JUDGMENT 1. - Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated June 25, 2002 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Kota whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced under section 302 IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000;-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. 2. It is the prosecution case that on October 30, 2001 informant Govind Prasad (Pw.10) submitted a written report (Ex.P-11) at Police Station Vigyan Nagar Kota to the effect that on the said day around 10.30 AM the informant, Mukesh and Mukut Bihari had gone to Bhamashah Mandi Kota for selling Soyabeen. In the Mandi they parked the tractor in front of Uttam Trading Company and proceeded to take food while Mukesh remained there. After taking food when they returned they saw Laxmi Narayan and Ram Gopal to alongwith three other persons surrounded Mukesh. Laxmi Narayan inflicted knife-blow on the chest of Mukesh, whereas Ram Gopal caught hold of his legs. Knife blow was also inflicted by another person on the waist of Mukesh. Mukesh was removed to hospital where he was declared dead. On that report a case under sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 IPC and investigation commenced. Dead body was subjected to autopsy, necessary memos were drawn, statements of witnesses were recorded, appellant was arrested and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Kota. Charge under section 302 IPC was framed against the appellant, who denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 14 witnesses. In the explanation under Section 313 Cr.PC., the appellant claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above. 3. Indisputably death of Mukesh was homicidal in nature. As per Post Mortem Report (Ex.P-1) following injuries were found : 1. Stab wound 3 x 2cm x Cavity deep on Lt. side of Pectoral region. 2. Stab wound 3 x 1cm x Cavity deep on Lt. lateral side of chest. In the opinion of Dr. Ashok Mundra (Pw.2) the cause of death was shock as a result of injury to left lung. 4. Stab wound 3 x 2cm x Cavity deep on Lt. side of Pectoral region. 2. Stab wound 3 x 1cm x Cavity deep on Lt. lateral side of chest. In the opinion of Dr. Ashok Mundra (Pw.2) the cause of death was shock as a result of injury to left lung. 4. The only contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that deceased Mukesh ravished the wife of appellant and on the date of incident case under section 376 IPC was pending against Mukesh. Seeing appellant at the Mandi Mukesh teased the appellant and provoked him. Appellant then lost self control and inflicted injury on the person of deceased. In such a situation case under section 302 IPC is not made out. Learned Public Prosecutor however opposed this contention. 5. Having gone through the evidence of eye witness Govind (Pw.10) we find that in his cross examination he deposed as under : " ;g eq>s irk gS fd eqds'k ds f[kykQ eqy y{ehdj.k dh vkSjr ds lkFk cykRdkj gksus dk eqdnek ntZ gqvk Fkk tks py jgk gSA " 6. The question, whether the provocation given in a case was so grave and sudden as to be a mitigation under Exception I to Section 300 IPC is declared by the explanation to be a question of fact. The test to see whether the accused acted under a grave and sudden provocation is whether the provocation given was in the circumstances of the case likely to cause a normal and reasonable person to lose self control of himself to the extent of inflicting injury that he did inflict. The provocation must be grave and sudden and of such a nature to deprive the accused of the power of self control. 7. In the fact situation of the instant case, this possibility cannot be ruled out that the deceased purposely remained at Bhamashah Mandi and did not accompany Govind Prasad and Mukut Bihari as he decided to tease the appellant who also was present in Mandi. Appellant, whose wife was raped by the deceased, appears to have lost his self control. Having regard to the emotional frame work of the appellant, it cannot be said that he was not subjected to grave and sudden provocation. Appellant, whose wife was raped by the deceased, appears to have lost his self control. Having regard to the emotional frame work of the appellant, it cannot be said that he was not subjected to grave and sudden provocation. The condition of mind in which the appellant was at the time of provocation led him to commit the murderous assault on the deceased, therefore, his case falls under sections 304 Part I IPC. 8. For these reasons, we partly allow the appeal and instead of section 302 IPC, we convict the appellant under section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code and sentence him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 10001- in default to further suffer one month simple imprisonment.The impugned judgment of the learned trial Judge stands modified as indicated hereinabove.Appeal Allowed In Part. *******