Grave and sudden provocation, as an exception to the offense of murder under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, can be constituted by words and gestures, and the mental background created by the previous acts of the victim may be taken into consideration in determining whether the subsequent act caused grave and sudden provocation.

VENKATARAMAN, J.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge of North Arcot convicting the appellant. Ganesan, of the murder of his wife and sentencing him to imprisonment for life. It is alleged that he cut her with a bill-hook (M.O. 1) in his house at Thiruvannamalai, about 8.30 a.m. on 8-1-1972.

2. They had been married just a few months before. But their marital relationship had not been happy. The appellant had a suspicion, which seems to us to be well founded, that she had been in sexual intimacy with her elder sister's husband, P.W. 6, and further, she had been refusing conjugal felicity to her husband, the appellant, P.W. 1, the eight year old daughter of an other elder sister of the deceased Kamala, was staying temporarily with the appellant and the deceased. On the day in question the appellant asked P.W. 1, to go and get onions. The deceased pointed out that she might be involved in some accident and declined to send her. This alone according to the prosecution, was the motive for the appellant taking the bill-hook nearby and inflicting several cuts on his wife. The murder was witnessed not merely by P.W. 1 but also by P.W. 2, who resides in the house just north. She came out on hearing the screams of Kamala and she saw the appellant inflicting some of the cuts. P.W. 4, a neighbour of the appellant, also saw the appellant coming running with blood on his hands. The appellant had a rope. The appellant ran our crying. "I have committed murder". The rope fell from his hand.

3. The evidence shows that the appellant went straight to the police station at 9.15 a.m. and made a statement. In fact, that is the first information report in the case. It contains the confession that the appellant inflicted cuts on his wife. The learned Sessions Judge has excluded this portion and marked the rest of the statement, as Ex. P. 6. This however, is not correct. In Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar it has been observed :-

"Now a confession may consist of several parts and may reveal not only the actual commission of the crime, but also the motive, the preparation, the opportunity, the provocation, the weapons used, the intention, the concealment of the weapon and the subsequent conduct of the accused. If the confession is tainted, the taint attaches to each part of it. It is not permissible in law to separate one part and to admit it in evidence as a non-confessional statement. Each part discloses some incriminating fact, i.e., some fact which by itself or along with other admitted or proved facts suggests the inference that the accused committed the crime, and though each part taken singly may not amount to a confession, each of them being part of a confessional statement, partakes of the character of a confession. If a statement contains an admission of an offence, not only that admission but also every other admission of an incriminating fact contained in the statement is part of the confession" *

............... (Para 13)

...... Little substance and content would be left in Sections 24, 25 and 26, if proof of admissions of incriminating facts in a confessional statement is permitted.

............... (Para 14)

"Some of the decided cases took the view that if a part of the report is properly severable from the strict confessional part, then the severable part, could be tendered in evidence. We think that the separability test is misleading, and the entire confessional statement is hit by Section 25, and save and except as provided by Section 27, and save and except the formal part identifying the accused as the maker of the report, no part of it could be tendered in evidence" *

The above decision has been followed in Khatri Hemraj Amulkah v. State of Gujarat, According to these decisions, the only portion of the statement which could be admitted is the initial portion that he was making the statement, which would not be of any use to the prosecution. But there is no bar to the appellant using the stateme