JUDGMENT Surya Kant, J. - Charanjit Singh and Gurmit Singh sons of Gurbax Singh are in appeal before us against the judgment dated 29th August, 1996 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karnal whereby they have been convicted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each or in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that one Darshan Lal son of Ram Lal resident of village Raison, P.S. Butana made the statement (Ex. PM) on 28th June, 1995 at about 10 A.M. that when he was returning to the village after fetching fodder from his field and reached in front of the house of Gurmukh Singh son of Lal Singh, he heard the noise of "hai-hai" from inside that house. At that time, Sukhbir Singh son of Gian Singh, resident of village Faral also arrived there and on hearing the noise both of them peeped into the house of Gurmukh Singh and saw that Charanjit Singh and his younger brother Gurmit Singh (appellants herein) armed with Fali and Gadala respectively in their hands were killing their sister Saroj Bala. On seeing the complainant and Sukhbir Singh as stated above, both Charanjit Singh and Gurmit Singh said that she had been done to death and now they would see Shiv Dhan who had "outraged the modesty of their sister Saroj Bala". Both the accused then entered the premises of reservoir (Jal Ghar) with their respective weapons and attacked Shiv Dhan who was sitting there. While Charanjit Singh inflicted Fali blow on the posterior side of his head, Gurmit Singh inflicted Gadala blow on the back, chest and hands of Shiv Dhan and in this manner Shiv Dhan was also done to death by them. After committing the murder of Shiv Dhan, both the accused dragged his dead body to the place where they had already placed the dead body of their sister Saroj Bala in their "Bara" (court-yard). According to the complainant, he along with Sukhbir Singh tried to save deceased Shiv Dhan but both the brothers were so furious with rage and full of vengeance that they could not save the deceased. 3. Pursuant to the statement (Ex. PM), a formal FIR (Ex. According to the complainant, he along with Sukhbir Singh tried to save deceased Shiv Dhan but both the brothers were so furious with rage and full of vengeance that they could not save the deceased. 3. Pursuant to the statement (Ex. PM), a formal FIR (Ex. PM/1) was lodged in Police Station Butana at 4.15 P.M. on the same day, a special report of which was received by the Ilaqa Magistrate at Karnal at 9.30 P.M. on that very day. 4. Autopsy on the dead body of Saroj Bala was conducted by Dr. O.P. Arya (PW- 1) along with Dr. R.S. Chaudhary at 1.30 P.M. on 29th June, 1995 whereas autopsy on the dead body of Shiv Dhan was conducted by them at 2.50 P.M. on that day. Following injuries were found on the bodies of Saroj Bala and Shiv Dhan respectively :- Saroj Bala 1. 5 cm x 1 cm contusion on right side of the neck. 2. 8 cm x 2 cm contusion on the right shoulder. 3. 4.5 cm x 1.5 cm contusion on right arm outer aspect. 4. 4 cm x 2 cm contusion on right arm medial aspect above elbow. 5. 6 cm x 1.5 cm contusion on the back of right side of chest below last rib. 6. 3.5 cm x 2 cm contusion on left arm are medial aspect above lebow. 7. 1.5 cm x 1 cm lacerated wound x bone deep on left forearm above wrist. 8. 5 cm x 2 cm contusion on right hypochondrium. 9. 4.5 cms x 2.5 cms contusion on left hypochondrium. Shiv Dhan 1. 2 cms x 1 cm bone deep lacerated wound on occipital area of skull. 2. 2 cms. x 1.5 cm x muscle deep incised wound on the left shoulder anterior aspect, on left supra clavicular area. 3. 2 cms x 1 cm abrasion medial to injury No. 2. 4. 3 cms x 1.5 cm abrasion on left supra clavical area medial and above injury No. 3. 5. 2.5 cms x 2 cm contusion on left lateral side of chest. 6. 3 cms x 1.5 cm lacerated wound on the lateral side of chest above Injury No. 2. 7. 20 cms x 10 cms contusion on the back of right shoulder (scapular area). 8. 5. 2.5 cms x 2 cm contusion on left lateral side of chest. 6. 3 cms x 1.5 cm lacerated wound on the lateral side of chest above Injury No. 2. 7. 20 cms x 10 cms contusion on the back of right shoulder (scapular area). 8. There was amputation of the left ring finger, 4th finger, leaving its dorsal skin intact to distal part was hanging margins were lacerated. 9. There was lacerated wound on right little finger at right interflangial joint on the palmer aspect and there was bone deformity, on deep disection the fracture of first phalanx of little finger was found present. 10. 5 cms x 2 cms abrasion on the right shoulder. 11. There was 10 cms and 8 cms contusion on anterior part of neck; overlying skin was abraded linear at two points (size 2 cms x 1 cm and 3 cms x 1.5 cm) on deep dissection there was extra-vassation of blood in the sub-cutaneous and muscular area. The cartilages of larynx and treachea were found fractured on cut section. Blood found present in the trachea, the byod bone was also found fractured. 5. The appellants, who had fled towards village Karsa, were produced before SI Rameshwar Dass (PW-8) by Fateh Singh, Sarpanch of the village on 29th June, 1995 whereupon Charanjit Singh and Gurmit Singh-appellants made disclosure statements (Ex. PK) and (Ex. PJ) respectively and got recovered the weapons of the offence Ex. P-1 and P-2 respectively, the recovery whereof was witnessed by Anil Kumar (PW-5). 6. In order to prove the motive behind the double murder, the prosecution brought on record the fact that deceased Shiv Dhan (certificate Ex. PX) aged 23-24 years was working as Water Pump Operator at the Water Works of village Raison and he had developed an intimacy with Saroj Bala who was 18-19 years of age. It also appears from the statement of some of the witnesses, especially Sukhbir Singh-eye-witness (PW-4), that deceased Shiv Dhan was carrying on a physical relationship with Saroj Bala and the appellants came to know about this relationship and taking it as a "social stigma" upon their family, brutally murdered their sister (Saroj Bala) as well as her paramour (Shiv Dhan). 7. 7. It establish guilt, the prosecution examined Dr, O.P. Arya (PW-1), Gian Chand Photographer (PW-2), Dharam Pal brother of deceased Shiv Dhan (PW-3), Sukhbir Singh-eye-witness (PW-4), Anil Kumar-a witness to the recovery of weapons (PW-5), ASI Om Parkash who partly investigated the case (PW-7) and SI Rameshwar Dass (PW-8). The complainant Darshan Lal, who was also allegedly an eye-witness to the occurrence, was produced as PW-6 but was declared hostile. 8. The appellants in their statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code denied the imputations and claimed that they were innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. 9. We have heard Shri D.S. Bali, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Shri S.K. Hooda, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the State of Haryana and have gone through the record with their assistance. 10. Shri Bali vehemently contended that there is no evidence worth admissible to connect the appellants with the crime. According to him, Darshan Lal (PW-6) who is a resident of village Raison where the occurrence had taken place and whose presence in the natural course could be believed, has denied having seen the occurrence and, thus, has completely smashed the prosecution case. Shri Bali then contended that Sukhbir Singh (PW-4), a resident of village Faral which is 10-12 kms. away from the place of occurrence, is purely a chance witness and has been planted by the prosecution; his presence at the place of occurrence and/or witnessing the same is highly doubtful and no reliance can be placed upon the same. Shri Bali then contended that Sukhbir Singh (PW-4), a resident of village Faral which is 10-12 kms. away from the place of occurrence, is purely a chance witness and has been planted by the prosecution; his presence at the place of occurrence and/or witnessing the same is highly doubtful and no reliance can be placed upon the same. The said witness though has tried to explain that he had gone to village Raison on 27th June, 1995 regarding arrangement of the sapling of paddy in his fields and that in the past also, he has been frequently going to village Raison as his elder brother was married in the said village, however, he has failed to prove his night stay on 27th June, 1995 in village Raison as neither his brother nor laters father-in-law has been brought in the witness box; that he remained present right from the very beginning of the occurrence when the appellants started killing their sister inside their house till they committed both the murders, dragged and brought the dead body of Shiv Dhan in their own Bara and threw his dead body near the dead body of their sister and thereafter fled towards village Karsa, is an improbable story as neither he raised an alarm nor made any attempt to save the deceased. According to Shri Bali, if PW-4 was present at the time of occurrence and did not raise alarm because of the fear that the appellants had gone crazy in a fit of anger, he could have at least raised an alarm at the time when they were carrying the dead body of Shiv Dhan from Water Works to their own "Bara" by holding it from its hands and legs and thus were not in a position to attack the witness. According to Shri Bali, if the presence of Sukhbir Singh (PW-4) comes under clouds, there is absolutely no other evidence to establish the appellants guilt. 11. According to Shri Bali, if the presence of Sukhbir Singh (PW-4) comes under clouds, there is absolutely no other evidence to establish the appellants guilt. 11. Shri Bali further contended that the story put-forth by the prosecution that the appellants after committing murder of Saroj Bala went towards the Water Works which is more than 100 feet away from their home and then committed murder of Shiv Dhan and dragged his dead body to some distance and thereafter lifted it and threw it near the dead body of Saroj Bala, is a highly artificial and unnatural version which is not supported by the medical evidence on record. According to Shri Bali, ASI Om Parkash claims to have collected the blood spilled over the floor near the eastern wall of the Kotha of the government tube-well where Shiv Dhan was murdered and as per the memo (Ex. PN), the blood was dried and put in a tin box and converted into sealed parcel. However, the presence of human blood has not been proved on the sample of blood stained earth (Ex. 3) as per the FSL reports (Ex. PY and PZ). According to Shri Bali, it is against all human probabilities that the appellants would have given a chance to flee to deceased Shiv Dhan who could have heard shrieks of the appellants sister while she was being killed as the tube-well room was just 100 feet away. Shri Bali concludes that the fact of the matter is that the occurrence never took place in the manner as put forth by the prosecution. 12. Shri Bali lastly contended that even if the prosecution case is assumed to be correct and is taken to its logical end, both the deceased who apparently were having an illicit relationship, were presumably found by the appellants in their own house and having seen their unmarried sister in the company of Shiv Dhan be that may not in a compromising position, they got a grave and sudden provocation as a result of which the deceased were done to death. It was, according to Shri Bali, a case of extreme passion where the appellants lost control of their senses and caused death, therefore, their case would fall within the four-corners of Exception-I to Section 300 thereby making it punishable under Section 304 Part-I Indian Penal Code and not under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. It was, according to Shri Bali, a case of extreme passion where the appellants lost control of their senses and caused death, therefore, their case would fall within the four-corners of Exception-I to Section 300 thereby making it punishable under Section 304 Part-I Indian Penal Code and not under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. Reliance has been placed by him upon the statement of Sukhbir Singh (PW-4) and the complaint (Ex. PM) which led to the registration of the FIR as well as the statement of Dharam Pal (PW-3) brother of deceased Shiv Dhan to suggest that in fact an intimate relationship between the two deceased was the cause of occurrence. A pointed reference has been made to the fact that the dead bodies were found near each other in the premises of the house of the appellants, suggesting as if the deceased were "found together" by the appellants. 13. Coming to the first contention, true it is, that the occurrence, according to the prosecution, was witnessed by Sukhbir Singh (PW-4) and Darshan Lal (PW-6) who were more or less chance witnesses. It is equally true that Darshan Lal (PW-6) turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. By now, it is well established that conviction of an accused can sustain even on the strength of version of a solitary chance witness provided that it is corroborated by other circumstantial and/or medical evidence on record, though in the case of a chance witness, the Court is required to be more cautious, careful and to apply rigid parameters while scanning the statement of such witness. It cannot be overlooked that in the case of a crime like in the case in hand, there is every likelihood that family members of one of the deceased, namely, Saroj Bala would not have come forward to depose as she was murdered by none other than her own real brothers. The motive being an alleged illicit relationship between her and Shiv Dhan deceased, there was every likelihood that even neighbours of Saroj Bala would have been reluctant to come forward and depose. No one from the family of deceased Shiv Dhan could possibly have witnessed the occurrence in the natural course as he was resident of village Faral which is 10-12 kms. away from the place of occurrence. No one from the family of deceased Shiv Dhan could possibly have witnessed the occurrence in the natural course as he was resident of village Faral which is 10-12 kms. away from the place of occurrence. The occurrence thus could be witnessed by a passer-bye only who would obviously be a chance witness to it. The statement of Sukhbir Singh (PW-4) needs to be scrutinised in the light of the afore-mentioned parameters. It requires emphasis that he has no enmity with the appellants nor even remotely suggested that he had any axe to grind against them. He had also no personal acquaintance with Saroj Bala also. This witness without any hesitation has admitted that he knew deceased Shiv Dhan as they were from the same village but he was not related to Shiv Dhan. The witness thus made no attempt to hide anything. His presence at the time of occurrence though appears to be by chance but not unnatural. In the villages people oftenly visit their relations, therefore, coming of this witness to village Raison to visit the in-laws of his brother, especially when he had a purpose, namely, arrangement for sapling of paddy in his own fields, is quite possible and plausible. The manner in which two brutal murders were committed by the appellants, has been well explained by Sukhbir Singh (PW-4). His statement has been fully corroborated by the medical evidence on record. The statement of Anil Kumar (PW-5) who is a witness to the recovery of weapons of crime, coupled with the statement of ASI Om Parkash (PW-7) and SI Rameshwar Dass (PW-8), fully strengthens the version of eye-witness Sukhbir Singh (PW- 4). 14. The contention of Shri Bali that the behaviour of the witness in not making any hue and cry and/or in not taking any step even to save Shiv Dhan was totally unnatural, also does not impress us. The appellants were armed with deadly weapons. They were in a fit of rage. The manner in which they were inflicting injuries upon their sister Saroj Bala must have terrified Sukhbir Singh (PW-4) who was an outsider if not stranger to the village and his candid admission that he got fear in his own mind, appears to be a natural and truthful explanation. They were in a fit of rage. The manner in which they were inflicting injuries upon their sister Saroj Bala must have terrified Sukhbir Singh (PW-4) who was an outsider if not stranger to the village and his candid admission that he got fear in his own mind, appears to be a natural and truthful explanation. We, therefore, do not find any vital discrepancy or legal infirmity in the statement of Sukhbir Singh (PW-4) and are of the view that he did witness the occurrence. Consequently, we reject the first contention of Shri Bali that it is a case of no evidence. 15. The second contention of Shri Bali regarding improbability of the appellants going to the Water Works room which was more than 100 feet away from the place where they committed murder of Saroj Bala and then hacking Shiv Dhan to death and dragging his dead body to the courtyard of their house, also needs to be simply noticed and rejected. It has been deposed by Sukhbir Singh (PW-4) that Saroj Bala was attacked and killed by the appellants inside the Kotha which was witnessed by him as well as Darshan Lal (PW-6) by peeping inside the said room. The site plan (Ex. PS) also depicts the room in which Saroj Bala was murdered. When injuries were being inflicted upon Saroj Bala, it is not necessary that her shrieks would have been heard by Shiv dhan while he was inside the Water Works room, especially in the absence of any such apprehension or thought in his mind. It has further come in the evidence that Shiv Dhan was caught unaware by the appellants inside the tube-well room and was done to death. His dead body was thereafter dragged by the appellants upto some distance whereafter it was lifted by them and brought to their own house and according to Sukhbir Singh (PW-4), was "put close to the dead body of Saroj Bala". This witness has also deposed that two rooms of the house of the appellants, in one of which murder of Saroj Bala took place, were adjoining and the compound where Saroj Bala had fallen down after receiving injuries, was in front of these rooms. 16. This witness has also deposed that two rooms of the house of the appellants, in one of which murder of Saroj Bala took place, were adjoining and the compound where Saroj Bala had fallen down after receiving injuries, was in front of these rooms. 16. The vital question as to whether Shiv Dhan was murdered by the appellants in the tube-well room of the Water Works or was he murdered in the room/compound of their own house where his dead body was found lying by the police needs to be determined on the basis of different pieces of evidence on record. We find no reason as to why either Sukhbir Singh (PW-4) or the investigating agency would have insisted upon to suggest that the appellants firstly committed the murder of their own sister in their house and then went towards the Water Works where they committed murder of Shiv Dhan in the tube- well room - unless this was the only truth. Gian Chand (PW-2) is the photographer who took photographs from different angles which are Ex. PG/1 to PG/11 (with their negatives as Ex. PG/12 to PG/22). Some of these photographs reveal to naked eyes that a lot of blood was scattered in the tube-well room of the Water Works. In the photographs, the dragging marks of a blood stained object are also clearly visible. In the photograph Ex. PG/1, it can be seen that a lot of wheat straws/dry dust had got entangled into the hair of the deceased Shiv Dhan. This fact finds mention in the inquest report of Shiv Dhan Ex. PC/1 also. Such alien material could possibly have entangled in his hair only if he was dragged on the kucha path. The brutality exhibited by the appellants in committing both the murders leaves nothing improbable including dragging of the dead body of Shiv Dhan and throwing it near the dead body of their sister, especially when the motive of the crime was an alleged illicit relationship between the two deceased persons. 17. The brutality exhibited by the appellants in committing both the murders leaves nothing improbable including dragging of the dead body of Shiv Dhan and throwing it near the dead body of their sister, especially when the motive of the crime was an alleged illicit relationship between the two deceased persons. 17. The last and alternative contention of Shri Bali is that the appellants, if found guilty, had committed the murder of their own sister along with her paramour after seeing her in the company of deceased Shiv Dhan, as the conduct of the deceased deprived the appellants of their power of self-control and on account of an uncontrollable impulse, they got grave and sudden provocation due to which the deaths were caused, therefore, the case falls within Exception-I to Section 300 Indian Penal Code thereby making them liable for sentence under Section 304 Part-I Indian Penal Code. He has placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of Allahabad High Court in Riyazat Ali v. State of U.P., 2000 Crl.L.J. 3055. 18. Whether the provocation in a given case is "grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder", is a question of fact to be determined on the basis of evidence on record. Since the legislature has used the expressions "grave" and "sudden" in Exception-1 to Section 300 Indian Penal Code, the provocation should not only be grave enough to deprive the accused of the power of self-control, it must be so sudden that no sufficient time is left for him to regain his self-control. 19. In K.M. Nanawati v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 605 wife of the accused confessed before him that she had illicit intimacy with the deceased who was not present there. The accused, however, drove his wife and children to a cinema, left them there, went to his ship and took a revolver on a false pretext and after loading it with six rounds as also after doing some official business there, drove his car to the office of the deceased and shot him. In between there was an interregnum of three hours. The Apex Court held that it was sufficient time for the accused to regain his self-control, even if he had momentarily lost the same at the time when his wife confessed regarding her alleged illicit intimacy with the deceased. In between there was an interregnum of three hours. The Apex Court held that it was sufficient time for the accused to regain his self-control, even if he had momentarily lost the same at the time when his wife confessed regarding her alleged illicit intimacy with the deceased. The Exception-1 to Section 300 Indian Penal Code, therefore, was held to be not attracted. 20. In Dattu Genu Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 Supreme Court 387, a month before the assault, the deceased had attempted to outrage the modesty of the appellants wife. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the interval between that incident and the assault is too long to afford the appellant the benefit of the plea of "grave" and "sudden" provocation. 21. In Hansa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1801, the Apex Court held the accused guilty of committing an offence under Section 304 Part-2 and not under Section 302 Indian Penal Code as the appellant was let to commit the murderous assault on the deceased when he saw the deceased committing the act of sodomy on his son. 22. In Raghvan Achari and Naznoon Jappan v. State of Kerala, 1983 SCC(Crl.) 409, the appellant found the deceased with his wife in a comprising position which obviously gave grave and sudden provocation to him which was further aggravated when the deceased caused grievous injury to the appellant, therefore, he had to attack the deceased in self-defence. The Apex Court held that the appellant acted in self-defence, therefore, was neither guilty of an offence under Section 302 nor under Section 304 Part-I or 2 Indian Penal Code. 23. In Dayal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1994 Supreme Court 30, the appellant took strong objection to the conduct of the deceased in supplying liquor to appellants brother Bhura. The deceased, however, threw a challenge saying that the appellant could do whatever he wanted which resulted in exchange of hot words. The appellant who had already become imbalanced on seeing the dead body of his brother Bhura who had suddenly passed away due to consumption of liquor provided by the deceased (Bhikham) and on being deprived of self- control by this act of grave and sudden provocation, took a knife which was lying nearby and stabbed the deceased. The appellant who had already become imbalanced on seeing the dead body of his brother Bhura who had suddenly passed away due to consumption of liquor provided by the deceased (Bhikham) and on being deprived of self- control by this act of grave and sudden provocation, took a knife which was lying nearby and stabbed the deceased. The Supreme Court held that the appellant is entitled for Exception-1 to Section 300 Indian Penal Code and could not have been sentenced under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. 24. In the case of Devka Bhikha v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1995 Supreme Court 2171, the accused was unemployed and the deceased, who was a Headmaster, was in a position to provide some employment. The deceased, however, asked the appellant as to whether he could send his wife to the formers house at night and when the accused took exception to it, the deceased not only charged the accused of being impotent, he further enraged him by saying that the accuseds wife had sent a letter inviting him and that the letter was in his bag. Upon this, the accused snatched the bag and frantically searched for the letter which he did not find. He then took out a knife which he found in the bag and inflicted 5-6 blows on the deceased in quick succession. It was held that the accused-appellant was guilty of an offence under Section 304 Part I Indian Penal Code. 25. In State of U.P. v. Lakhmi, 1998(4) SCC 336, the accused had killed his young wife by inflicting blows on her head. He took the plea of unsoundness of mind which was rejected by the Courts. The Apex Court, however, taking notice of the fact that the accused had seen something lascivious between his wife and one Ramey just when he entered the house from the field on the date of occurrence which was sufficient to cause him grave and sudden provocation, converted his conviction under Section 304 Part-1 instead of Section 302 Indian Penal Code. 26. In Jangeer Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1998(7) SCC 372, the appellant was found to have inflicted repeated injuries by a sharp edged weapon resulting in instantaneous death of the deceased who, it was alleged that had molested the appellants wife which caused grave and sudden provocation and deprived him of the power of self-control. 26. In Jangeer Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1998(7) SCC 372, the appellant was found to have inflicted repeated injuries by a sharp edged weapon resulting in instantaneous death of the deceased who, it was alleged that had molested the appellants wife which caused grave and sudden provocation and deprived him of the power of self-control. The facts and circumstances, however, did not suggest that the appellant possessed such uncontrollable impulse so as to lose self-control and to repeatedly stab the deceased and kill him. The benefit of Exception-1 to Section 300 Indian Penal Code, was therefore, denied to him. 27. In Bhura Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 2003(9) SCC 205, the appellant along with Ugrasen entered into the hut of the deceased. The deceased apprehending danger to his life fired a gun shot at Ugrasen causing his death. The appellant thereupon attacked the deceased with an axe on his head and killed him. The Apex Court denied the benefit of "grave and sudden" provocation claimed by the appellant for the reason that he himself was the aggressor. 28. Burden of proving an exception is on the accused. It is, however, true that even if the accused takes shelter behind any other defence during his examination under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code without reference to Exception-1 of Section 300 Indian Penal Code, it is not enough to deny him the benefit of the exception if the material culled out from the evidence on record brings his case within the four corners of the exception. Failure to set up such a defence by the accused would not foreclose his right to rely upon the exception. 29. We have already held that murder of Saroj Bala was committed by the appellants in a room of their own house whereas that of Shiv Dhan was committed in the tube-well room of the Water Works of the village. It obviously means that the theory of both the deceased having been found in the company of each other by the appellants and thus losing their self-control, has no factual basis and is beyond the material on record. Shri Balis contention that the prosecution case regarding committing of murder of Shiv Dhan at the tube-well room of the Water Works has not been established by the medical evidence, also appears to be misconceived. Vide Memo Ex. Shri Balis contention that the prosecution case regarding committing of murder of Shiv Dhan at the tube-well room of the Water Works has not been established by the medical evidence, also appears to be misconceived. Vide Memo Ex. PN, the Investigating Officer took some blood lying over the floor of the tube-well room where Shiv Dhan was murdered and according to the said memo it was dried and sealed in a box. Similarly, the blood lying on the kucha floor of the courtyard where Saroj Bala was murdered was scratched and sealed in a box vide memo Ex. PF. The sample which merely contained darkish flakes of the blood (Ex. 2) was of deceased Shiv Dhan whereas flakes of blood and loose earth described as blood stained earth (Ex. 3) was that of Saroj Bala. As per the FSL report Ex. PY, "laboratory examinations were carried out to detect the presence of blood on the exhibits. Blood thus detected was further subjected to serological tests to determine its species of original and group." The results as depicted in the FSL Report Ex. PY and of the Serological Analysis Report Ex. PZ are as follows :- Result of Analysis (Ex. PY) Exhibit-2 - Darkish flakes (appr. 5 gms) described as blood Result 2. Blood was detected on Exh.-2 (blood) and Exh-3 (blood stained earth). Results of Serological analysis of Blood (Ex. PZ) Ext. No. Name of Exhibit Origin Group 2. Blood Human Inconclusive 3. Blood stained earth Material disintegrated 30. There remains thus no doubt that the blood sample taken by the investigating agency from the tube-well room where Shiv Dhan was allegedly murdered has been found to be human blood even as per the FSL reports though in relation to the group of the blood, the result was inconclusive. Thus, in order to find out as to whether the place of occurrence in relation to the murder of Shiv Dhan is tube-well room of the Water Works or the room/courtyard of the appellants themselves, even the FSL Reports do not weaken the prosecution case. 31. Thus, in order to find out as to whether the place of occurrence in relation to the murder of Shiv Dhan is tube-well room of the Water Works or the room/courtyard of the appellants themselves, even the FSL Reports do not weaken the prosecution case. 31. In order to ascertain that the culpable homicide is not a murder in the present case, no doubt that the informant as also the eye-witness Sukhbir Singh (PW-4) have categorically stated that the appellants after committing the murder of their sister Saroj Bala were uttering the words that they were going to kill Shiv Dhan "who had sexual intercourse with their sister". There is, however, no evidence on record to suggest even remotely that the appellants saw their sister (Saroj Bala) in a compromising position with Shiv Dhan (another deceased) on the day of occurrence which could give rise to sudden provocation. Similarly, there is nothing to indicate that about the intimate or physical relationship between the two deceased, the appellants came to know on the day of occurrence only. Learned counsel for the appellants might be right in arguing that the appellants having come to know of a socially unacceptable relationship of their sister Saroj Bala with Shiv Dhan, could be deprived of the power of self-control, however, sudden nature of such deprivation is of paramount importance to establish that there was hardly any time between the provocation and the occurrence to regain the self-control and balance of their mind. If the relationship between the two deceased was in appellants knowledge for a long time, not only that they had sufficient time to return to their self-control and senses, it rather leads towards their "motive" to commit the double murder in a premeditated manner. That apart, the nature of repeated injuries clearly indicate that the appellants unhesitatingly wanted to kill the victims. Thus in the absence of any sudden provocation, the nature of offence committed by the appellants cannot be scaled down from Section 302 to Section 304 Part-I Indian Penal Code. We accordingly, concur with the findings and the sentence imposed upon the appellants by the learned Sessions Judge, Karnal vide his impugned judgment dated 29th August, 1996 and consequently dismiss this appeal. Appeal dismissed.