JUDGMENT : Jayant Patel, J. When Criminal Misc. Application No.621/14 is taken up for hearing, with the consent of the learned advocates appearing for both the sides, the main appeal itself is considered for final disposal. 2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.120/06 for the offences punishable under sections 302 read with section 114 of IPC and sentence of life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/and further 30 days SI for default in payment of fine were imposed. 3. The short facts of the case are that on 17.05.2006, a complaint was filed by Arjunbhai Fatabhai Nayak alleging that day before yesterday, he had gone for playing music on the occasion of marriage and he was at a different village, but today morning when he reached to his residence, he found that his father was beaten in the compound by his aunt Revaben (A1) and her son Bhopat (A2) with the blunt side of the axe. Both were strangulating the neck and when he tried to save his father, A2 wanted to give blow to him and therefore, he ran away. After some time, the movement of his father had stopped. When he inquired as to why his father was beaten, A1 told him that during night time, his father had tried to outrage the chastity and had caught hold of her hand and she had started shouting and at that time, her son came and out of anger, they have beaten him. The aforesaid complaint was recorded by the Police Sub-Inspector of the concerned police station. The said complaint was investigated by the police and thereafter, charge-sheet was filed against both the accused. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Sessions Court being Sessions Case No.120/06. 4. The trial was conducted by the learned Sessions Judge. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused, examined 7 witnesses and produced documentary evidence of 10 documents, the details of which are mentioned by the learned Sessions Judge at paras 9 and 10 of the impugned Judgment. 4. The trial was conducted by the learned Sessions Judge. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused, examined 7 witnesses and produced documentary evidence of 10 documents, the details of which are mentioned by the learned Sessions Judge at paras 9 and 10 of the impugned Judgment. The learned Sessions Judge thereafter recorded statement of the accused under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. wherein the accused denied the evidence against them and in the further statement, A1 stated that the deceased had fallen down and she had no knowledge about the person who had beaten him and the allegation was made against her. Whereas, A2, in further statement declared that when his mother was being pulled, he had got up and there was shout and other persons had come and his uncle was beaten, but who has beaten was not known to him. The learned Sessions Judge thereafter heard the prosecution and the defence and ultimately, found that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against both the accused for the offence under section 302 r/w section 114 of IPC and hence held both the accused guilty for the said offences. The learned Sessions Judge thereafter heard the prosecution and the defence for the sentence and imposed sentence on both the accused as referred to herein above. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Pathak as well as Mr. Pandya, learned APP have taken us to the entire record which was called for by this Court. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as learned APP for the State. We have considered the judgment and the reasons recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. 6. Mr. Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-accused at the outset submitted that for the involvement in causing injury by both the accused, he is not raising any contention but in his submission, the learned Sessions Judge has committed error in holding both the accused guilty for the offence under section 302 of IPC. He submitted that as per the prosecution case, even if the evidence is considered as it is, it was a case for sudden provocation. He submitted that as per the prosecution case, even if the evidence is considered as it is, it was a case for sudden provocation. In his submission, if the chastity of the woman is outraged, she is bound to resist and get provocation and if such an incident is reported and seen by son of a woman, he would also get provocation in natural course. As per the prosecution case, the incident had happened in view of the said provocation when the deceased tried to outrage the chastity of A1. Under these circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge ought to have considered the case under section 304-I of IPC and not for the offence under section 302 of IPC since it could not be said that the action was a planned murder or there was premeditation to cause death of the deceased. 7. Whereas, learned APP while supporting the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge contended that the manner in which the injury is caused is sufficient to get the intention of the accused for causing death of the deceased. He submitted that the weapon of axe was used and the another stick was used for strangulation. Hence, it was a case for the offence under section 302 of IPC. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly held the accused guilty for the same and the sentence is also properly imposed. 8. In the present case, as there is no challenge for the involvement of the accused in the incident, we do not find that any discussion is required to be made on the said aspect. But suffice it to observe that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against both the accused to the extent that the accused are found to have been involved in the incident in question which ultimately has resulted into the death of the deceased. 9. However, in our view, the aspect of the examination of the case as to whether such would fall under section 302 of IPC or under section 304 Part I of IPC deserves consideration. In this regard, we may refer to the evidence of Raijibhai, PW 2, Exh.11, who is the another son of A1 and brother of A2. He has in the examination-in-chief deposed that the deceased had come at the residence of A1 and was harassing his mother. In this regard, we may refer to the evidence of Raijibhai, PW 2, Exh.11, who is the another son of A1 and brother of A2. He has in the examination-in-chief deposed that the deceased had come at the residence of A1 and was harassing his mother. When his mother waked up and started shouting, his brother A2 had also waken up and thereafter his uncle had left. The deceased was in drunken condition and had fallen down. But when he stated that he had no knowledge about the injury caused and who had caused, he was declared hostile and thereafter, he was cross-examined by the public prosecutor. The relevant aspect is that in cross-examination by APP, it has come out that he had stated before the police that when his mother Revaben was being pulled by his uncle-deceased to his residence and when deceased was saying that he wants to keep her, his mother had shouted. He further stated that his brother had waken up and he came running with axe in his hand and gave a blow to the deceased from the blunt side of the axe and hence, the deceased left his mother. It was further stated that thereafter, the deceased was abusing his mother and therefore, his mother had given blows with the stick and when the deceased had fallen down, the stick was used for strangulation and the death was caused. 10. IO Kiritkumar Gokaldas Patel, PW7, Exh. 26 has also supported the said aspect inasmuch as in examination-in-chief he has deposed that Arjunbhai Fatabhai Nayak, son of the deceased had stated before him that A1 had told him that during night time, when deceased tried to outrage the chastity and caught hold, she had started shouting and her son A2 had come and thereafter, they were excited and his father was beaten. Further, the said witness also stated that Raijibhai Ratibhai Nayak in his police statement, had declared that at that time A1 had waken up and he came running with axe and a blow was given with the blunt side of the axe on the deceased and hence, the deceased had left A1 but as the deceased was abusing A1, she got excited and gave blow with stick and thereafter, the stick was used for strangulation by his mother and his brother. 11. 11. The consideration of the aforesaid evidence coupled with the other evidence led by the prosecution clearly makes out that when the deceased tried to outrage the chastity and caught hold of A1, she got excited and she got angry and had shouted and out of her shouting, A2, her son, came and as the deceased had caught hold of his mother, the blow was given from the blunt side of the axe upon the deceased and thereafter, the deceased had left A1, his mother. Thereafter also, as the deceased was abusing A1, A1 got excited and A1 and A2 strangulated the deceased with the help of stick. 12. In our view, the case could be considered as falling under section 304 Part I of IPC since the provocation was in natural course inasmuch as if the chastity of any woman is outraged or attempted to be outraged, she would get angry and she would get provoked. Further, if the son of the said woman finds that the chastity of his mother is being outraged and she is caught hold of, the son would get natural provocation in order to save mother. It may be that thereafter, the anger further continued due to abuse by deceased to A1 and the death is caused by strangulation with the help of stick. 13. This Court had an occasion to consider the aspect of natural provocation in a matter where the husband had found the deceased doing unnatural work with his wife and the deceased was found lying above wife in Cr.Appeal No. 108/10 and allied matter decided on 31.03.2014. In the said decision, this Court had in paras 20 to 21 after considering the Apex Court's decision, observed thus "20. In view of the above, it can be said that the prosecution has been able to prove the case for causing death of the deceased and of destroying of the evidence by cremating the dead body of the deceased. However, important aspect which has been lost sight of by the learned Sessions Judge is that as per the case of the prosecution and the fact disclosed by Bhaijibhai before the police officer, Shri Vinodsinh PW 22, Exh. 80, since A1 had seen the deceased doing unnatural work with his wife Manjulaben and he had seen deceased lying above Manjulaben, his wife, he had beaten the deceased. 80, since A1 had seen the deceased doing unnatural work with his wife Manjulaben and he had seen deceased lying above Manjulaben, his wife, he had beaten the deceased. There is also disclosure for shouting at the residence of A1. Such would make out a case for sudden provocation in natural course for a husband. At this stage, we may make useful reference to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1962 SC 605 , wherein the Apex Court had an occasion to consider the aspect of sudden provocation in normal circumstances. The Apex Court, in the said decision, at paragraphs 83 to 85, observed thus "83. Where the deceased led an immoral life and her husband, the accused, upbraided her and the deceased instead of being repentant said that she would again do such acts, and the accused, being enraged struck her and, when she struggled and beat him, killed her, the Court held the immediate provocation coming on top of all that had gone before was sufficient to bring the case within the first exception to section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. So too, where a woman was leading a notoriously immoral life, and on the previous night mysteriously disappeared from the bedside of her husband and the husband protested against her conduct, she vulgarly abused him, whereupon the husband lost his self-control, picked up a rough stick, which happened to be close by and struck her resulting in her death, the Lahore High Court, in Jan Muhammad v. Emperor, held that the case was governed by the said exception. The following observations of the court were relied upon in the present case : "In the present case my view is that, in judging the conduct of the accused, one must not confine himself to the actual moment when the blow, which ultimately proved to be fatal was struck, that is to say, one must not take into consideration only the event which took place immediately before the fatal blow was struck. We must take into consideration the previous conduct of the woman......... We must take into consideration the previous conduct of the woman......... As stated above, the whole unfortunate affair should be looked at as one prolonged agony on the part of the husband which must have been preying upon his mind and led to the assault upon the woman, resulting in her death." A division bench of the Allahabad High Court in Emperor v. Balku invoked the exception in a case where the accused and the deceased, who was his wife's sister's husband, were sleeping on the same cot, and in the night the accused saw the deceased getting up from the cot, and going to another room and having sexual intercourse with his (accused's) wife, and the accused allowed the deceased to return to the cot, but after the deceased fell asleep, he stabbed him to death. The learned Judges held : "When Budhu (the deceased) came into intimate contact with the accused by lying beside him on the charpai this must have worked further on the mind of the accused and he must have reflected that `this man now lying beside me had been dishonouring me a few minutes ago'. Under these circumstances we think that the provocation would be both grave and sudden." The Allahabad High Court in a recent decision, viz., Babu Lal v. State applied the exception to a case where the husband who saw his wife in a compromising position with the deceased killed the latter subsequently when the deceased came, in his absence, to his house in another village to which he had moved. The learned Judges observed : "The appellant when he came to reside in the Government House Orchard felt that he had removed his wife from the influence of the deceased and there was no more any contact between them. He had lulled himself into a false security. This belief was shattered when he found the deceased at his hut when he was absent. This could certainly give him a mental jolt and as this knowledge will come all of a sudden it should be deemed to have given him a grave and sudden provocation. He had lulled himself into a false security. This belief was shattered when he found the deceased at his hut when he was absent. This could certainly give him a mental jolt and as this knowledge will come all of a sudden it should be deemed to have given him a grave and sudden provocation. The fact that he had suspected this illicit intimacy on an earlier occasion also will not alter the nature of the provocation and make it any the less sudden." All the said four decisions dealt with a case of a husband killing his wife when his peace of mind had already been disturbed by an earlier discovery of the wife's infidelity and the subsequent act of her operated as a grave and sudden provocation on his disturbed mind. 84. Is there any standard of a reasonable man for the application of the doctrine of "grave and sudden" provocation ? No abstract standard of reasonableness can be laid down. What a reasonable man will do in certain circumstances depends upon the customs, manners, way of life, traditional values etc.; in short, the cultural, social and emotional background of the society to which an accused belongs. 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. It is not necessary in this case to ascertain whether a reasonable man placed in the position of the accused would have lost his self-control momentarily or even temporarily when his wife confessed to him of her illicit intimacy with another, for we are satisfied on the evidence that the accused regained his self-control and killed Ahuja deliberately. 85. 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. (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." 21. If the facts of the present case are considered in light of the above referred observations, the natural provocation by A1 in capacity as the husband on account of the deceased doing unnatural work with his wife and on account of the deceased found lying above his wife, resulting into loosing of self control and of giving blows with the log of wood could not be ruled out. It is by now well settled that when two views are possible, the court would lean for the view in favour of the accused." 14. If the facts of the present case are further examined in light of the aforesaid observations, we find that it was a case where the incident had happened on account of the natural provocation of A1 as a lady whose chastity was being outraged and of A2 whose mother's chastity was being outraged by the deceased. Hence, the case would fall under section 304 Part I of IPC and not under section 302 of IPC. 15. It may also be recorded that the prosecution has not led any evidence that there was premeditation on the part of the accused to cause death. If the incident has happened under the aforesaid circumstances, as narrated by us herein above, it is difficult to gather that there was preplan or prior intention to cause death. Further, the axe is used not from the sharpened side, but is from the blunt side (reverse side). Had the intention to cause death, the axe could have been used by the accused from the sharp side. Further, the stick is used for giving blow since the deceased did not stop abusing A1 and he continued even after he had fallen down. Had the intention to cause death, the axe could have been used by the accused from the sharp side. Further, the stick is used for giving blow since the deceased did not stop abusing A1 and he continued even after he had fallen down. In our view, the aforesaid circumstances could be said as sufficient to bring the case under section 304 Part I of the IPC. 16. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussions, the conviction made by the learned Sessions Judge for the offence under section 302 r/w section 114 of IPC is modified and converted as conviction under section 304 Part I r/w section 114 of IPC. Hence, A1 and A2 are convicted for the offence under section 304 Part I r/w section 114 of IPC and A1 and A2 are imposed sentence of 10 years RI with the fine as ordered by the learned Sessions Judge. 17. Appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Appeal partly allowed.