1. In this case the accused has been found guilty of culpable homicide, under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, of his daughter-in-law under circumstances which, carding to the finding of the lower Court, were simple but tragic. The accused arrived home about the middle of the day and finding the door of the house shained from inside he demanded admittance and discovered his daughter-in-law in the company of a Mubammadan, the woman being of the Bania caste. He seized hold of the man and also of an axe, but being an old man was unable to prevent the escape of the paramour and he thereupon turned upon the young wife and hanked her to death Misting something like sixteen serious injuries including a complete severance of the head from the trunk which, of course, was sufficient to cause instantaneous death. The nature of the injuries indicate plainly that the man was in a frerzy of rage. Whether he saw misconduct or merely drew the obvious inference, which any man of ammo sense would be compelled to draw from the circumstance, is quite immaterial, but it is a question of fact whether his act was the result of grave and sudden proposition sufficient to provoke a person in his position of life. The learned Judge and the Assessors have found that it was, and we see no reason to differ from them. The matter comes before us in revision, a learned Judge of this Court having issued notice to the accused to show cause why he should not be convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon mature consideration, we do not think that the Court below was wrong in the conclusion at which it arrived. We are, however, think, on the other hand, that the sentence was inadequate. No doubt, in cases of this kind public sympathy is enlisted on behalf of the accused and is shared by any Tribunal which has to deal with the case. On the other hand, in the case of provocation such as this, while removing the act from the aatesrory of arise which leaves the Court no alternative by way of adapting the sentence to the moral aspect of the circumstances, the law ought not to be administered in such a way as to encourage the belief that it are a right in the person provoked. The section is measure of reduction or modification adapted, as far as prossible, to the views and traditions of the Indian community, particularly on a question of family honour such as this. On the other hand, the law, in its function of protecting person and property, is compelled to award punishment which is not only punitive as applied to the individual but deterrent in the general sense, and as the authors of the Code itself pointed out, the offence ought to be punished in order to compel men to respect human life and to give them a motive for aoouKtoming themselves to control their passions even when they are actually arcus ed by grave provocation. We do not think that the sentence awarded in this case was sufficiently based upon a consideration of this aspect of the matter. We think it right to enhance the sentence and to award a term which will be recognised as sufficiently severe to create a deterrent from the repetition of such cases. We confirm the conviction but alter the sentence to five years rigorous imprisonment with effect from the date of the original sentence.