JUDGMENT : Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. Present appeal has been received through Jail. Case of the prosecution is that on 19.10.2010 in the night at about 10.00 PM appellant in his village Mudhera had caused murder of his brother Shibban by causing injuries to him on his head and face. The appellant was armed with Sabbal (crowbar). The only eye-witness against the appellant is his wife Rambhuteri (P.W. 1). Besides the evidence of eyewitness, prosecution has examined witnesses of extra-judicial confession before whom immediately after causing murder, appellant came and disclosed that he had committed murder of his brother. 2. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Deeg (Bharatpur) vide impugned judgment dated 30.6.2011 relying upon the evidence led by the prosecution, held the appellant guilty of offence under Section 302 IPC and vide a separate order of even date sentenced him as under:-- "U/s. 302 IPC: Life imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof to undergo three months simple imprisonment." 3. Criminal proceedings were set into motion on the basis of written report (Ex. P.1) submitted by Bhulli (P.W. 2) before Dharamveer Singh (P.W. 11) who was then posted as SHO, Police Station Nagar, District Bharatpur. The written report (Ex. P.1) when translated into English reads as under:-- "To, The SHO, Police Station Nagar (Bharatpur). Sub.: Registration of FIR. Sir, It is submitted that yesterday on 19.10.2010 in the night at about 10.00 PM my nephew Kalua S/o. Manohari and Shibban S/o. Manohari, caste Jat, r/o Mudhera had a fight. Shibban S/o. Manohari suffered serious injuries and died. Kalua S/o. Manohari brother of deceased made me wake-up from sleep and informed that he had committed murder of Shibban. I gathered family members and villagers and immediately informed the police on phone. It is submitted that legal action be taken. Dead body of Shibban is lying at Community Health Center, Nagar." Sd/- Applicant, Bhulli S/o. Harchand Jat Village - Mudhera, Tehsil Nagar (Bharatpur) Date: 20/10/2010." 4. Rambhuteri (P.W. 1) wife of the appellant in court deposed that 5-6 months ago she had gone to ask welfare of her children. It was 6.00-7.00 PM. When she returned her husband Kalua had returned from Nagla Deshwar after eating Pua (sweet Pakoda). Immediately on reaching he attacked upon his Dewar Shibban. Accused was armed with Sabbal. Rambhuteri (P.W. 1) wife of the appellant in court deposed that 5-6 months ago she had gone to ask welfare of her children. It was 6.00-7.00 PM. When she returned her husband Kalua had returned from Nagla Deshwar after eating Pua (sweet Pakoda). Immediately on reaching he attacked upon his Dewar Shibban. Accused was armed with Sabbal. The moment Shibban opened the door, Kalua caused injuries to him. Shibban had died at the spot. 5. In cross-examination Rambhuteri (P.W. 1) stated it to be correct that when she reached at the spot, her Dewar was already lying on the ground. The witness denied that she was having illicit relations with Shibban and stated as under:-- ^^eS rks vius ifr ds lkFk gh lksrh mBrh gwaA esjk flCcu ds lkFk dksbZ laca/k ugh gS vkSj uk gh eS mlds lkFk lksrh mBrh gwaA^^ 6. Bhulli (P.W. 2) in court stated that he was sleeping in his Nohra. The accused came at 10-11 PM, made him wake-up from the sleep and told that "Chacha I had killed Shibban". Bhulli (P.W. 2) stated that after Kalua had admitted his guilt, he had called the police. In cross-examination this witness admitted that Shibban was married, but his wife had left him. The witness stated as under:-- ^^dyqvk cSxΠrhuks HkkbZ vyx&vyx jgrs Fks ftuesa flCcu dh 'kknh rks gks xbZ Fkh ysfdu mldh iRuh mlds ?kj ugh vkrh FkhA^^ 7. The witness further stated that in the night itself police had taken the dead body of deceased Shibban. Police had also apprehended Kalua on the night of occurrence itself. After dead body of Shibban deceased and Kalua accused was taken by the police he had submitted the report. The witness stated that he had only signed the written report (Ex. P.1) and he cannot say as to what was written therein. The witness stated it to be correct that his signatures were taken by the police at police station. 8. Mahendra (P.W. 3) has also stated that on the night of occurrence accused came and admitted his guilt and made a confession that he has killed his brother. The witness stated that Shibban and Kalua were having separate houses, but the same were situated nearby. 9. Rajveer (P.W. 4) stated that accused Kalua came to him and stated that he has killed Shibban as he was abusing and harassing him. The witness stated that Shibban and Kalua were having separate houses, but the same were situated nearby. 9. Rajveer (P.W. 4) stated that accused Kalua came to him and stated that he has killed Shibban as he was abusing and harassing him. The witness stated that dead body of Shibban is lying in front of his house. Kuldeep Singh (P.W. 6) is cousin of deceased Shibban and the present appellant being Taya's son. This witness had identified the dead body of Shibban. This witness stated that Rambhuteri (P.W. 1) wife of Kalua was having illicit relations with deceased Shibban, ^^dyqvk dh iRuh jkeHkqrsjh ds e`rd flCcu ls voS/k laca/k FksA^^ The witness stated that Shibban used to take alcohol. The witness was duly confronted with his statement (Ex. P.11) recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the police. The witness denied having made a statement to the police. However, a perusal of statement (Ex. P.11) recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on the next day of occurrence reveals that it is stated therein that on 19.10.2010 Kalua had gone to Nagla Deshwar. The accused had not returned till 7.00-8.00 PM, therefore his wife had gone to the house of Shibban. Accused when returned from Nagla Deshwar he went to his house and found that his wife was not present there. The accused seething with anger and engraged had gone to the house of Shibban armed with Sabbal (crowbar) and found Rambhuteri and Shibban sleeping on one charpoy. Kalua made Shibban open the door and caused him injuries. The portion with which the accused has been confronted reads as under:-- ^^x;h jkf= fnukad 19@10@10 ds dyqvk xkao ls uxyk ns'koj dks x;k Fkk tc dyqvk jkf= 7&8 cts rd Hkh ?kj ugh ykSVk rks dyqvk dh iRuh jkeqHkqrSjh e`rd f'kCcu ds ikl mld ?kj ij pyh x;h mlds ckn dyqvk uxyka ns'koj ls vk x;k ftlusa ?kj vkdj iRuh dks ns[kk rks jkeHkqrSjh ekStwn ugh feyh rc xqLls esa vk x;k o ?kj ls ,d lCcy ysdj jkeqHkSrjh o f'kCcu nksuks ,d pkjikbZ ij lks jgs Fks dyqvk us njoktk [kqyok;k tkdj f'kCcu ds dyqvk us lCcy ds flj o eqga ij dbZ ckj okj dj fn;kA 10. Dr. Jasram Meena (P.W. 5) on 20.10.2010 at 12.30 PM had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Shibban and found following injuries on his person as per post-mortem report (Ex. Dr. Jasram Meena (P.W. 5) on 20.10.2010 at 12.30 PM had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Shibban and found following injuries on his person as per post-mortem report (Ex. P.8):-- "1. Lacerated wound 5 x 6 cm x underlying bone fractured over occipital region of skull. 2. Lacerated wound 10 x 3 cm x bone deep on left parietal region of skull. 3. Lacerated wound (two) each 4 x 3 x bone deep over right side of face. 4. Lacerated wound 6 x 2 cm x underlying bone fracture over nose." 11. We need not notice evidence of remaining witnesses who participated in the investigation. Suffice it to say that the prosecution in all examined eleven witnesses. 12. Shri Deepak Soni learned Amicus Curiae has laid much emphasis on the statement (Ex. P.11) of Kuldeep Singh (P.W. 6) recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. We have already noted the relevant portion of the same with which witness was confronted. Counsel has stated that relying upon the statement made by Kuldeep Singh (P.W. 6) before the police, we should hold that it is a case of sudden provocation. 13. We cannot place reliance so far the statement (Ex. P.11) is concerned. It is not a substantive piece of evidence and only the portion with which the witness has been confronted can be taken into consideration and too for a limited purpose. Witness Kuldeep Singh (P.W. 6) has specifically stated that he had not made a statement to the police that Rambhuteri (P.W. 1) wife of the appellant and his brother Shibban were found on one Charpoy and therefore, the appellant had caused injuries to his brother. However, we cannot ignore that Kuldeep Singh (P.W. 6) has admitted that Rambhuteri (P.W. 1) wife of the present appellant was having illicit relations with deceased Shibban, brother of the appellant. We further also cannot ignore that Dr. Jasraj Meena (P.W. 5) in cross-examination has admitted that accused had consumed alcohol. Doctor in cross-examination stated, e`rd us ,Ydksgy ys j[kk Fkk^^ 14. In this context site plan of the place of incident (Ex. P.3) assume importance. Occurrence had taken place in front of the house of Shibban deceased. House of appellant Kalua is on the opposite side. We however, cannot ignore that when Shibban was caused injuries, Rambhuteri (P.W. 1) wife of the appellant was at the house of Shibban. In this context site plan of the place of incident (Ex. P.3) assume importance. Occurrence had taken place in front of the house of Shibban deceased. House of appellant Kalua is on the opposite side. We however, cannot ignore that when Shibban was caused injuries, Rambhuteri (P.W. 1) wife of the appellant was at the house of Shibban. Wife of Shibban had already deserted Shibban deceased. Shibban was under the influence of liquor. In the night at 7.00-8.00 PM Rambhuteri (P.W. 1) belonging to traditional backward society had no business to be present in the house of her Dewar (younger brother of husband) who at that time was in drunken condition and under the influence of alcohol. On a specific suggestion put to Rambhuteri (P.W. 1), she replied that she was not sleeping with Shibban. She stated that when Shibban had opened the door, accused had caused injuries to him. As to why accused had suddenly caused injuries to his brother prosecution has not explained. Thus, it can be safely inferred that on seeing his wife with his younger brother, accused had lost his cool. At that time, Shibban was under the influence of liquor. Kuldeep Singh (P.W. 6) has stated that Rambhuteri (P.W. 1) was having illicit relations with deceased Shibban younger brother of appellant. Hence, confronted portion of statement (Ex. P.11) made to police on the day of occurrence assume importance. We have already reproduced confronted portion above. We also cannot become oblivious of the fact that conduct of the accused was not of guilty mind. He immediately went to the house of his Chacha (uncle) Bhulli (P.W. 2) and made a confession that he had murdered the deceased i.e. his brother. Then he also narrated the same facts to Mahendra (P.W. 3) and Rajveer (P.W. 4). The appellant only wanted to redeem his honour by stating that he has killed his brother Shibban. We find merit in the contention raised by learned Amicus Curiae that where honour of the family is involved amongst Jats of Bharatpur they will be last person to disclose the real reason that wife of the house is having illicit relations with someone else by ignoring the husband. Honour of the man and family is more important, hence as to why murder has been committed shall be not disclosed. Honour of the man and family is more important, hence as to why murder has been committed shall be not disclosed. It has been rightly stated that a Jat of Bharatpur is so conscious of his honour that he may murder one who is having illicit relation with his wife, but will not admit that his wife had gone astray. 15. Be that as it may, from a reading of the evidence and the circumstances gathered by us which we have enumerated, it is apparent that the accused seeing his wife in the night with his younger brother lost his cool and acted under grave and sudden provocation. Taking into account the conditions of the society to which accused belong we can well perceive that the appellant was deprived of power of self control and thus, had acted under a grave and sudden provocation. Thus, to us, the present case will fall under Exception-1 to Section 300 IPC. 16. Consequently, we convert the conviction of accused-appellant Kalua from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 part I IPC. Resultantly, we set aside the life imprisonment awarded upon Kalua by the trial court and sentence him to ten years rigorous imprisonment. Since the present appeal has been filed through Jail and same is being conducted by Amicus Curiae, we shall not impose any fine. 17. With the above modification in conviction and sentence, the instant appeal stands disposed of.