JUDGMENT Mehtab S. Gill, J.- This is an appeal against the judgment/order dated 28.7.1997 of the Sessions Judge, Bhatinda whereby he convicted Bant Singh son of Bachan Singh under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default to further undergo RI for 2 years. 2. The case of the prosecution is unfolded by the statement Ex. PE given by Jagsir Singh to Dinesh Kumar, SI/SHO, Rama on 5.8.1996 at 2 p.m. near the Rama Crossing. Jagsir Singh stated that he is a resident of Village Kot Shamir. He has six brothers and sisters. He has two elder sisters Jangir Kaur and Angrez Kaur who are married to Surjit Singh and Bant Singh respectively for the last 15 years. His brother-in-Iaws are real brothers, but they reside separately. Angrez Kaur has four daughters and one son. Jagsir Singh’s brother-in-law Bant Singh used to beat his sister Angrez Kaur without any reason. About two months ago, Angrez Kaur was turned out of her house. A month back Jagsir Singh’s mother Punjab Kaur requested Bant Singh to keep Angrez Kaur, which he agreed to do so. On 4.8.1996 Jagsir Singh along with his mother came to Village Rama to meet Angrez Kaur. They stayed for the night. In the morning on 5.8.1996, his two nieces and nephew left for school. The other two nieces left for the fields to fetch grass. At about 11.30 a.m. Jagsir Singh’s mother Punjab Kaur, sister Angrez Kaur and his brother-in-law Bant and Jagsir Singh himself, were sitting and talking with each other in the courtyard. Bant Singh started quarreling with Angrez Kaur. Angrez Kaur got up and went to the room to lie down on the cot. Bant Singh thereafter got up and went inside the room. He picked up a Toka lying there and within their sight, he gave Toka blows which hit her on the neck, chin, cheek and arms. They raised a hue and cry on which Bant Singh ran away with the Toka. The motive for the commission of offence was that Bant Singh suspected that Angrez Kaur was a woman of loose character. On the basis of this statement F.I.R. Ex.PE/1 was recorded on 5.8.1996 at 2.15 p.m. and the special report reached the J.M.I.C., Bhatinda on the same day at 4.15 p.m. 3. The motive for the commission of offence was that Bant Singh suspected that Angrez Kaur was a woman of loose character. On the basis of this statement F.I.R. Ex.PE/1 was recorded on 5.8.1996 at 2.15 p.m. and the special report reached the J.M.I.C., Bhatinda on the same day at 4.15 p.m. 3. The prosecution to prove its case, brought into the witness-box Dr.S.S.Malik PW-1, Jagsir Singh PW-2, Punjab Kaur PW-3, SI Dinesh Kumar PW-4 and ASI Malkiat Singh PW-5. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that motive for the commission of offence has been admitted by the appellant when he gave his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Jagsir Singh PW-2 who is the complainant and brother of the deceased, has also stated in his cross-examination that she had started improving her character. This is an admission that the deceased was a lady of loose character which was not tolerated by the appellant. Presence of both Jagsir Singh PW-2 and Punjab Kaur PW-3 brother and mother respectively of the deceased is not so as shown by the prosecution. Jagsir Singh PW-2 has stated that in the last 15 years since the marriage of his sister with the appellant, he had come only two times to her house. First, he had come on the marriage and the second time when the murder of his sister had taken place. In fact, Jagsir Singh PW-2 never visited his sister for this very reason, that she was a woman of immoral character. He has also stated that he never came to meet his nieces and nephews i.e. the sons and daughter of his sister. It has come in evidence that house of the deceased and the appellant was in the middle of the village and there were 500 houses around it. No one came from the locality or the neighborhood, inspite of the murder being committed in broad day light. Surjit Kaur sister of the deceased who lived just half a kilo metre away, also did not come to visit her. It clearly shows that the two alleged eye-witnesses, Jagsir Singh PW-2 and Punjab Kaur PW-3 were not present at the time of occurrence. Surjit Kaur sister of the deceased who lived just half a kilo metre away, also did not come to visit her. It clearly shows that the two alleged eye-witnesses, Jagsir Singh PW-2 and Punjab Kaur PW-3 were not present at the time of occurrence. The occurrence in fact had taken place at about 9 a.m. as Jagsir Singh PW-2 has stated that they had taken meals at 11 a.m. Punjab Kaur PW-3 has stated, that all the children and others were present when the murder had taken place. In the inquest report Ex.PC the persons who identified the body of the deceased, were Moti Singh and Malkiat Singh. If Jagsir Singh PW -2 and Punjab Kaur PW -3 were present, when the inquest proceedings were conducted by the Investigating Officer, then they would have been the ones who would have identified the body. Learned counsel has in the alternative, argued that at the most, appellant can be convicted under Section 304 Part-I I.P.C. as it was a case of sudden provocation which made the appellant pick up a Toka and injure his wife, when he saw her in the company of Naib Singh. At that time she did not have any shirt on, when the appellant entered the house, clearly showing that Naib Singh and the deceased had an immoral relationship. Learned counsel for the State has argued that 10/5 persons from the village were present at the time of occurrence. Lodging of the F.I.R. is prompt wherein motive for the commission of offence and names of the eye-witnesses are given, the medical evidence corroborates the ocular account. It is only a suggestion put to Jagsir Singh PW-2 that deceased had an immoral relation with Naib Singh, but nothing has come out in favour of the accused from both Jagsir Singh PW-2 and Punjab Kaur PW-3. A case under Section 304 Part-I is not made out as the eye-witnesses are truthful and were present when the occurrence had taken place. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. The story of the appellant seems to be more plausible in the given circumstances of the case. It was grave and sudden provocations on the part of the deceased that provoked the appellant to pick up a Toka and attack his wife. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. The story of the appellant seems to be more plausible in the given circumstances of the case. It was grave and sudden provocations on the part of the deceased that provoked the appellant to pick up a Toka and attack his wife. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellant/accused has stated as under:-­ “On August 5,1996, at about 9 a.m. I came to my house from my shop and knocked the door of my house which was bolted from inside. I scaled over the wall and saw Naib Singh son of Jagtar Singh coming out of the room. He ran away from my house. I went inside the room, found Angrez Kaur without any shirt and she was tying string of her salwar while standing. I asked why Naib Singh had come, she replied that she would call him again and again, whatever you want to like you can do. Under sudden provocation lost my temper and picked up a Taka lying inside the room. I gave her some injuries which she ward with her right arm. She fell on the cot. I caused her more injuries on her face, neck and she died due to the injuries. Thereafter, I went to Police Station Raman along with the Taka. Witnesses were not present and were called from Kotshamir. Recovery of Taka blood stained clothes have been fabricated. I have five small children. My wife was of immoral character and inspite of my repeated warnings she did not desist from indulging in her immoral activities.” Appellant has categorically stated that Naib Singh was coming out of his house and he saw his wife without clothes. If the appellant did want to eliminate his wife, there was no need for him to eliminate her in broad day light and that also, after 15 years of the marriage. He could have easily done so during the night time or somewhere in the fields outside the house. Jagsir Singh PW-2 has in his testimony before the Court admitted, in his cross-examination that appellant murdered his wife, as he suspected her of being a bad character in the moral sense. He has further stated, “In fact, the character of Angrez Kaur had improved before the occurrence”. Jagsir Singh PW-2 has in his testimony before the Court admitted, in his cross-examination that appellant murdered his wife, as he suspected her of being a bad character in the moral sense. He has further stated, “In fact, the character of Angrez Kaur had improved before the occurrence”. This admission by Jagsir Singh PW-2 in fact strengthens the case of the appellant that his wife was a lady of loose character. 5. Both the eye-witnesses Jagsir Singh PW-2 and Punjab Kaur PW-3 were not present when the occurrence had taken place. Jagsir Singh PW -2 has stated that in the last 15 years he had never visited the house of his sister except on two occasions, i.e. when she was married and secondly when she was murdered. Similarly, Punjab Kaur PW-3 has stated that deceased had a heavy meal on the morning of 5th August before her death. It has come in the evidence of Jagsir Singh PW-2 that all of them had their morning meals at 11 a.m. sitting under the Neem tree. The medical evidence on this count does not corroborate the ocular account as spelt out by both the witnesses. As per Dr. S. S. Malik PW-1 who prepared the post-mortem report, stomach of the deceased contained one ounce of semidigested food. If it was 11 a.m. as stated by Jagsir Singh PW-2 and Punjab Kaur PW -3, and she had a heavy meal, then her stomach would have contained semi-digested food because the occurrence had taken place at 11.30 a.m. There would have been a lot of food in her stomach. In fact, as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, the occurrence had taken place somewhere at 7/8 a.m. and it is thereafter that Jagsir Singh PW-2 and Punjab Kaur PW-3 were called from their native Village Kotshamir which was hardly 12 kms away, from the house of the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a judgment of this Court in Gurdeep Singh v. State of Haryana, 1994(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 190 wherein this Court had convicted the accused under Section 304 Part-I IP.C., when he saw his wife in the company of Kulwinder Singh and was deprived of the power of self-control by sudden provocation and the sentence awarded was reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant. The case in hand also squarely falls within the parameters of the cited case (supra). In this case also, the appellant lost his self-control due to grave and sudden provocation given to him, when he saw Naib Singh coming out of his house and his wife being in a semi-naked condition. He then picked up a Toka and inflicted injuries on the person of the deceased. He has already undergone more than 5 years of actual sentence which will be sufficient punishment for the offence he has committed. Appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part-I I.P.C. and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. With the above modification in conviction and sentence, appeal is dismissed. ————————————