ORDER : 1. The judgment dated 17.04.2014 in Criminal Appeal No.940 of 2009, passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, is called in question in this appeal. Vide the impugned judgment, the High Court had confirmed the judgment of conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code (IPC) dated 23.11.2009 passed by the Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions Trial No.34/2009. 2. The case of the prosecution is that about 15 days prior to the incident in question, one Rani Bai (PW-11), the wife of Accused No.2 -Sushil Kumar, had gone to another village with the deceased Santosh. There was a love affair between the deceased and Rani Bai. The deceased and Rani Bai had come to the village just prior to the incident. While the deceased was passing through the house of the Accused No.2, who was cutting tree with the help of an axe, immediately on seeing the deceased, Accused No.2 assaulted the deceased with the axe on his face. Accused No.1 also joined hands with Accused No.2 in doing away with the life of the deceased, resulting in his death on the spot. 3. The incident was witnessed by PWs-6, 7, 8 and 10. 4. Smt. Runamoni Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, taking us through the material on record, submits that the offence may fall under Section 304 Part I IPC inasmuch as the incident has taken place suddenly without any premeditation. 5. Per contra, Mr. Muhammed Ali Khan, learned counsel appearing for the State, argued in support of the judgment of the courts below, contending that the incident of assault was not as a result of sudden and grave provocation. There was ample time for the accused to pacify himself inasmuch as the incident of elopement had happened about 15 days prior to the incident in question. 6. We have gone through the evidence of the prosecution, more particularly, the evidence of ocular testimony of the witnesses. It is not in dispute that the deceased had eloped with the wife of the Accused No.2 -Sushil Kumar about 15 days prior to the incident. Both the accused, and the deceased are from a remote village in Durg District of Madhya Pradesh. They are rustic villagers. The evidence of the eye-witnesses consistently and cogently discloses that both the accused assaulted the deceased. 7. Both the accused, and the deceased are from a remote village in Durg District of Madhya Pradesh. They are rustic villagers. The evidence of the eye-witnesses consistently and cogently discloses that both the accused assaulted the deceased. 7. However, the only question to be decided in the matter on hand is as to whether the offence falls under Section 304 Part I of the IPC or not. It is now well settled that the doctrine of sudden and grave provocation is incapable of rigid construction leading to or stating any principle of universal application. While applying this principle, the primary obligation of the court is to examine from the point of view of a person of reasonable prudence whether there was such grave and sudden provocation so as to reasonably conclude that it was possible to commit the offence of culpable homicide [See : Budhi Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2012) 13 SCC 663 (para 18)]. 8. In the matter on hand, in our considered opinion, the Court will have to see as to how the accused were placed in the society. As mentioned supra, they are illiterate, rustic villagers. The wife of Accused No.2 had eloped with the deceased. Accused No.1 is none other than the uncle of Accused No.2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, it would have been difficult for the accused to survive in the village subsequent to the incident in question. They must have been humiliated and insulted by the public at large in the village. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the evidence must be evaluated against this backdrop. 9. As mentioned supra, the deceased had gone for taking bath, and after taking bath in a pond, he was going to go to his house through a lane in which the house of the accused is situated. Accused No.2, who was cutting wood, saw the deceased in front of his house and immediately thereafter, he hit on the face of the deceased with the axe. Accused No.1 also assaulted the deceased with a spade, consequent upon which, the deceased lost his life. In our considered opinion, there is no prior preparation to the incident in question. The incident had occurred whilst the deceased was deprived of the power of self-control immediately after seeing the deceased. Accused No.1 also assaulted the deceased with a spade, consequent upon which, the deceased lost his life. In our considered opinion, there is no prior preparation to the incident in question. The incident had occurred whilst the deceased was deprived of the power of self-control immediately after seeing the deceased. The accused were suddenly and gravely provoked by seeing the deceased near their house. Although the deceased had not committed any overt act on the spot, the very presence of the deceased in front of their house had made the accused to lose their self-control, consequent upon which the incident had taken place. Hence, in our considered opinion, the offence may fall under exception (I) to Section 300 of the IPC. In view of the same, the offence committed by the accused falls under Section 304 Part I of the IPC, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The accused are convicted for the offence under Section 304 Part I of the IPC. Since the accused have already undergone imprisonment for about 11 years and 03 months, the said period already undergone by the appellants in prison shall be the sufficient sentence to be imposed on the appellants. Ordered accordingly. Since the appellants are in custody, they shall be released forthwith in case they are not required in any other matter.