1. Two questions arise in this appeal. The first is what offence has been committed; the second, what the sentence should be. The appellant does not deny that he killed his mistress a woman called Mahalakshmi, but he pleads that he did so in consequence of grave and sudden provocation. The Judge has found that he discovered the woman in the arms of a former lover (P. W. 17), lest control of himself and stabbed her. The finding is probably correct. P. W. 17 admitted to the police that he was seated on Mahalakshmis cot when the appellant entered the hut but not that she was in his arms. As he admitted further that she had solicited him, it is difficult to believe his pretence that he had refused her advances. On this finding, the Judge came to the conclusion that the offence committed was one Under Section 302, I.P. C. He was of opinion that though the provocation was sudden it was not so grave as to justify him in convicting of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This opinion he based on the fact that Mahalakshmi was the appellants mistress. Had she been his wife, his conclusion would have been different and more favourable to the appellant. We find it impossible to a