In cases of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, the court may consider reducing the sentence if there was grave and sudden provocation by the victim, which deprived the accused of the power of self-control and led to the killing.

1. This is an appeal by accused Ratansingh against the judgment of the learned Session Judge, Merta dated May 5, 1982 convicting the appellant under section 304 Part-I, IPC and sentencing him to eight years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further undergo three months like imprisonment.

2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that the deceased-victim Lalsingh was a resident of village Ladpur, Distt. Nagaur. The accused is also a resident of the same village. The relations between them were strained due to their loyalty to different factions of the village.

3. On 5-3-81, the ration sugar was being sold in the Dharamshala of village Ladpur. P.W. 2 Bajranglal was selling the sugar, while P.W. 6 Ram Copal was making entries in the Sale Register. P.W.. 7 Mangilal was weighing the sugar. P.W. 1 Malasingh and some other persons were also there. The accused came there a little before 7 p.m. and purchased the sugar. He then sat in the room, in which the sugar was being weighed and started helping in taking the sugar out of the bags. At about 7 p.m. the deceased-victim Lalsingh also came there to take sugar. Seeing the accused distributing the sugar, he refused to take sugar. He asked Bajranglal and others to drive out the :accused from the room. He said, he would not take the sugar as it has become impute due to touch of the accused. He also addressed abusive and insulting words to the accused. The accused came out of the room and struck two blows with a dhariya on the neck of the victim and one on his back. He thereafter ran away. Lalsingh fell down and there was profuse bleeding from his wounds. His clothes got red with the blood. The injuries proved fatal and he passed away then and there within a few minutes. P.W. 8 Raghunath Singh the brother of the deceased, on being apprised of the incident, immediately went to police station, Makarana and lodged written report Ex. P/12 of the occurrence at about 00.40 hrs. in that very night. The police registered a case and proceeded with investigation. The Station House Officer- P.W. 10 Shrerusingh immediately rushed to the scene of occurrence and prepared the inquest report. He also prepared the site-plan. The blood-stained catch and the clothes of the deceased were seized and sealed. The post-mortam examination of victim's dead- body was conducted on 6-3-81 by P.W. 9 Dr. A.K. Sharma the then Medical Officer-in- charge, Government Dispensary, Makhana. He noticed injuries on the neck and back of the victim's body caused by some sharp object. In his opinion, the cause of death was hemorrhage due to extensive injuries to the neck involving big vessels:. The post-mortam examination report is Ex. P13. The accused was arrested on 11-3-81. In consequence of the information furnished by him, while under police costody, Dhariya (Ex. 1) with which the offence as committed, was recovered from his house, On the conclusion of investigation, the police submitted a challan against the accused in the court of the Munasif and Judicial Magistrate, Makarana who in his turn committed the case for trial to the court of Session ,Judge, Merta. The framed judge framed a charge under section 302. IPC against the accused to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed absolute innocence. He put forward the defence of "Alibi' and averred that he was in some other village at the time of the alleged occurrence. According to him, he was falsely implicated due to his strained relations with the deceased-victim. During trial, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses while in defence 2 witnesses were examined. On the conclusion of trial, the learned Judge held that the accused had caused the death of the victim, but that was on account of grave and sudden provocation given by the victim. He held that the victim had addressed abusive, filthy and insulting words; such as untouchable', 'dishonest' and 'enemy' to the accused. He. therefore, found that the act of the accused amounted to an offence under section 304