John Edge, Kt., C.J. and Blennerhassett, J.
1. The Sessions Judge, accepted Chunni's statement, and so do we that he caught his sister and a man. Thakuri, having illicit connection in a case of this kind it would have been advisable for the Sessions judge to recommend the prisoner to plead 'not guilty,' so that the evidence, showing what the real offence was, might come on the record of the Sessions Court.
2. Chunni came home at night and found his sister and Thakuri having connection. He heard some rumours about their misconduct before, but did not believe them. In his sudden passion he seized upon a gandasa with which he killed Thakuri and then he killed his sister Of course there is a difference between the provocation which a man receives, when he finds another man committing adultery with his wife and the provocation which he receives when he finds his sister dishonoring his family by having illicit intercourse with a man still the latter provocation cannot, in common sense and in one's experience of the world, be looked upon as a light one. The law of England is no doubt very strict in these matters.
3. In our opinion Channi received very grave and sudden provocation that night, and quite sufficient to reduce the case from one of murder to one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. We, under our powers of revision, set aside the conviction and sentence under Section'302 of the Indian Penal Code; and convicting Chunni under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code,, sentence; him to five years rigorous imprisonment, which will be counted from the date of hid conviction in the Sessions Court.
4. Formally the appeal is dismissed, and it did not lie after aplea of guilty, when the sentence passed was the minimum which the law allowed.