George Knox, J.
1. Abdul Karim and Abdul Aziz have been convicted of an offense under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years each. The facts are not denied. It appears that on the 5th of October 1919 when Jamal-ud-din, the person assaulted, returned home in the evening between 6 and 7, his sons complained that they had been scolded by Abdul Aziz, one of the accused. Upon this Jamal-ud-Din went to Abdul Aziz with the intention and object of reproving him. He asked Abdul Aziz why he scolded his sons in his absence. Abdul Aziz admitted having scolded his sons and added: I will now beat yon:' Abdul Aziz then ought hold of Jamal-ud-Din while, as the deposition goes, Abdul Karim stroke him with a knife in the belly. The two accused have been defended by a learned Counsel in this Court. The contention is that because the evidence does not prove that Abdul Aziz had any common intention with Abdul Karim to stab Jamal-ud Din, Abdul Aziz ought to have been acquitted. The contention on behalf of Abdul Karim is that his offence does not fall within the provisions of Section 307, Indian Penal Code, inasmuch as the injury was inflicted by him on a sudden and grave provocation. This latter contention may be brushed aside at once. The provisions of Section 300, exception 4, have not been remerabered. Whether the abuse of mother and sister is grave and sudden provocation, may be open to question; but there is no doubt that a person whose relations have been thus abused cannot take a knife and fall upon a defenseless man and then plead that he was led to do the Act by grave and sudden provocation. There can be o doubt whatever that if death had resulted from the Act of Abdul Karim, he would have been guilty of murder. As regards the contention raised on behalf of Abdul Aziz it is true that we have not in so many words a deposition on oath that Abdul Karim called upon Abdul Aziz to commit this act, but on reading the whole of the evidence together it is evident that Abdul Aziz was the first person to commit an assault upon Jamal-ud-Din and that while he was in the Act of committing the assault Abdul Karim struck Jamal-ud-Din with a knife. A fair inference is that the two were Acting in concert. At any rate it lay upon Abdul Aziz to put forward evidence showing that he was completely 'separate from 'Abdul Karim when he did this Act and that he had no connection whatever with the Act. To explain that one needs only to look at the statement made by Abdul Aziz. It is not to the effect: 'True; I did lay hold of Jamal-ud-Din but I never anticipated for a single moment that my Act will be followed up by the Act done by Abdul Karim.' On the contrary he denies having had any participation in the assault upon Jamal-ud-Din altogether. So far I consider the conviction by the learned Sessions Judge justified. At the same time there is no doubt that this was a sad Act caused no doubt by an utter want of self discipline and control in this household of Jalal-ud-Din, The uncle lost his temper, the nephews equally were out of control, specially Abdul Karim rushed upon his uncle much after the manner of a savage, beast instead of a civilized man. It is not likely that this offence will repeat itself so as to cause any alarm. It is to be hoped that the lesson learnt by Abdul Karim will be remembered by him the whole of his life and though he did not realise then, he has by this time realised the savage nature of his conduct. I reduce the sentence passed upon him to a sentence of five (5) years' rigorous imprisonment, and the sentence passed upon Abdul Aziz to a sentences of rigorous imprisonment for two years and six months. The sentences will commence to run from the date on which the original sentences were passed.