JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THE accused-appellant Mst. Thagani Bai has been convicted by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, under section 302 of the Indian penal Code on two counts for committing the murders of her two children aged 5 years and 1 year respectively by voluntarily jumping along with them into a well on the 11 th of March 1967 at Bhilai, and sentenced to imprisonment for life on each count. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. ( 2. ) THE defence of the accused-appellant was that she had not jumped into the well voluntarily but had been pushed into it by her husband Rama. She, however, examined no witness in her defence. ( 3. ) THE facts in this case are not very much in dispute. Mst. Thagani bai, the accused-appellant, is the wife of one Rama (P. W. 11), a rickshaw-puller. She had borne him two sons : Gopal and Ganesh. Rama used to ill-treat her. According to Tulsi Prasad (P. W. 10), Rama used to quarrel with mst. Thagani Bai practically every day on very ordinary matters and also beat her at night. On the date of the incident, i. e. , on the 11th of March 1967, also Rama had beaten Mst. Thagani Bai at about 4 p. m. ( 4. ) AT about 8 p. m. , Ghosh (P. W. I) heard shouts of somebody, whose identity has not been established, that something had fallen into the well. On going to the well, he saw with the help of a torch that the accused-appellant was struggling for life in the water and that a child was floating nearby. He pulled out the accused-appellant as also the child who, before any medical aid could be given to him, died. The accused-appellant also informed the bystanders that there was another child with her. That child was also taken out of the water after sometime ; but by that time he had also died. ( 5. ) FROM the aforesaid evidence it appears that being exasperated with the constant ill-treatment which the accused-appellant was receiving from her husband, she had voluntarily jumped into the well in order to end her and her childrens lives. There is no evidence to support her defence that it was her husband Rama who had pushed her into the well. ( 6. There is no evidence to support her defence that it was her husband Rama who had pushed her into the well. ( 6. ) UNDER the 4th clause of section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, culpable homicide is murder if the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. In the instant case also, the accused-appellant, when she jumped into the well with her two children, knew or ought to have known that her act was so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause the death of her two children or such bodily injury to them as was likely to cause their death. The question, however, arises whether she had jumped into the well without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing the death of her two children or such bodily injury to them as was likely to cause their death. In our opinion, the constant ill-treatment, to which the accused-appellant was subjected at the hands of her husband, could not furnish such an excuse. ( 7. ) IN Emperor v. Mt. Dhirojia (AIR 1940 All. 486.) a young village woman left her house with a six months old baby in her arms on account of her husbands ill treatment. While she was going, she heard somebody coming after her in pursuit. She turned round in a panic and seeing her husband following her, ran a little distance and then jumped into an open well nearby. It was held by a Division bench of the Allahabad High Court that she had, under the circumstances, an excuse for incurring the risk of causing the death of her child or such bodily injury to her as was likely to cause her death because, being in a panic and frightened by the pursuit of her husband whom she feared and wanted to avoid, she had jumped into the well. The facts of the present case are, however, distinguishable as here there is no suggestion nor evidence that the accused-appellant had jumped into the well in order to escape the immediate wrath of her husband because the beating which she had received from her husband rama was at about 4 p. m. and she had jumped into the well at about 8 p. m. when Rama says he was away. ( 8. ) IN Gyarsibai v. The State of Madhya Bharat (AIR 1953 M. B. 61.) the evidence showed that there used to be constant quarrels between the accused, a mother of three children, and her sister-in-law. At one such quarrel, the sister-in-law asked the accused to leave the house. The accused left the house with her three children saying that she would jump into a well with the children, which she actually did. The three children died ; but the accused was rescued. It was held that the accused was not justified in jumping into the well with her three children merely because of her sister-in-laws attitude towards her. Similar view was taken in Re Karuppal alias Chetty Boyachi (A I R 1941 Mad, 50.) ( 9. ) WE, therefore, held that the act of the accused-appellant fell within the 4th clause of section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. Her convictions and sentences under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code are, therefore, correct and are hereby affirmed. ( 10. ) WE are, however, of opinion that, looking to the circumstances of the case, this is a fit case in which the State Government would be well advised to commute the sentence to one of rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years already undergone. We recommend accordingly. Appeal dismissed.