JUDGMENT A.C. Upadhyay, J. 1. The appellants above named were put on trial, for alleged commission of offence under Section 302/201/34 IPC, in Sessions Case No. 164 of 2004, in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Golaghat. On conclusion of the trial, the appellants above named were convicted under Section 302/201 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and each of them were sentenced to imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each in default to undergo RI for one year each, for commission of offence under Section 302/34 IPC. They were further sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for five (5) years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, each in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six (6) months, for commission of offence under Section 201/34 IPC. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 9.8.2004 at about 12 P.M. at No. 3, Dagaon, under Bokakhat P.S., the police recovered dead body of Md. Rezak Borah from the premises of his house by digging a pit. It was alleged that the accused above named committed the murder of Rezak, prior to 9.8.2004 and concealed the dead body in their premises by digging a pit, for screening themselves from legal punishment. On receipt of the FIR to the effect aforesaid, a case was registered by the Bokakhat Police and investigation was launched. 2. On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against the accused appellants named above, alleging commission of offence under 120B/ 302/201 IPC. 3. The case was committed to the Court of Session at Golaghat for trial. During the trial, the learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Section 302/201/34 IPC, against the accused appellants severally and individually. On reading over and explaining the charges aforesaid, all the accused-appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution side examined as many as 15 witnesses to establish the charges against the accused appellants. On closing of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused appellants were recorded. Accused-appellants, namely, Must. Robinaj Sultana Borah, in her statements under Section 313 Cr PC, took the stand of total denial and further stated that on 28.7.2004, she had gone to Jorhat and Golaghat with one Jasmine Khan, daughter of Md. Bipul Khan and she returned home only on 9.8.2004. Therefore, she did not know anything about the occurrence. Accused-appellants, namely, Must. Robinaj Sultana Borah, in her statements under Section 313 Cr PC, took the stand of total denial and further stated that on 28.7.2004, she had gone to Jorhat and Golaghat with one Jasmine Khan, daughter of Md. Bipul Khan and she returned home only on 9.8.2004. Therefore, she did not know anything about the occurrence. However, the accused-appellant Mustt. Nigar Sultana Borah, wife of the deceased admitted that she had buried the dead body of her husband in the pit and further stated that on 28.7.2004 her elder daughter accused Rabinaj had gone to Jorhat and Golaghat with Bipul Khan's daughter Jasmine Khan and Rabinaj came back home only on 9.8.2004 and that she was not present at home at the time of the incident. Accused Nigar Sultana stated that on 31.7.2004, at night her deceased husband had physical relationship with her younger daughter, Farhan Sultana Borah. When she tried to save her, the deceased armed with Dao tried to chop her daughter, but she could manage to snatch the Dao and save the life of her daughter. Thereafter, the deceased husband by taking the Dao in his hand charged at her in order to assault her. At that she pushed him on the ground. Then she went outside the house. After a little while, when she came back home and enquired about her husband, she found her husband was lying dead with blood oozing out from his body. Therefore, by taking into consideration her daughter's future, both she and her daughter Farhena dragged the dead body and buried it in the pit dug, for keeping beetle nuts. 5. Accused appellant Mustt. Farhan Sultana Borah, in her statement under Section 313 Cr PC stated that on 28.7.2004, her elder sister accused appellant Rabinaj Sultana had gone for traveling with Bipul Khans daughter Jasmine and she returned only on 9.8.2004. Appellant Farhana, further stated that on 31.7.2004, when her father, the deceased demanded physical relationship with her, she resisted him, but then the deceased armed with Dao threatened her. At that, her mother snatched the Dao from the deceased. Thereafter, the deceased father once again charged at her mother taking the Dao in his hand, in order to cut her. Then, her mother pushed the deceased with force and went outside. Sometime, after that they found that father had already died. At that, her mother snatched the Dao from the deceased. Thereafter, the deceased father once again charged at her mother taking the Dao in his hand, in order to cut her. Then, her mother pushed the deceased with force and went outside. Sometime, after that they found that father had already died. After the death of her father, they dug the pit outside the house and buried the dead body. 6. The accused-appellants did not adduce any evidence in defence. Jasmine was also not examined, to prima-facie prove the plea of alibi. On conclusion of the trial, learned Sessions Judge, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as aforesaid giving rise to this appeal. 7. Mr. I.A. Talukdar, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the accused-appellants in their statement under Section 313 Cr PC admitted the commission of offence. However, the offence was committed by the accused-appellants, when the deceased had tried to molest his own daughter, therefore the accused persons deserve to be leniently dealt with. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that when family members of the deceased themselves had killed the head of the family, it could not have been without reasons. If the statement given by the accused-appellants is to be believed then the deceased was killed by the accused-appellants in order to save their own life, as they were challenged by the deceased with a Dao in his hand. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the accused-appellants deserve to be leniently dealt with. 9. Mr. K.A. Mazumdar, learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand submitted that the accused appellants committed the murder cool bloodedly and buried the dead body in the premises in order to cause dis-appearance of evidence and to screen the offender. Learned counsel pointed out that if such was the reason for causing death of the deceased, the accused should have come forward to prima-facie prove establish such a plea. According to, learned counsel for the State respondent, defence plea is nothing but an afterthought to gain sympathy of the Court. 10. In order to appreciate the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants, as well as the respondent-State, it would be apposite to discuss herein below the core of the prosecution evidence. 11. Dr. According to, learned counsel for the State respondent, defence plea is nothing but an afterthought to gain sympathy of the Court. 10. In order to appreciate the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants, as well as the respondent-State, it would be apposite to discuss herein below the core of the prosecution evidence. 11. Dr. Aboni Kumar Barthakur, (P.W. 10) carried out the post mortem examination of the deceased Md. Rezak Borah and found the following injuries:- External appearance: Wearing a white Pyjama covered with soil. Body is grossly swollen. Skin is pilled off from the body except over the area covered by Pyjama. Sockets of the eye balls are empty due to putrefactive changes. Hair present at the temporal region 1" in length, grey colour partly, otherwise appears bold, Rigormotis absent. Very foul smell emanated from the body. Injuries: Incised cut over the left side of the neck, injuries. (1) Incised cut over the left side of the neck, 10 cm x 4 cm x bone deep with fracture of left clavicle. The muscles over the left side of the neck and vessels cut over the injury. (2) Incised cut over the left shoulder joint, 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm x muscle deep. (3) 3.4 incised cuts over the left arm each 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm x muscle deep. (4) Incised cut over left elbow lateral aspect, 3 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep. (5) Incised cut over the left wrist ulna border that cuts through half the girth of the wrist. Two carpet bones are cut through. (6) Incised cut over the sternum, 2.5 cm x 1 cm x bone deep. (7) Incised cut over the left foot dorsal aspect two in numbers, each 2.5 cm x 1 cm x bone deep. One of these also cuts through three middle metatarsal bones at the dossal aspect. (8) Incised cut over parietal area of head, 3 cm x 1 cm x bone deep. The left parietal bone is also cut underneath with the formation of gap of 1.25 x 2.5 cm. There is laceration of meanings over this. (9) The brain is liquefied into a dark colour jelly like other organs are healthy. All the injuries described are antemortem. The injury No. 1 is caused by heavy sharp weapon. The injury No. 1, 7 and 8 are grievous in nature. There is laceration of meanings over this. (9) The brain is liquefied into a dark colour jelly like other organs are healthy. All the injuries described are antemortem. The injury No. 1 is caused by heavy sharp weapon. The injury No. 1, 7 and 8 are grievous in nature. Time since death within about 10 days. OPINION Death in this case was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries sustained by the deceased. 12. PW-1, Md. Mukul Khan, who is a Tailor by profession knew both the accused-appellants as well as the deceased, as their neighbour. On 10.8.2004, when P.W. 1 was in the Tailoring Shop at Bokakhat Chariali, at about 2 P.M. he got the information that one dead body was recovered in the premises of the accused appellants by digging a pit. P.W. 1 stated that he could identify the dead body of Md. Rajak Borah, the husband and father of the accused appellant respectively. PW-1 also signed the inquest report exhibit-1, as a witness. PW-1 further stated in his deposition that when he had enquired accused-appellant Nigar sultana about the deceased, a few days prior to recovery of dead body, he was informed by the accused-appellant that the deceased had gone to Sibsagar. Thereafter, he saw the dead body of the deceased in his own premises. PW-2, who is a mason by profession, knew both accused-appellants, as well as the deceased. PW-2 also corroborated the testimony of PW-1 regarding the recovery of dead body from the premises of the deceased. 13. PW-3, Dr. Niren Kakaty was M & H.O., Bokakhat Hospital on 9.8.2004. On that day, as per the direction of Sub Divisional Medical Officer, PW-3 visited the residence of accused Nigar Sultana at Dagaon along with the Officer-in-Charge of Bokakhat Police Station. According to PW-3, the decomposed dead body was dug out in his presence. Accused-appellant Nigar Sultana acknowledged the dead body, to be of her husband. PW-3, saw mark of injury on the neck, head and in the hand of the deceased. The body was kept tied with a rope. PW-3 stated to have signed the inquest report prepared by the Police Officer. PW-4, Dr. Syed Tabique Hussain, who was also posted at Bokakhat CHC, happened to accompany Dr. Niren Kakaty, PW-3, to the place of occurrence. PW-4 also corroborated the testimony of PW-3. Md. The body was kept tied with a rope. PW-3 stated to have signed the inquest report prepared by the Police Officer. PW-4, Dr. Syed Tabique Hussain, who was also posted at Bokakhat CHC, happened to accompany Dr. Niren Kakaty, PW-3, to the place of occurrence. PW-4 also corroborated the testimony of PW-3. Md. Matiur Rahman PW-5, deposed that the deceased as well as the accused appellants were his neighbours. During the time of occurrence when he did not see the deceased Rejek Bora in his shop, he asked accused Nigar Sultana as to whether the accused had gone. She replied to PW-5 that the deceased had gone to see his mother. PW-5 did not see the deceased for about 6 to 7 days in his shop. Thereafter, one day he heard that the police discovered the dead body of the deceased in the premises of the accused-appellant. He came to the place from where the dead body was dug out. PW-5 stated that all the accused-appellants identified the dead body. 14. PW-6, Sri Liladhar Mirdha, a daily labourer by profession, was engaged by accused-appellant Nigar Sultana to dig a pit to keep beetle nuts. Accordingly, as per instruction of accused Nigar Sultana, P.W. 6, dug a pit of the sized of 5 ft. long 3 ft. wide and 2 and l/2 ft deep for putting beetle nuts. But according to PW-6 after he had dug the pit, no beetle nut was put in it in his presence. PW-7, Shri Chandan Tanti and PW-8, Shri Debraj Tanti, a Municipal Sweeper, deposed to have dug the pit as directed by the police and stated to have found a dead body of a male person in the pit. PW-12, Md. Ohid Rahman, PW-13 and PW-14 deposed that the police took them to the house of the accused-appellant in connection with the murder case of Rajek Bora. The aforesaid witnesses further stated that the police seized one Dao and one axe in his presence. On being produced by accused Nigar Sultana, the witness also identified material exhibits in the Court. 15. Ohid Rahman, PW-13 and PW-14 deposed that the police took them to the house of the accused-appellant in connection with the murder case of Rajek Bora. The aforesaid witnesses further stated that the police seized one Dao and one axe in his presence. On being produced by accused Nigar Sultana, the witness also identified material exhibits in the Court. 15. On careful scrutiny of the entire evidence on record as discussed above, vis-a-vis, the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 Cr PC, it appears that there was no eye witness to the occurrence and the entire prosecution story rest on circumstantial evidence coupled with the admission of the accused appellants in the statement under Section 313 Cr PC. 16. In Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Ann vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 343 , the Apex Court observed thus: It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such s to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 17. A reference may be made to a later decision in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 . Therein, while dealing with circumstantial evidence, it has been held that onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete, and the infirmity of lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence plea. In the words of the Apex Court the following conditions precedents, must be fully established, before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence they are: (i) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. In the words of the Apex Court the following conditions precedents, must be fully established, before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence they are: (i) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must' or 'should' and not 'may be' established; (ii) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (iii) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; (iv) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 18. These aspects were also highlighted in State of Rajasthan Vs. Raja Ram ( 2003 (8) SCC 180 ), State of Haryana vs. Jagbir Singh & another 2003(11) SCC 261 and Kusuma Ankama Rao vs. State of A.P. (2008) 13 SCC 257 . 19. Keeping in view the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision it will have to been seen whether the prosecution has been able to establish the charges against the accused appellants beyond all reasonable doubts, on the basis of the circumstantial evidence. In the present case, the prosecution could prove the following circumstances against the accused-appellant. They are as follows:- (1) That the deceased Md. Rezak Borah, is the husband of accused-appellant Mustt. Nigar Sultana Borah and father of accused Mustt. Farhan Sultana Borah and Md. Robinaj Sultana Borah died due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries sustained by him. (2) That the dead body of Rezak Borah was kept concealed by digging a pit in the campus of the house of the accused-appellant. The dead body of the deceased was identified by the accused appellants as well as the local villagers after it was exhumed from the pit. (3) The dead body was discovered by police by digging earth on 9.8.2004 in presence of the witnesses and the accused appellants. The dead body of the deceased was identified by the accused appellants as well as the local villagers after it was exhumed from the pit. (3) The dead body was discovered by police by digging earth on 9.8.2004 in presence of the witnesses and the accused appellants. (4) That the accused appellant had dug the pit by engaging labourer Liladhar Mirdha (PW-6) inside the campus of her residence prior to the recovery of the dead body. (5) The neighbouring witnesses namely PW-1, 2 and 5 did not see the deceased in his shop house prior to the date of recovery of the dead body. (6) On enquiry made by the witnesses about the deceased, accused wife Mustt. Nigar Sultana Borah falsely informed them that deceased had gone at Sibsagar to see his mother. (7) The deceased was found missing from the house for about 8 to 15 days prior to the recovery of the dead body. (8) The weapons of offence i.e. axe and Dao were seized by police on being on being produced by the accused Mustt. Nigar Sultana Borah. (9) Appellant Nigar Sultana Borah and accused/appellant Farhana admitted in her statement under section 313 of Cr. P.C. that the death of her husband inside the house and concealment of the dead body in the pit dug for keeping the beetle nut with. (10) Multiple grievous injuries caused by sharp weapon were found on the dead body of the deceased. 20. From the above circumstances, it clearly transpires that the accused-appellant above named could not discredit the testimony of prosecution witness, nor adduced any evidence to support their stand. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C., the accused Mustt. Nigar Sultana Borah stated that her daughter, Mustt. Robinaj Sultana Borah was not at her residence at the time of occurrence. She stated that on the night of 31.7.2004, accused under the influence of alcohol established physical relationship with her younger daughter accused Farhana. In such a situation, when she tried to save her, the deceased caught the neck of her daughter and threatened with dire consequences by flaunting Dao. According to the accused-appellant, Nigar Sultana, she somehow managed to snatch away the Dao from the hands of the deceased by following him. In such a situation, when she tried to save her, the deceased caught the neck of her daughter and threatened with dire consequences by flaunting Dao. According to the accused-appellant, Nigar Sultana, she somehow managed to snatch away the Dao from the hands of the deceased by following him. At that accused, Nigar Sultana Borah, admitted to have pushed the deceased away after which the deceased fell down on the ground and she came out from her room. After sometime when she came inside the room her husband was found dead and blood was coming out. Therefore, thinking about the future of her daughters accused admittedly buried the dead body in the pit dug by the labourer, inside the premises, for the purpose of keeping beetle nuts. 21. Though, a plea of alibi was raised on behalf of the accused-appellant, Must. Robinaj Sultana Borah and the accused-appellant in their statement tried to establish that the death of Rezak Borah was an accidental one. But the accused-appellant could not prima-facie show as to how the deceased sustained multiple injuries on vital parts of his body. The injuries sustained by the deceased could not have been caused by single fall on the ground, as sought to be established by the accused-appellant. As a matter of fact, motive behind the commission of crime is an essential ingredients of criminal charge. It is pertinent to mention that motive is not sine-qua-non, for the commission of crime. Motive behind the crime is not known to any other person except the person committing the crime. However, motive for commission of an offence become in-consequential when there is direct and clinching evidence in respect of the commission of offence by the accused. 22. The Apex Court in the case of Dilip Kumar Sarma vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1976 SC 133 held as follows:- Motiveless murders are not necessarily acts of mad and unhinged people. Prosecution is often unable to collect satisfactory evidence on the motive behind the crime. That does not call for any leniency and indeed where this is so, criminals would prefer, in order to reduce the gravity of their acts, to suppress the motive leading to the crime. 23. Prosecution is often unable to collect satisfactory evidence on the motive behind the crime. That does not call for any leniency and indeed where this is so, criminals would prefer, in order to reduce the gravity of their acts, to suppress the motive leading to the crime. 23. Further, in the case of Datar Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in, AIR 1974 SC 1193 , the Hon'ble Apex Court again held as under:- If the eye witnesses are relied upon, the mere absence of a strong motive for committing murder or the mode of its commission is of no assistance to the accused. 24. Now question is whether the plea of alibi as tried to be postulated by the accused in their defence statement can be accepted to exonerate the accused Farhana. 25. The accused Farhana pleaded alibi to improbablise her physical presence at the site of occurrence. Except, for making a bald assertion about her absence from her house, the appellant miserably failed to examine witness before whom she may have gone to a distant location. She examined nobody, who could have seen her in the in the distant location on the date of the incident. Therefore, the trial court concluded that this plea of being away from the rented premises at the relevant time was concocted. 26. Undeniably, the burden of establishing the plea of alibi lay upon the appellant. The appellant herein has miserably failed to bring on record any facts or circumstances, which would make the plea of his absence even probable, let alone, being proved beyond reasonable doubt. The plea of alibi had to be proved with absolute certainty, so as to completely exclude the possibility of the presence of the appellant in her house at the relevant time. When a plea of alibi is raised by an accused, it is for the accused to establish the said plea by positive evidence which is visibly missing in the present case. (See Shaikh Sattar vs. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 8 SCC 430 . 27. The trial court thoroughly scrutinized the circumstantial evidence to exclude the possibility of the innocence of the appellants. Accused Farhana was admittedly living together with other accused persons. Apparently failure of the accused appellant to prove the plea of alibi would automatically bring her together with other accused person, who committed the crime. 28. 27. The trial court thoroughly scrutinized the circumstantial evidence to exclude the possibility of the innocence of the appellants. Accused Farhana was admittedly living together with other accused persons. Apparently failure of the accused appellant to prove the plea of alibi would automatically bring her together with other accused person, who committed the crime. 28. It is now well-settled that with a view to base a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish all the pieces of incriminating circumstances by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form such a chain of events as would permit no conclusion other than one of guilt of the accused. The circumstances cannot be on any other hypothesis. It is also well-settled that suspicion, however, grave may be, cannot be a substitute for a proof and the courts shall take utmost precaution in finding an accused guilty only on the basis of the circumstantial evidence. 29. The last-seen theory, furthermore, comes into play, where the time gap between the point of time when the accused persons and the deceased were last seen alive and the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. Even in such a case courts should look for some corroboration. 30. However, in the present case, the accused appellants were seen by many people, together with the deceased. More so, the deceased was admittedly residing together with the accused appellants in the same house. The appellants admitted such fact of being together with the deceased just before his death. It has been proved that the deceased had sustained severe injuries, on his person; as a result of he died, in their presence. In such circumstances, it is obligatory on the part of the accused to come forward to explain reasons for causing of such injuries. In the present case, the appellants came forward to explain the reasons for causing death of the deceased and his subsequent burial within the premises. 31. Since the case of the prosecution rests purely on circumstantial evidence, the trial court examined all the material circumstances as discussed above and proved beyond reasonable doubt the death of the deceased in the hands of the appellants and his burial within his own premises. 31. Since the case of the prosecution rests purely on circumstantial evidence, the trial court examined all the material circumstances as discussed above and proved beyond reasonable doubt the death of the deceased in the hands of the appellants and his burial within his own premises. We see no reason to disagree with the conclusion arrived at by the trial court. 32. However, the appellants in their statement under Section 313 Cr PC admitted the death of the deceased after a brief scuffle and subsequent concealing of the dead body in a pit dug inside the premises. The appellants emphatically stated that the deceased had made an attempt to commit rape on his own daughter. And the deceased, who was holding deadly weapon had to be prevented by the appellants from committing the heinous offence. Thus in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case it is required to be examined as to whether the deceased was done to death by accused-appellants on account of grave and sudden provocation, for advancing to commit heinous offence of rape upon his own daughter in presence of his wife. In normal circumstances, the deceased, father of two grown up daughters, who was regularly earning from his vocation would not have met the fate of being killed by his own family members had there been no incident, as alleged by the appellant wife. As admitted by the accused appellants in no other circumstances, a wife would have killed her dear husband in presence of her grown-up daughters. 33. The accused appellant-wife disclosed that, the deceased in an inebriated state aggressively lurched to commit heinous offence of rape upon his own daughter in her presence. Obviously, such episode would have the potential to trigger sudden emotional outburst, which led to deep and sudden provocation to stop the accused from committing such heinous crime. As a matter of fact culpable homicide is not murder, if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden heat of passion upon or on sudden quarrel. 34. In Mohammedd Asif vs. State of Uttaranchal reported in (2009) 11 SCC 497 , the Apex Court observed in para 25 and 26 as follows- 25. The question with regard to finding out the intention on the part of the accused to cause death depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down therefore. 26. The question with regard to finding out the intention on the part of the accused to cause death depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down therefore. 26. Section 300 of the Code provides that subject to the exceptions contained therein culpable homicide would be murder if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death. Exception 1 thereto providing for a situation when culpable homicide is not murder. In terms of Exception 1: Exception 1.--When culpable homicide is not murder.--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 or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident. The said provision is, however, subject to the following provisos: "First.--That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person. Secondly.--That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant. Thirdly--That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence." The Explanation appended thereto states that: Explanation.--Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact. 35. There is no standard of a reasonable man for the application of the doctrine of "grave and sudden" provocation. It may not be possible to formulate reasonableness of a man. Behaviour of a reasonable man depends upon his education, upbringing, customs, manners, way of life, traditional values etc. Influence of ethnic, societal and emotional background on the reasonable man cannot be ruled out. '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.' 36. '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.' 36. In K.M. Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra, 1962 Supp (1) SCR 567the Apex Court observed as follows: The Indian law, relevant to the present enquiry, may be stated thus – (1) The test of "grave and sudden" provocation is whether a reasonable man, belonging to the same class of society as the accused, placed in the situation in which the accused was placed would be so provoked as to lose his self-control. (2) In India, words and gestures may also, under certain circumstances, cause grave and sudden provocation to an accused so as to bring his act within the First Exception to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. (3) The mental background created by the previous act of the victim may be taken into consideration in ascertaining whether the subsequent act caused grave and sudden provocation for committing the offence. (4) The fatal blow should be clearly traced to the influence of passion arising from that provocation and not after the passion had cooled down by lapse of time, or otherwise giving room and scope for premeditation and calculation. 37. On careful analysis of the facts and circumstances we find that the dead body of the deceased was recovered in a decomposed state after several days, in a pit situated within their own premises. There were no eye witnesses to the occurrence. Apparently, there was no deep rooted motive to commit murder of the deceased. It appears that the incident occurred suddenly, when the deceased in an inebriated state attempted to rape his own daughter in presence of his own wife which provoked the accused wife so much as to lose her self-control. 38. When the deceased wanted to lead an immoral life with his own grown up daughter and his wife, the accused, reproached him, while the deceased instead of being remorseful, defying everyone in the family, wanted to continue his scornful act. And the accused wife, being enraged assaulted the deceased. As result of which the deceased was killed. 38. When the deceased wanted to lead an immoral life with his own grown up daughter and his wife, the accused, reproached him, while the deceased instead of being remorseful, defying everyone in the family, wanted to continue his scornful act. And the accused wife, being enraged assaulted the deceased. As result of which the deceased was killed. Apparently the fatal assault can be clearly traced to the influence of passion arising from that provocation and not after the passion had cooled down by lapse of time, or otherwise giving room and scope for premeditation and calculation. The immediate provocation was sufficient to bring the case within the first exception to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. 39. In the present case in our view, while adjudging the behaviour of the accused, we cannot confine to the actual moment, when the blow, which ultimately proved to be fatal was struck, but also take into consideration the event which took place immediately before the fatal attack. The whole unfortunate affair must have triggered agony and hatred on the part of the wife and children, which must have provoked the accused wife so much, as to lose her self-control, which must have led to the assault upon the deceased, resulting in his death. Under these circumstances we think that the provocation would be both grave and sudden. The fact that the accused wife had seen the attempt of the deceased to continue illicit closeness with his daughter could certainly give her a mental shock all of a sudden, it should be deemed to have given her a grave and sudden provocation. 40. The overt act on the part of the deceased, which instigated provocation to the mother of the victim as well as the accused victim, was surely grave and sudden. Neither the provocation was sought for by the accused appellants, nor got the provocation triggered by any lawful action of the deceased. 41. After giving thoughtful consideration on the entire gamut of facts leading to the occurrence, we find that the present case would fall within the scope of exception to Section 300 IPC and accordingly the appellant would be entitled to claim that the offence should be punishable under Section 304 Pt-II IPC. 42. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. 42. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellants under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC is altered to one under Section 304 Part II of IPC. Consequently, the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the appellants is set aside and they are sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for the period they have already undergone, in the meantime. But, the conviction and sentence imposed for commission of offence under section 201/34 IPC, against the appellants are confirmed, however, considering the facts and circumstances discussed above, they are sentenced to rigorous imprisonment, for the period they have already undergone, in the meantime. 43. With the above modification in the conviction of the accused-appellants the appeal shall stand disposed of. 44. Let the accused-appellants be released forthwith unless they are required to be detained in connection with any other case. For the services rendered by Mr. I.A. Talukdar, learned Amicus Curiae, we direct the Assam State Legal Services Authority to remunerate him to the extent of Rs. 3,500/-. 47. Send back the L.C. Records along with a copy of this judgment.