JUDGMENT : MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by accused-appellant Pradeep Kumar Mishra against the judgement dated 02.05.2016 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1, Hindaun City, District Karauli in Sessions Case No.159/2011, whereby he has been convicted for offence u/s.302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment, with a fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default of which, he was to undergo additional imprisonment of six months. He has also been convicted for offence u/s.309 IPC and sentenced to simple imprisonment of one year with fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of which, he was to undergo additional imprisonment of one month. Accused-appellant has also been convicted for offence u/s.3/25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of three years with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of which, he was to further undergo simple imprisonment of three months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The facts briefly stated are that one Rajendra Prasad Sharma submitted a written report to SHO Police Station Mahaveerji, District Karauli that he was working as a Teacher in Digambar Jain Higher Secondary School since 1998. Pradeep Kumar Mishra and Chagan Lal were also working as Teachers in that very school. On 13.12.2010 at around 11.00 AM when all the teachers were busy in teaching the students, Pradeep Kumar Mishra suddenly came there and fired at Chagan Lal, who was at that time taking attendance of the students of Class-VII. Thereafter, Pradeep Kumar Mishra went to the staff room and closed the door from inside. Complainant along with his colleagues namely; Rakesh Singh Rathore and Vinod Vijay Jain, took Chagan Lal to Govt. Hospital, Hindaun. In the meantime, Pradeep Kumar Mishra also shot at himself from his own mouser. He too was admitted in the same Hospital. On the basis of aforesaid written report, first information report was registered for offence u/ss.302 & 309 IPC. Police after usual investigation filed charge sheet against the accused-appellant for the aforesaid offences, but kept the investigation pending for offence u/s.3/25 of the Arms Act. Thereafter, the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions, who transferred it to the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge No.1, Hindaun City, District Karauli. The learned trial court on hearing the arguments, framed the charges against the accused-appellant for offence u/s.302, 309 and 3/25 of Arms Act, which he denied and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions, who transferred it to the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge No.1, Hindaun City, District Karauli. The learned trial court on hearing the arguments, framed the charges against the accused-appellant for offence u/s.302, 309 and 3/25 of Arms Act, which he denied and claimed trial. Prosecution produced 25 witnesses and exhibited 29 documents. Defence produced 7 documents. The learned trial court on conclusion of the trial, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant in the manner as indicated above. Hence this appeal. 3. Shri Pradeep Choudhary, learned counsel for the accused-appellant argued that the learned trial court failed to consider that there was sufficient evidence on record that deceased Chagan Lal had evil designs towards the wife of appellant and his daughters. He used to eve tease them and make ugly gestures to them. Deceased even wanted to sexually exploit wife of the accused-appellant. The appellant was mentally disturbed by constant humiliation and torture meted out to him by the deceased. He even made a complaint against the deceased to the District Collector, Karauli. Copies of the complaint were produced before the trial court marked as Ex.D5, D6 and D7. The trial court has committed serious error of law in disbelieving them only on the premise that no receipt has been produced. Learned counsel submitted that once the accused was arrested, he could not have fabricated any such complaint, which he actually did not send. It is argued that complaint was sent by him, was evident from the fact that they were in the handwriting of the accused-appellant. It is argued that the Investigating Officer Shivram Singh (PW24) has not conducted any investigation whatsoever with regard to aforesaid letters, which the appellant produced in defence and has rather stated that he did not make any investigation with regard to correctness of the letters whether said to have been written by the appellant to Collector, Karauli. 4. Learned counsel argued that the trial court failed to appreciate that Chagan Lal along with his friends Ram Niwas Jat and Prem Jain used to harass wife of the accused-appellant. The appellant was permanent native of State of Uttar Pradesh and had no friend or relative in Karauli. He came to Karauli only with a view to earn his livelihood by working as a teacher. The appellant was permanent native of State of Uttar Pradesh and had no friend or relative in Karauli. He came to Karauli only with a view to earn his livelihood by working as a teacher. Appellant could not endure harassment and humiliation at the hands of the deceased and his two companions. He even went to the police and lodged a complaint against them, but the police did not help him in the matter. Referring to the statement of Rajendra Prasad Sharma (PW2) and Vinod Vijay Jain (PW6), learned counsel submitted that even these two witnesses admitted that there was a dispute between the accused-appellant and the deceased regarding, which appellant lodged a complaint against the deceased. In the circumstances, it emerges that the deceased along with his friends was trying to sexually exploit appellant’s wife and was even trying to defame his young daughters. The trial court has failed to appreciate all these facts in true perspective. 5. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant argued that the trial court failed to properly consider the defence set up by the appellant during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The appellant therein has explained the entire situation, which led to the unfortunate incident. The trial court has only considered the evidence of prosecution story and failed to consider that there was no other motive with the accused-appellant for opening fire at the deceased except on which, he has emphasised. It is contended that appellant did not have intention to commit murder of deceased, which is also evident from the fact that he fired at him only once and that too from a distance and even did not repeat the fire. The trial court has reached a wrong conclusion in arriving at the finding of conviction of the appellant and in doing so, it has tried to fill up the gaps in the prosecution story by giving vague reasons. Learned counsel further argued that the trial court has erred in law in straightaway sentencing the appellant after recording finding of his conviction, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the appellant and producing the evidence on the point of sentence as per the mandatory provisions of Section 235 Cr.P.C. 6. Learned counsel further argued that the trial court has erred in law in straightaway sentencing the appellant after recording finding of his conviction, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the appellant and producing the evidence on the point of sentence as per the mandatory provisions of Section 235 Cr.P.C. 6. Shri Pradeep Choudhary, learned counsel for the accused-appellant has submitted that the manner in which the incident had taken place clearly shows that the appellant was deprived of the power of self control because the deceased not only teased wife and young daughters of the accused-appellant, but also used to openly boast about it. Even on the day of incident, the deceased Chagan Lal used abusive language for the appellant and made dirty gestures at him in public, as a result of which, the appellant totally lost his self control and was not in control of his actions. This can be understood by the fact that soon after the incident, the appellant was so much frustrated that he tried to commit suicide by shooting himself. Rather than dealing with this aspect, the trial court has ended up convicting the appellant additionally also for the offence of attempt to commit suicide. 7. Learned counsel argued that the act of the appellant would fall in exception (1) to Section 300 IPC and would not therefore be a culpable homicide amounting to murder, it would rather be culpable homicide not amounting to murder falling in Part-I of Section 304 IPC. 8. Smt. Sonia Shandilya, learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Jiya Ur Rehman, learned counsel for the complainant opposed the appeal and supported the judgement of the learned trial court. It is argued that evidence on record, specially the testimony of eye witnesses Rajendra Prasad Sharma (PW2) and Vinod Vijay Jain (PW6) clearly proved that the murder of deceased was committed by none other than the appellant. This was witnessed by several students, who were at that time attending the class of the deceased. 9. Smt. Sonia Shandilya, learned Public Prosecutor argued that motive loses significance in case of eye witnesses, but if proved, it only provides corroboration. Reliance in this connection is placed on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Shivji Genu Mohite vs. State of Maharashtra- AIR 1973 SC 55 . 9. Smt. Sonia Shandilya, learned Public Prosecutor argued that motive loses significance in case of eye witnesses, but if proved, it only provides corroboration. Reliance in this connection is placed on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Shivji Genu Mohite vs. State of Maharashtra- AIR 1973 SC 55 . It is contended that one empty shell was recovered from place of incident vide Ex.P7 and pistol and two live cartridges and one empty shell were also separately recovered vide Ex.P8 from the staff room where the accused again opened fire at himself. The postmortem report of the deceased (Ex.P15), which has been proved by Dr. Deep Chandra Koli (PW17) shows that there was single entry wound on upper part of left side of the chest, just lateral to the sternum on 4th intercostal space, which was oval in shape and 1.0 x 0.5 cm in size. On dissection and opening of thoracic cavity, it was found full of blood. Direction of wound was downwards, backwards and slightly medially. The left 5th rib was fractured near to the sternum. Bullet was recovered, preserved and handed over to the police for FSL. The injury was antemortem in nature and it was opined to be sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The cause of death was opined to be syncope due to rupture of heart and lung as a result of firearm injury. FSL report (Ex.P23) has proved that two cartridges cases from packet ‘D’ and ‘F’ were fired from 7.65 country made pistol and one copper jacketed bullet marked B/1 from packet ‘I’ was found to have fired from 7.65 country made pistol. It is contended that the guilt of the accused-appellant is proved beyond reasonable doubt. There is no reason for interference in the impugned judgement. Therefore, the appeal be dismissed. 10. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 11. We are clear in our mind that death of Chagan Lal was brought about due to firearm injury. This is evident from the postmortem report (Ex.P15) and statement of Dr. Deep Chandra Koli (PW17), who was one of the members of the Medical Board, which conducted the postmortem of the deceased. 11. We are clear in our mind that death of Chagan Lal was brought about due to firearm injury. This is evident from the postmortem report (Ex.P15) and statement of Dr. Deep Chandra Koli (PW17), who was one of the members of the Medical Board, which conducted the postmortem of the deceased. The firearm injury, which deceased sustained was caused by the appellant, has been amply proved by Rajendra Prasad Sharma (PW2) and Vinod Vijay Jain (PW6), both of whom have stated that deceased Chagan Lal was fired at by the accused when he was taking attendance of the students of VIIth standard. At that time, the accused suddenly came from outside and opened fire at the deceased, which hit his chest on left side. Apart from these two witnesses, Om Prakash (PW9), who runs a tea stall outside the school, has stated that on the day of incident at 11.00 AM, he heard the sound of fire from inside the school. When he went inside, he saw the deceased lying unconscious on the chair and bleeding and the accused-appellant was seen there carrying a revolver, then accused went inside a room, which he bolted from inside. Similar statement has been made by Ram Charan Sharma (PW12), who has stated that he was at that time present on the tea stall of Om Prakash. When he heard the sound of fire, there was stampede of students in the school and they were seen running helter-skelter. When they went inside the school, they saw that Chagan Lal was bleeding from the left side of his chest. The accused-appellant was having revolver in his hands. He went into a room and soon thereafter, sound of fire was heard from inside that room. 12. Mahavir Prasad Jain (PW13), the peon in the said school, has also stated that deceased Chagan Lal was taking classes of students at that time. While he was going to Chagan Lal for getting his attendance marked on the diary, the accused-appellant was seen coming from the side of main gate of the school. On reaching inside the school, he suddenly fired at Chagan Lal, which hit his chest on the left side. Accused-appellant then went to staff room and bolted the same from inside and then the sound of fire was heard from that room. On reaching inside the school, he suddenly fired at Chagan Lal, which hit his chest on the left side. Accused-appellant then went to staff room and bolted the same from inside and then the sound of fire was heard from that room. Vishal Choudhary (PW15), a student of VIIth standard, aged about 13 years, despite being a child witness, has made substantially similar statement. He has stated that when deceased was taking their attendance, accused-appellant Pradeep Mishra suddenly came there and opened fire at him and hearing the sound of fire, students started running helter-skelter. Dr. Deep Chandra Koli (PW17) has proved the postmortem report and the cause of death as already mentioned above. It has therefore been proved beyond reasonable doubt that Chagan Lal died homicidal death due to firearm injury caused by the appellant. 13. Coming now to the alternative argument that the act of the appellant would not be culpable homicide amounting to murder and would at the maximum be culpable homicide not amounting to murder falling in Part-I of Section 304 IPC, we find that testimony of various prosecution witnesses clearly bear it out that the relations between the accused-appellant and the deceased were not cordial and were rather strained. Rajendra Prasad Sharma (PW2) in cross examination stated that even though deceased was neither headmaster of the school, nor was a member of management committee, but he often complained to headmaster about conduct of accused-appellant of frequently coming late to the school. He used to also instigate other teachers to make complaint to the school management about habit of the appellant of coming late to the school. But then, this witness has also stated that appellant sometimes would come late only by 2 or 5 minutes or 10 minutes. That means that the appellant was not always late in reaching to school and moreover he was also not late for long durations, but only by few minutes. When confronted with attendance register produced on record, this witness has stated that appellant was late only on few occasions. When asked, he stated that he could not explain as to why only deceased Chagan Lal used to often complaint against the appellant, but then he admitted that there was some ego problem with him. When confronted with attendance register produced on record, this witness has stated that appellant was late only on few occasions. When asked, he stated that he could not explain as to why only deceased Chagan Lal used to often complaint against the appellant, but then he admitted that there was some ego problem with him. He admitted that Ram Niwas Jat and Prem Jain were owners of the shops adjoining the school and there was dispute between the appellant and these people. 14. According to defence, when a suggestion was given to this witness that Ram Niwas Jat and Prem Jain were friends of deceased, he denied for want of knowledge and stated that deceased used to often sit at shops of Ram Niwas and Prem Jain. When he was given suggestion that deceased, Ram Niwas Jat and Prem Jain teased wife of the appellant in his presence, tried to rape her and defame his daughters, this witness denied knowledge of any such incident. He admitted that eldest daughter of the appellant was in her late teens and that the appellant was the only male member in the family to protect his wife and daughters. He also admitted the suggestion that deceased being local of Hindaun City, had a larger circle and his position was thus by all means better than that of the appellant. He also stated that he could not rule out possibility of there being any dispute between the appellant and deceased due to character assassination of wife and daughters of the appellant. This witness stated that appellant also fired at himself and tried to commit suicide, but he could not say that he did so due to sudden provocation given by the deceased, as a result of which he lost his self control. Vinod Vijay Jain (PW6) also stated that relations between the appellant and deceased were strained because deceased used to often complaint to the school management about late coming of the appellant. The deceased was neither headmaster of the school, nor was he member of the management committee. He could not explain why did, he make complaint against the appellant. He could not say that deceased did so due to ulterior motive. The deceased was neither headmaster of the school, nor was he member of the management committee. He could not explain why did, he make complaint against the appellant. He could not say that deceased did so due to ulterior motive. In cross examination, he denied the fact for want of knowledge that deceased had friendship with Ram Niwas Jat and Prem Jain and used to sit in their shop, but stated that he heard about a case registered by the appellant against Prem Jain, however, was not aware whether police took any action on that complaint or not. He expressed ignorance of the fact that deceased made character assassination of wife and daughters of the appellants. He could not say why did the appellant opened fire at himself. However, it could not be ruled out that appellant did so on being harassed by the deceased and harassment of his wife. 15. Rakesh Singh Rathore (PW8) also stated that deceased used to make complaint against the appellant for his late coming to the headmaster and school management and it is owning to this that the appellant opened fire at the deceased. He in cross examination stated that all used to complain against the appellant for his late coming, but deceased was a bit more hyper active in this behalf for last about a year. He could not give any specific reason for his such attitude. He denied the suggestion that the appellant lodged any criminal case of beating against Ram Niwas and Prem Jain and that these two persons were members of the group of the deceased Chagan Lal. Mahaveer Prasad Jain (PW13), who is also teacher in the same school in cross examination admitted that appellant filed a criminal case against him, but denied the suggestion that Prem Jain was also a co-accused in that case with him. Vishal Choudhary (PW15) has also denied the suggestion in cross examination that deceased filed criminal case against Ram Niwas Jat, Prem Jain and Mahaveer. 16. Shivram Singh (PW24) in cross examination has stated that relationship between appellant and deceased was quite strained, but school administration never gave any written complaint to him about this. No written record was therefore available with him to prove such enmity or rivalry. 16. Shivram Singh (PW24) in cross examination has stated that relationship between appellant and deceased was quite strained, but school administration never gave any written complaint to him about this. No written record was therefore available with him to prove such enmity or rivalry. His investigation also proved that after the main incident, the deceased had fired at himself after moving to a distance of about 15-16 steps from the place of earlier incident. This witness was confronted with the letters written by the appellant to the Collector Ex.D5 to D7, in which he made complaint against the deceased that with the help of his friends Ram Niwas Jat and Prem Jain, he was trying to intimidate and harass him. In letter Ex.D5, he complained that Prem Jain and Ram Niwas used to beat him at the instance of deceased and that on ‘deepawali’ he went to his native place in U.P. and his wife and daughters stayed here, then these people came to his house and tried to outrage modesty of his wife, which was resisted by his wife. Similar complaint was made by him vide Ex.D6 and Ex.D7. In fact, in Ex.D7, appellant threatened to commit suicide and expressed that after his death, his eyes be donated and his body be given to medical college for research. Even if, it has not been so, but the learned trial court has not attached any weightage to copies of these letters on the premise that no receipt has been produced. 17. Whether appellant was beaten by deceased with the help of Ram Niwas Jat and Prem Chand and whether wife and daughters of the deceased were harassed and humiliated by them or whether deceased and his above named two friends subjected his wife and daughters to character assassination, are all factors, which could gave rise to grave and sudden provocation to the appellant, depriving him of his power of self control. We may in this connection refer to judgement of the Supreme Court in B.D. Khunte vs. Union of India & Ors.- (2015) 1 SCC 286 . That was a case in which deceased Army Subedar intended to sodomise accused-appellant in a storeroom at noon. On his denial, appellant was beaten up by deceased. We may in this connection refer to judgement of the Supreme Court in B.D. Khunte vs. Union of India & Ors.- (2015) 1 SCC 286 . That was a case in which deceased Army Subedar intended to sodomise accused-appellant in a storeroom at noon. On his denial, appellant was beaten up by deceased. After seven hours of incident, appellant shot deceased dead on picket guard duty at night, when he saw deceased approaching him, being allegedly gravely and suddenly provoked. There was corroboration to the fact that incident took place at 2 p.m. in the storeroom in which the appellant was beaten and humiliated. Though, there was no evidence, nor was it appellant’s case that deceased had actually sodomised him, the evidence only proved that after said incident, appellant was seen crying and depressed and when he was asked by his colleagues, he narrated about the act of deceased. It was held that such provocation even when sudden and grave, cools off with passage of time, often lapsing into what would become a motive for taking revenge, whenever an opportunity arises. The period in between incident and shooting was sufficient for appellant to cool down. 18. Even in the present case, what has been argued by defence is that appellant was beaten on previous occasion and on a still earlier occasion, the deceased and his friends approached his house in his absence and tried to outrage the modesty of his wife and that they were responsible for character assassination of appellant’s wife and daughters and that deceased often complained to the school management about his habit of late coming. In the facts of the case, it cannot be characterised as sudden and grave provocation so as to bring the matter within the purview of exception-1 of Section 300 of IPC. In order to satisfy the ingredients of sub-section (1) of Section 300 of IPC, it must be shown that (1) the deceased must have given provocation to the accused, (2) the provocation so given must have been grave, (3) the provocation given by the deceased must have been sudden, (4) the offender by reason of such grave and sudden provocation must have been deprived of his power of self-control, and (5) the offender must have killed the deceased or any other person by mistake or accident during the continuance of the deprivation of the power of self-control. In the facts of the present case, it cannot be said that appellant was under the prolonged spell of provocation because unless it is shown that it was prolonged provocation, it cannot be described as sudden and grave. Moreover, exception (1) to Section 300 IPC is subject to exceptions given below it, which clearly stipulates whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact. Lack of proximity of time between two events dissuade us from countenancing such a spacious plea. The fact that appellant, after he fired at the deceased Chagan Lal, shot at himself, cannot be relied in aid of the argument that he was given sudden and grave provocation by the deceased. 19. As regards the complaints allegedly made by the appellant (Ex.D5 to D7) to the District Collector, it is not clear from perusal of the record that whether these letters are copies of the originals as they are handwritten on the papers of the exercise book and not carbon or duplicate copies. They rather appear to be originals. Moreover, the defence has not produced any evidence whether these letters were actually sent to the Collector and whether they were received in the office of Collector and if so, whether any action has been taken by the Collector on that basis. If at all any such letters would have been written, the Collector would obviously take some action. These letters therefore cannot be used in aid of the argument that the deceased gave the accused sudden and grave provocation, as a result of which, he was deprived of his power of self control and caused death of Chagan Lal. 20. In view of above discussion, the impugned judgement dated 02.05.2016 cannot be said to suffer from any illegality. The finding of conviction recorded by the learned trial court is just and based on cogent reasons and do not call for any interference. The appeal therefore fails and is hereby dismissed.