IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that for a claim of provocation to reduce a murder charge to manslaughter, the provocation must be sudden and grave, and the burden of proof lies with the accused to demonstrate such provocation.

JUDGMENT

Ashutosh Kumar, J.

None of the three Advocates on record appeared for the appellant when the case was called out.

2. We, therefore, requested Ms. Smriti Singh, the learned Advocate, to assist us on behalf of the appellant. She agreed to the afore-noted request of the Bench and has assisted us in disposing of this appeal.

3. The State is represented by Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, the learned APP.

4. The appellant is the husband of the deceased, who stands convicted under Section 302 of the I.P.C vide judgment dated 04.03.2014 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-I, Banka in Sessions Trial No. 1375 of 2010/Trial No. 103 of 2014, arising out of Bounsi P.S. Case No. 126 of 2010, and by order dated 11.03.2014, he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to further simple imprisonment for two months.

5. The appellant is said to have slashed the neck of the deceased by means of a knife.

6. The informant of this case is the brother of the deceased, who has also been examined as P.W. 8 at the Trial. In his F.I.R, which was lodged on 23.07.2010 at the Referral Hospital, falling under the jurisdiction of Bounsi Police Station, he had narrated a long story of the deceased having become widow at a young age when her first husband died of tuberculosis. However, from the wedlock, the deceased had given birth to a daughter, who at the time of the occurrence, was around seven years old. She too has been examined at the Trial as P.W. 5. Later, the deceased, much to the displeasure of her family members, married the appellant, who also had faced opposition against such marriage from his family. The appellant and the deceased carried on as husband and wife despite opposition from their respective families.

7. However, since the appellant was not permitted to stay along with the deceased in his own house, he went to Hyderabad along with the deceased and her daughter, where he started earning his livelihood as a casual labourer. On this occasion, the appellant had visited his home town along with the deceased and the daughter. The informant received the appellant and the deceased at the bus-depot and made them board an auto-rikshaw for going to the home of the appellant. The informant also accompanied them. At the house of the appellant, his family members including his first wife protested and almost made it difficult for the appellant and the deceased to enter the house. At that moment, the informant has alleged, the appellant took out a knife from his pocket and started hitting at the deceased indiscriminately. Seeing this, the family members of the appellant ran away. The informant carried his injured sister to the Referral Hospital, where she died.

8. On the basis of the afore-noted fardebeyan statement of P.W. 8, Bounsi P.S Case No. 126 of 2010, dated 23.07.2010, was registered for investigation for offences under Sections 302 and 109 of the I.P.C. against the appellant.

9. The police, after investigation, submitted charge-sheet under Sections 302 and 109 of the I.P.C and consequently the appellant was charged for the offences under both the sections.

10. At the trial, 15 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution.

11. The Trial Court returned the verdict of guilty under Section 302 of the I.P.C., but acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 109 of the I.P.C., holding that there was no abetment by him.

12. The prosecution has relied upon the deposition of Khenia Devi, the mother of the deceased (P.W. 3); Reeta Kumari, the daughter of the deceased (P.W. 5); Sheela Kumari, the sister of the deceased (P.W. 7); the informant (P.W. 8); and the evidence of the Doctor (P.W. 14); that the deceased died of knife injuries.

13. According to the First Information Report, only P.W. 8 had witnessed the occurrence. However, at the trial, the mother of the deceased (P.W. 3) has also claimed to have seen the occurrence. However, on going through the depositi