JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) In the instant case, criminal law was set into motion by the father of victim by filing complaint in police outpost Shakti Farm, police station Sitarganj on 26.05.2004, at 08:30 P.M. The occurrence took place on the same day at about 07:00 P.M. 2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that appellant was married to victim 12 years ago. They used to quarrel very often after marriage. Since their financial condition was not good therefore, the wife used to go outside for the sake of earning her livelihood. Appellant used to suspect her and used to blame her character. On 26.05.2004, informant’s brother Thakur Mandal and his relative Bhisma Dev Mandal came to the house of victim to enquire about the well-being of victim. They reached there at 05:00 P.M. While appellant was present there, victim was away from home. When victim reached there at 06:30 P.M., appellant started abusing the victim. Appellant started raising accusing finger at her character. A heated exchange took place between them. Many a people assembled there. At 07:00 P.M., appellant inflicted two blows of axe on the head of victim in the verandah of their house. Victim somehow managed to come to the courtyard of their house and died immediately. Appellant fled away with the axe. First information report was lodged within time. 3. The investigation started. When the same concluded, a charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was submitted against the appellant. When trial commenced, a charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution produced as many as 12 witnesses. After prosecution evidence was closed, statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was taken, in which the appellant denied everything. Although in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellant said that he would be producing evidence in defence, but infact, no such evidence was adduced. After hearing both the sides, the trial court found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life, along with a fine of ‘5,000/-, in default of payment of which, he was required to further undergo imprisonment for six months. Aggrieved against said order, present appeal was preferred. 4. P.W.1 Kashinath Mandal was the informant. He was not the eyewitness. Aggrieved against said order, present appeal was preferred. 4. P.W.1 Kashinath Mandal was the informant. He was not the eyewitness. P.W.2 Thakur Mandal and P.W.3 Bhisma Dev Mandal were the eyewitnesses. P.W.4 Dulal Sarkar and P.W.8 Mohd. Hanif were the signatories to the inquest report. P.W.5 Dayal Mandal and P.W.6 Tarapad Tarafdar did not support prosecution story and were declared hostile. P.W.9 S.I. Naresh Chandra was the first Investigating Officer, who conducted the investigation at some length. P.W.11 Inspector Chandra Lal was the Investigating Officer who conducted the investigation subsequently and submitted charge sheet against the accused / appellant. P.W.10 constable Mohar Singh was the witness before whom the accused/appellant confessed his guilt and the incriminating article i.e., axe was recovered on his disclosure and pointing. P.W.12 Dr. K.C. Thakur conducted postmortem on the dead body of victim and supported prosecution story. 5. P.W.2 Thakur Mandal said that he, along with Bhisma Dev Mandal, went to enquire about the welfare of victim on 26.05.2004 around 06:00 P.M. She was not present at home. When victim came, appellant started abusing her and blamed her character. P.W.2 persuaded them not to quarrel, but to no avail. Appellant picked up axe, which was kept near the door, and inflicted two blows on victim’s head. She (victim) started bleeding profusely. Since the blows were sudden, hence P.W.2 Thakur Mandal and P.W.3 Bishma Dev Mandal could not save the victim. She died in the courtyard of the house. P.W.2 sent the message to P.W.1 Kashinath Mandal (father of victim), who lodged complaint in police outpost Shakti Farm. 6. P.W.3 Bhisma Dev Mandal corroborated the evidence of P.W.2 Thakur Mandal. The eyewitness account of the incident given by P.W.2 and P.W.3 was believed by learned trial court. 7. Learned Amicus Curiae assailed the presence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 on several grounds. We need not go into the details of said arguments, because the questions thus raised by learned Amicus Curiae have been successfully answered by P.W.2 and P.W.3 in their cross examination. Learned trial court has believed the eyewitness account rendered by such eyewitnesses. We have not been able to persuade ourselves, to take a different view than what has been taken by learned trial court. We are, therefore, inclined to agree with the findings arrived at by learned trial court for the reasons, as indicated by him in the impugned judgment. 8. We have not been able to persuade ourselves, to take a different view than what has been taken by learned trial court. We are, therefore, inclined to agree with the findings arrived at by learned trial court for the reasons, as indicated by him in the impugned judgment. 8. Assuming that P.W.2 and P.W.3 were not there, and they did not witness the said incident, yet there is no denying the fact that the place of incident was the own house of victim and appellant. The fact, which is under no dispute, is that wife died in her home i.e., inside the house of appellant. Victim was his own wife and the respondent did not try to save her or to provide medical treatment to her. The same was unbecoming the conduct of a normal human being. It is beyond comprehension that the husband will not try to save the life of his wife. Appellant did not say a word about the same in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He had a duty to speak as to how the death of his wife took place in his house, but he has not discharged his obligation. In his statement he said that he was not present when the occurrence took place. It is evidenced that the appellant started casting aspersion on the character of victim, to her dislike. In such a situation, why the appellant would have killed her, unless the appellant was paid back in the same coin? The incident took place in the heat of passion only when the victim gave a good reply to the appellant. 9. It is thus presumed in the facts and circumstances of the case, that a situation cropped up whereby, there was heated exchange of words between the appellant and victim, which provoked the appellant to hit the victim with axe. We, therefore, agree with the contention of learned Amicus Curiae that the offence was committed by the appellant under sudden and grave provocation. The situation is covered by Exception 1 to Section 300 of Indian Penal Code, which provides that culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation. The situation is covered by Exception 1 to Section 300 of Indian Penal Code, which provides that culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation. In such a situation, since the offence committed by appellant was culpable homicide not amounting to murder therefore, the same was punishable under Section 304 Part I IPC. 10. The judgment rendered by learned trial court is interferable only to the extent that the accused/appellant is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I IPC, instead of Section 302 IPC and considering all the facts and attenuating circumstances, he should be sentenced to undergo a lesser punishment than what was awarded by learned trial court, i.e. imprisonment for life. 11. The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC is accordingly set aside. Instead, the appellant is convicted of the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I IPC. He is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and a fine of ‘5,000/-, in default of payment of which, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 12. Accused/appellant is in jail. He shall serve out the remaining part of the sentence, as modified by this Court. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent of Jail where the accused / appellant is currently serving out the sentence. Let a copy of this order be also sent to the Court concerned for ensuring compliance of the order. Lower court record be sent back. 13. Appeal filed on behalf of the appellant is accordingly, disposed of.