“20 . It is clear from the opinion of the important architects of the Indian codification that Anglo-Indian Codes, which were the first experiments in English language in the art of codification, in spite of their immense value, are far from being perfect and were intended to be overhauled from time to time. Therefore, though technically the exceptions to Section 300 IPC. appear to be limitative they can no longer be considered so, after the efflux of time. In fact, Courts have added one more exception known as ''sustained provocation''. The leading decision in that field is the well known Nanavati's case, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 605. That decision is not the first one to take into consideration the situation of sustained provocation. There are previous decisions, which are reviewed in that case are: The Empress v. Khagayi, ILR 2 Mad. 122; Boya Munigadu v. The Queen, ILR 3 Mad. 33; Murugien, In Re, (1957) 2 MLJ 9; Chervirala Narayan, In Re, 1958 (1) An.W.R. 149, Balku v. Emperor, AIR 1938 All. 532 and Babu Lal v. State, AIR 1960 All. 223. Thereafter several decisions have been pronounced and recently this Court dealt with the same subject in the following unreported cases; C.A. No. 70 of 1981, dated 15th December, 1982, Laxmi v. State; C.A. No. 417 of 1983, dated 10th February, 1986, Dharman v. State; C.A. No. 184 of 1983, dated 6th February 1983, Devanathan @ Mara v. State and C.A. No. 301 of 1984, dated 4th August, 1988, Gopal v. State. Though there has been here and there attempts in those decisions to bring the sustained provocation under Exception 1 to
