( 1 ) I agree with my learned brother that Mahmoods conviction under Section 302,. P. C. should be upheld, but Ms sentence should be reduced to imprisonment for life- I would like to add a few words to explain the proper approach in cases of homicide committed under provocation.

( 2 ) IN order to bring his case under Exception 1 to Section 300. P. C. , an accused has to establish the following ingredients :

(i) The provocation was sudden; (ii) the provocation was grave; and (iii) loss of self control these three ingredients may be considered one by one. (i): Whether the provocation was sudden or not does not present much difficulty. The word sudden involves two elements. Firstly, the provocation must be unexpected. If an accused plans in advance to receive a provocation in order to justify the subsequent homicide, the provocation cannot be said to be sudden. Secondly, the inter val between the provocation and the homicide should he brief. If the man giving the provoca- tion is killed within a minute after the provocation, it is a case of sudden provocation. If the man is killed six hours after the provocation, it is not a case of sudden provocation.

(ii) The main difficulty lies in deciding whether a certain provocation was grave or not. A bare statement by the accused that he regarded the provocation as grave will not be accepted by the court. The Court has to apply an objective test for deciding whether the provocation was grave or not. A good test for deciding whether a certain provocation was grave or not is this: "is a reasonable man likely to lose self-control as a result of such provocation? If the answer is in the affirmative, the provocation will be classed as grave. If the answer is in the negative, the provocation is not grave. In this context, the expression reasonable man means a normal or an average person. A reasonable man is not the ideal man or the perfect being. A normal man sometimes loses temper. There is, therefore, no inconsistency in saying that, a reasonable man may lose self-control as a result of grave provocation. A reasonable or normal or average man is a legal fiction. The reasonable man will vary from society to society- A Judge should not impose his personal standards in this matter. By training, a Judge is a patient man. But the reasonable man or the normal man need not have the same standard of behaviour as the Judge himself. The reasonable man under consideration is a member of the society, in which the accused was living. So, education and social conditions of the -accused are relevant factors. An ordinary exchange of abuses is a matter of common occurrence- A reasonable man does not lose self-control merely on account of an ordinary exchange of abuses. So Courts do not treat an ordinary exchange of abuses as a basis for grave provocation. On the other hand, in most societies adultery is looked upon as a very serious matter. So Courts are prepared to treat adultery as a basis for grave provocation.

(iii) I have pointed out that the question of loss of self-control comes up indirectly in deciding whether a particular provocation was grave or not So, if it is proved that the accused did receive grave and sudden provocation, the Court is generally prepared to assume that homicide was committed while the accused was deprived of the power of self-control. In some cases it may be possible for the prosecution to prove that the accused committed the murder with a cool head in spite of grave provocation. But such cases will be rare. So when the accused has established grave and sudden provocation, the Court will generally hold that he has discharged the burden that lay upon him under Exception 1 to Section 300,. P. C.

( 3 ) IN the present case Mahmood accused was charged by Ram Charan for theft. Such a charge will not be treated by a reasonable man seriously. The provocation received by Mahmood accused was not grave. So the case is not covered by Exception 1 to Section 300,. p. C. He was rightl