JUDGMENT : Seth, J. 1. Appellant is aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000 with default stipulation handed down by the Sessions Judge Jabalpur in S. T. No. 146 of 2004. 2. Appellant, a Head Constable of C.R.P.F., was arraigned before the trial Court on the charge of having shot dead Dumarilal on 2.5.2003 at about 8 am in the morning in village Bahmni, P.S. Barela, District Jabalpur. 3. It is no longer in dispute that the Dumarilal (since deceased), his brother Bhagwandas (P.W.10) and their cousin, Chamru (P.W.9) were residents of the said village Bahmni and the appellant in the morning of the date of the incident had gone to the said village. 4. Prosecution case in brief is that Dumarilal a brick-kiln owner had supplied bricks wroth Rs 10,000/- to the appellant. On 2.5.2003 appellant had gone to village Bahmni to take steps for recovery of money advanced by him to Chamru (P.W.9). Hearing their talk, Dumarilal came over and asked appellant to settle his outstanding account for the supply of bricks. Appellant thereupon lost his temper and gave two slaps to Dumarilal who in retaliation gave one slap to the accused. This seems to have infuriated the accused and he took out his service revolver, fired three shots in rapid succession at point-blank range at the Dumarilal who fell down in prostrate position and then the appellant shot him in the back and parting shot at the temporal region saying "this settles your account". He thus made small matter of the victim. 5. First Information Report (Ex.P.4) of this incident was lodged by Pancham (P.W.8) village Kotwar in the Police Station Barela, District Jabalpur. This set the investigation rolling. After inquest, dead body was sent for autopsy. Post Mortem examination was done by Dr. Kukrele (P.W.12) who confirmed the homicidal death of the deceased. Post mortem report is Ex.P.12. According to this report five gun shots with blackening were found in temporal, chest and other regions. Bullet was collected from injury No. 1 in the brain and sealed and handed over by the Doctor Kukrele to the Police. The time passed since death was estimated within 30 hours. According to Dr. Kukrele death was due to severe haemorrhage due to deeper and vital organ injuries by gun shots. 6. Bullet was collected from injury No. 1 in the brain and sealed and handed over by the Doctor Kukrele to the Police. The time passed since death was estimated within 30 hours. According to Dr. Kukrele death was due to severe haemorrhage due to deeper and vital organ injuries by gun shots. 6. Appellant was arrested after about four months and his service revolver along with six rounds was seized as per Seizure Memo. Ex. P.1 as per details given in the seizure memo. 7. The bullet collected from the body, the service revolver of the accused were sent for forensic tests and as per report Ex. 17, it is established that the deceased died of bullet injuries. 8. Appellant abjured his guilt and said not a word more in reply to the charge. But in his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. he comes out with a story that property disputes led to some incident of Marpeet at the time of the incident and he went away before anything else happened. The bullet injuries were caused not by the service revolver but by a Desi Katta brought by Chamru and all this behind the back of the appellant. Accused has examined one defence witness to support this story. 9. Relying on the prosecution evidence, and more particularly, the scientific report Ex.P. 17 which clinches the matter of the deceased having died of bullet injuries from service revolver of 0.38 bore and not a Desi Katta as the accused would have us believe, the trial Court convicted him to life imprisonment under section 302 of the IPC with fine. The trial Court also rejected the alternative contention of the accused for conviction under the less severe Section 304-I of the IPC. 10. Aggrieved on both counts the accused appeals. 11. At this stage, it is not disputed before us that Dumarilal (since deceased) died death as a result of bullet injuries. Even otherwise, this fact is amply established from the evidence of Dr. Kukrele (P.W.12) and the autopsy report Ex.P.12. According to evidence of Dr. Kukrele (P.W.12) deceased died a homicidal death due to anti-mortem gun shots injuries leading to severe haemorrhage and shock to deeper and vital organs. In the post examination report Dr. Kukrele (P.W.12) found that deceased had sustained five gunshots wounds from a close range. There was virtually no cross-examination of Dr. According to evidence of Dr. Kukrele (P.W.12) deceased died a homicidal death due to anti-mortem gun shots injuries leading to severe haemorrhage and shock to deeper and vital organs. In the post examination report Dr. Kukrele (P.W.12) found that deceased had sustained five gunshots wounds from a close range. There was virtually no cross-examination of Dr. Kukrele (P.W.12) when he was in the witness box. Medical testimony is duly corroborated by the eye-witnesses account. This, in our opinion clinches the issue, and sufficient to sustain the conviction and sentence of the appellant but we must also take other evidence while dealing with the submissions of counsel for the appellant. 12. In order to bring home the charges prosecution examined Chamru (P.W.9) as an eye witness to the whole incident. He supports the whole prosecution case to the hilt. Same is the case with eye witness Bhagwandas (P.W.10). The trial Court has relied on their evidence and we see no reason to take a different view. Their evidence stands fully corroborated by the forensic report Ex.17 and that settles the matter finally. 13. The accused has tried to create a smoke screen by bringing on record some property transactions between him and Chamru (P.W.9) and documents in this behalf have also been filed in defence (See Ex.D 1 and Ex D-2) According to us all this smoke screen has no relevance at all for decision of the res in this case viz. whether the accused is guilty of homicidal death or not. 14. The accused seems to have taken plea of having acted in self-defence as apparent from the cross examination of the two prosecution eye witnesses. But this plea being nebulous cannot be considered in this appeal. The second plea taken in the lower Court as well in this Court was that because of grave and sudden provocation, the appellant retaliated and gave gun-shots injuries to the deceased. The second ground was seriously pressed before us. 15. Section 304 of the IPC reads as under :- "304. The second plea taken in the lower Court as well in this Court was that because of grave and sudden provocation, the appellant retaliated and gave gun-shots injuries to the deceased. The second ground was seriously pressed before us. 15. Section 304 of the IPC reads as under :- "304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.- Whoever, commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisionment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death ". 16. The first paragraph of this section applies to the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. A murder is merely a particular form of culpable homicide. Every murder is culpable homicide but not vice-versa. When an act by which death is caused with intention of causing such death, it is murder. However, there are certain exceptions to it. In the present appeal we are concerned Exception 1 which provides that a 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 above exception is subject to the following proviso (i) That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing any harm to any person; (ii) 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; and (iii) That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of right of self-defence. Explanation: Whether the provocation given was sudden enough to prevent the offence amounting to murder is a question of fact. 17. Explanation: Whether the provocation given was sudden enough to prevent the offence amounting to murder is a question of fact. 17. From the explanation referred to above, it is clear that the provocation viz. slapping of the accused by the deceased was not sudden and grave enough for the appellant to pump about five or more bullets into the body of the deceased. We would therefore, reject the contention that the case falls under Section 304 Part I of the IPC. 18. No other point remains for consideration. 19. The result is that the appeal is without any merit and as such deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 20. Ordered accordingly.