Grave and sudden provocation, as an exception to the offence of murder, requires that the provocation be of such a nature that a reasonable person, belonging to the same class of society as the accused, placed in the situation in which the accused was placed, would be so provoked as to lose his self-control.

JUDGEMENT

Behera, J. :- This appeal arises out of the judgement and order dated the 18th March, 1978, passed by Mr. K.S. Mishra, Sessions Judge, Balangir-Kalahandi, in Sessions Case No. 2-B of 1977 convicting the appellant under Sections 392 and 307 of the I. P.C. and sentencing him under the first-mentioned Section to undergo imprisonment for life and under the latter section to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years with a direction that the sentences would run concurrently.

2. The case of the prosecution may briefly be stated. The appellant had been staying in the house of his father-in-law Gobardhan Kuanr at village Nuapali. Gobardhan had divided his lands between his two daughters, leaving a portion for the maintenance of his wife who had mortgaged her piece of land with the deceased Ballav Tripathy, father of the first informant Ramachandra Tripathy (P.W. 10), also of that village. On 17-11-1976 at about midday, while Ballav and P.W. 10 were in their house, the appellant rebuked them in filthy languages. On the protest raised by P.W. 10, the appellant alleged that they had been inducing his (appellant's mother-in-law to sell the mortgaged land to them and that he would kill them, the appellant went, brought a Tangi (M.O. I) and suddenly dealt a blow on the forehead of P.W. 10 while the latter was sitting an his outer verandah. The appellant aimed another blow on his head, but P.W. 10 tried to ward it off and as a result, it hit his right forearm. Ballav came out of the house and after rendering first aid to his son, proceeded towards the house of the Gram Rakshi telling the appellant that the matter would be reported to the Police authorities and he (appellant) would reap the consequences. When Ballav proceeded thus, the appellant ran to him and dealt some blows on him by M.O. I on the village lane. After Ballav fell down, the appellant dealt successive blows on him by M.O. I and Ballav died on the spot. The appellant proceeded to surrender himself at the Police Station at Balangir and on the way at village Phatamunda, he confessed before Basista Biswal (P.W. 7), Adityaprasad Patel (P.W. 8) and others that he had killed Ballav and caused injuries to his son. The appellant told them that he had been proceeding to the Police Station at Balangir to surrender and requested them not to apprehend him. The appellant went to the Police Station at Balangir with M.O. I stained with blood. The Officer-in-Charge (P.W. 9) of the Police Station seized M.O. I and the Dhoti (M.O. II) and the napkin (M.O. III) worn by the appellant, which had also stains of blood, as per the seizure list, Ext. 9. He arrested the appellant and on the day following, forwarded him to the court. The articles seized by him were handed over to the officer-in Charge of the Tusra Police Station within whose jurisdiction the occurrence had taken place.

On the day of occurrence P.W. 10 left for the Tusra Police Station in a bullock cart and reported the incident to the constable (P.W. 11) during the absence of the Officer-in-Charge. The constable made a station diary entry (Ext. 11). On the basis of Ext. 11. The Officer-in-Charge (P.W. 12) drew up the first information report (Ext. 12) and took up investigation. He seized the bloodstained Lungi (M.O. IV) of P.W. 10 as per the seizure list, Ext. 13. On the day following, he held inquest vide Ext. 1 and sent dead body for postmortem examination. He seized bloodstained earth and sample earth at the place of occurrence and a bloodstained napkin (M.O. V) of the deceased vide Ext. 15. Some bloodstained and sample earth were also seized by him from the front courtyard of P.W. 10 vide Ext. 2. The bloodstained and sample earth seized from the spot. The Tangi (M.O. I) and the clothes (M.Os. II and III) of the appellant were sent for chemical examination. On the completion of investigation. P.W. 12 placed a charge-sheet against the appellant.

3. After commitment, the appellant stood his trial. The prosecution h