the appellant belongs to a backward community living in rural area leading almost a primitive way of life where any dishonour of the family especially on a matter relating to chastity and fidelity in married life is beyond imagination and tolerance. THE evidence on record including the F.I.R. which was very promptly lodged and contains the first version of the incident and the circumstances of the case show that the appellant was greatly provoked after hearing the talks and discussions about the conduct of his sister in the panchayat and he completely lost his balance and self-control and gave the blows. THE provocation was given not by the members of the panchayat but by Mst. Samana as it was her conduct which led to the convening of the panchayat and ensuing discussion. THE appellant must have thought that she was the root cause of all the evil and but for her, the image of the family would not have been lowered and suffered so much ignominy. 14. THE case is, therefore, fully covered by Exception I to Section 300, I.P.C. and consequently, the offence committed by the appellant is one under Section 304, Part I, I.P.C. In our opinion, a sentence of five years R.I. will meet the ends of justice. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentence of imprisonment for life imposed thereunder is set aside. The appellant is convicted under Section 304, Part I, I.P.C. and is sentenced to five years R.I. The appellant is on bail. He shall surrender forthwith to undergo the sentence imposed upon him. After he has been taken into custody, his sureties and bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The C.M.M., Kanpur Nagar, is directed to take all steps available under the law to take the appellant in custody. He shall send a compliance report to this Court within three months.