JUDGMENT Sivasubramaniam, J. : This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Sec.302, I.P.C. passed in S.C.No. 114 of 1983 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli Division for having murdered one Arumugam Nadar, the husband of the appellant. 2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows: The appellant is the wife of the deceased Arumugam Nadar and they have got give sons viz. 1. Selvan Rajan, P.W.1; 2. Sakthivel, P.W.4; 3. Selvan Swaminathan, D.W.1; 4. Easwaran and 5. Palaniswami. They belong to a village called Alampalayam and they have settled down in another place called Arikarampalayam for the purpose of eking out their livelihood. The deceased Arumugam Nadar was working in the land of one Sellappa Gounder and Ramaswamy Gounder in Arikarampalayam. He was selling sweet toddy and supporting the family from the income derived from the same. P.W.1 and the accused also used to go for work. ‘On the date of occurrence, the deceased went to Pulliyampattai for work and returned to his house at about 5.30 P.M. The deceased reached the house at about 6.00 P.M. On his reaching home, he questioned the accused as to why she had not prepared food, for which the accused replied stating that there was no rice in the house. She further stated that she has to go to the house of Gounder to get rice and prepare the food. On this, the deceased scolded her by saying whether she wanted to have illicit relationship with the Gounder and so saying beat her on the chest. Thereafter, the accused went to the house of P.W.5, Arunachalam Gounder to get some rice followed by the deceased. After getting rice from the house of P.W.5, the accused returned to the house, prepared food and served the deceased and her children. The deceased scolded her and consumed the food served by the accused. Thereafter, he took M.O.3 a tapper knife and placed the same under his pillow and went to sleep. M.O.3 Aruval was kept at the place where the deceased was lying. The deceased and the children were lying in the next room, where M.O.2, a small Chimili lamp was burning. In the mid-night, P.W.2 heard noise and woke up. He and his brothers found the accused standing near the deceased with an Aruval. M.O.3 Aruval was kept at the place where the deceased was lying. The deceased and the children were lying in the next room, where M.O.2, a small Chimili lamp was burning. In the mid-night, P.W.2 heard noise and woke up. He and his brothers found the accused standing near the deceased with an Aruval. P.Ws.1 and 4 raised an alarm and they saw bleeding injury on the neck of the deceased. The accused went away with M.O.3 After hearing the noise of P.Ws.1 and 4, their other brothers also woke up. P.W.1 took his brothers and went to the house of P.W.5. He informed P.W.5 that the appellant had cut his father and run away with the Aruval. Thereupon, P.W.5 with his brother P.W.2 Ramaswamy Gounder came to the scene of occurrence and declared that the deceased was dead. 3. Then P.Ws.1 and 5 went to the Police Station at Thennilai. P.W.12 the Sub Inspector of Police, who was in charge of the Police Station recorded the statement given by P.W.1 at about 2.00a.m. on 10/11.6.1983, which is marked as Ex.P1 and registeredas Crime No.28 of 1983 under Sec.302, I.P.C. He despatched the express reports to the authorities concerned. He along with the Village Administrative Officer, P.W.6 Kandaswamy proceeded to the scene of occurrence. On the way, he found the accused going with an Aruval, M.O.3 at about 1-1/2 K.M. away from the scene of occurrence near the place called Vannan Parai. P.W.12 arrested and questioned her. He recorded the statement from her. He recovered M.O.3, Aruval under a cover of Mahazar Ex.P.3 attested by P.W.6. He also recovered blood stained saree, M.O.5 under a cover of Mahazar, Ex.P.10 attested by the same witness, P.W.6. He took the accused and reached the scene of occurrence. 4. P.W.10, the Inspector of Police, Velayutham, received the first information report at about 5.00 a.m. on 11.6.1983 and took up the investigation and reached the scene of occurrence at about 7.30 a.m. He inspected the scene of occurrence at about 8.00a.m. and prepared a Mahazar, Ex.P.11 in the presence of the witnesses. He also prepared a sketch Ex.P.17. He conducted the inquest from 9.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon and Ex.P.18 is his inquest report. He examined P.Ws.1, 4, 5 and other witnesses and despatched the dead body with a requisition Ex.P.7 for post-mortem through the Constable, P.W.8. He also prepared a sketch Ex.P.17. He conducted the inquest from 9.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon and Ex.P.18 is his inquest report. He examined P.Ws.1, 4, 5 and other witnesses and despatched the dead body with a requisition Ex.P.7 for post-mortem through the Constable, P.W.8. At about 12.30 p.m., on the same day, he recovered M.Os.1 and 2 Arikan light and Chimli lamp respectively, M.O.4 Cot, M.O.6 blood stained earth and M.O.7 sample earth under a cover of Mahazar Ex.P.12. After completing the inquest he arranged for taking photographs through P.W.7 Raja. P.W.7 took photographs from several angles. M.O.8 series are the negatives and M.O.9 series are the photo prints. P. W.6 has attested the Exs.P.11 and 12. On the same day he examined P.Ws.6 and 8 and sent the accused for remand at about 3.00 p.m. 5. P.W.3, the Medical Officer in charge of the General Hospital, Karur received the requisition Ex.P.3 at about 4.30 p.m. on 11.6.1983 and he conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of Arumugham Gounder. He found the following injuries on the dead body: “An incised wound in the neck from the middle of the back left side extending and crossing the midline right side cutting the left and right carotid vessels. Trachea and oesophagus cut.” Ex.P.8 is the post-mortem certificate. The Doctor was of the opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injury to the major blood vessels to the vital organs about 14 to 18 hours prior to autopsy. P.W.10 sent the requisition Ex.P2 to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Karur, P.W.2 for recording the statement of the accused under Sec.164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. As P.W.10 was transferred by that time, P.W.11 trook up further investigation of the case. On receipt of the requisition Ex.P2, P.W.2 caused the production of the accused at about 12.00 noon on 18.6.1983. After following the usual precautions and other formalities, he recorded a confession statement of the accused and obtained her signatures. Ex.P5 is the statement, Ex.P6 is the certificate given by the Magistrate. Ex.P16 is the chemical examination report. After completing the investigation, P.W.11 laid the charge-sheet on 5.9.1983 against the accused under Sec.302 I.P.C. 6. The appellant was examined under Sec.313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Ex.P5 is the statement, Ex.P6 is the certificate given by the Magistrate. Ex.P16 is the chemical examination report. After completing the investigation, P.W.11 laid the charge-sheet on 5.9.1983 against the accused under Sec.302 I.P.C. 6. The appellant was examined under Sec.313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. She filed a written statement stating as follows: According to her, on 10.6.1983 at about 11.00 p.m. she along with her children, were lying inside the house and the deceased was lying in the next room, having a tapper knife under his pillow, on the dead of night, the appellant heard a noise and she woke up she found that the deceased was attempting to enter into the room where she was sleeping. He asked her to come into his room and threatened her that he would set fire to the house, if she refused to do so. At that time he was fully drunk and he threatened that he would take away the life of the appellant and the five children. She came out of the room where she was sleeping and when she was about to return towards the deceased, he questioned her as to who was the person with whom she was having illicit intimacy. At that time he was having the tapper knife in his hand. When he came to attack the appellant, she pushed him down. As he was fully drunk he well down with his tapper knife. Thereupon the appellant snatched the Aruval from the deceased and cut the deceased with a view to save her life and the life of her children. The cut fell on the neck of the deceased. Thereupon she left the place and reported the matter to one Arunachalam Gounder, P.W.5 and his brother, Ramaswamy Gounder, P.W.2. They took her to the Police Station at Thennilai and returned to the scene of occurrence about one hour before the day break on the next day morning along with the Sub Inspector of Police and three Police Constables. The Police took her children sleeping inside, outside the house and left them in the house of P.W.5, Arunachalam Gounder. She was taken to the Police Station at Thennilai. She further stated that she did not cut the deceased with the intention of murdering him and that if she had not cut the deceased on that night, he would have killed her and her five children. She was taken to the Police Station at Thennilai. She further stated that she did not cut the deceased with the intention of murdering him and that if she had not cut the deceased on that night, he would have killed her and her five children. Therefore, it was her specific case that she cut the deceased only with a view to save herself and her five children. It was her further statement that the Police officials compelled her to give a statement to the Magistrate as directed by them, and that they further threatened her that they would file a criminal case against her children also, in case she refused to do so. They also promised that they would get her out from the case without any punishment. She examined two witnesses on herside.D.W.1 Selvan Swaminathan is her third son. He stated in his evidence that he was not aware how is father died on the date of occurrence. According to him at about 5.00 p,m. on the date of occurrence the deceased wanted his mother to serve food and for that his mother replied to his father that there was no rice in the house and she had to go to the house of ArunachaI am Gounder to get rice and then prepare food. On that the deceased threatened her by saying that he would take away the life of the appellant and her five children. Thereafter, he went away for tapping toddy. The deceased brought the appellant and P.W.1 from the house of Arunachalam Gounder and on reaching the house, the appellant prepared “Dosai” and served the deceased and other children. The deceased threatened that he would kill all of them before the day break and so saying he placed the tapper knife under his pillow and laid down in a cot in kitchen room. The appellant and her children were all lying in the adjacent room. It was only in the early morning the police people came there and woke up his brothers and himself, when they came out of the house, they did not see any light in the kitchen room and nothing was shown to them in the kitchen room. either by P.W.1 or by the police officials. It was only in the house of Arunachalam Gounder, P.W.5 they’ came to know about the death of the deceased. either by P.W.1 or by the police officials. It was only in the house of Arunachalam Gounder, P.W.5 they’ came to know about the death of the deceased. A statement was recorded from P.W.1 and obtained the thumb impression from his elder brother and himself near a tamarind tree situated near the house. The Police took P.W.1 to the Police Station, Thennillai and kept him there for a week. 7. He denied the version Of P.W.1 that P.W.1 woke up him (D.W.1) and his brothers, after hearing the noise of the deceased and that the appellant was having a bloodstained Arunval in her hands. D.W.2 deposed that P.W.5 is his brother and that at about 11.00 a.m.when he was in his kitchen room the appellant came there and informed him that her husband was dead. Thereupon he went to the Police Station along with the appellant and P.W.5. 8. On a consideration of the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution in this case and the plea of the accused, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts and therefore convicted the appellant to undergo imprisonment for life under Sec.302 I.P.C. However, the learned session Judge reconmeded to the Government that it is a fit case where the sentence awarded against, the appellant may be reduced. 9. The only question to be decided by this Court is whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. The fact that the appellant cut the deceased with a tapper knife, M.O.3 at the time of occurrence and that he died on account of the injury caused by her is not in doubt. As a matter of fact, the applicant has admitted that she cut the deceased with M.O.3 causing the fatal injury. P.W.1 who was sleeping in the same house deposed that when he woke up, he found that the appellant was standing with a blood-stained Arunval near the body of the deceased. The Doctor P.W.3 who conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased has opined that he died due to the injury caused by the appellant. Therefore, the short question to be decided by this Court is whether the occurrence had happened in the manner alleged by the appellant. The Doctor P.W.3 who conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased has opined that he died due to the injury caused by the appellant. Therefore, the short question to be decided by this Court is whether the occurrence had happened in the manner alleged by the appellant. We find that the appellant had given a confession statement before the learned Magistrate, P.W.2 admitting the occurrence and stating the reasons for committing the offence. In the course of the statement, she had stated that she was leading miserable life with her husband and that the deceased was illtreating her in all possible ways. She had categorically stated that the deceased used to beat her often and that she was illtreated by him. He sold away all the articles, including the Cycle for the purpose of consuming arrack. On the date of the occurrence, he sold the Cycle and spent the amount for taking arrack. On his return to the house, the deceased scolded her severely. In spite of the fact that the appellant had stated that there was no rice in the house, the deceased insisted that she should prepare food for him before he returns to the house and threatened that he would beat her and that he would kill her if the food was not prepared at the time of his return to the house. He went to the nearby place to consume toddy. He returned to the house fully drunk and he questioned the accused as to why she had not prepared the food. After taking some rice from the house of P.W.5, she served food to the deceased. All of them went to sleep at about 11.00 p.m. At about 12.00 p.m., in the midnight, the deceased went out for a while. She was lying in the bed with a troubled mind and the deceased returned at about 12.30 p.m. He threatened to take away the life of the appellant and all the five children. He was keeping a tapper knife under the pillow and went to sleep. As a result of the provocation given by the deceased on that day and on previous occasions, she decided to cut the deceased. So, she took out the tapper knife underneath the pillow and cut the deceased. Afterwards she became panicy and she ran away from the house. As a result of the provocation given by the deceased on that day and on previous occasions, she decided to cut the deceased. So, she took out the tapper knife underneath the pillow and cut the deceased. Afterwards she became panicy and she ran away from the house. She went to the Police Station at about 1.00 p.m.and reported the matter to the Police. She narrated the incident to a Constable, who was present there and thereafter returned to the scene with the police. 10. After going through the confession statement given by the accused, we find that there is some amount of truth in the statement, as it is not totally contrary to the prosecution case. The fact that the deceased was illtreating the appellant is also not in dispute and as a matter of fact, it is the positive piece of evidence of P.W.1 and D.W.1. However, the appellant had chosen to resile from the judicial confession and she gave a written statement, when she was questioned under Sec.313, Crl.P.C. There, she took up a plea that she acted in self-defence and cut the deceased. However, we find that she has narrated the background in the same manner, but only when the question of cutting the deceased came, she chose to plea that she did so in self-defence. She further stated that when the deceased attempted to cut her, she snatched the Aruval and cut him in self-defence. Whatever might be the stand taken by the appellant in this regard, at the later stage of the trial, she is entitled to take advantage of the evidence available on the prosecution side and request this court to consider the nature of the offence committed by her. 11. Mr.V.Srinivasan, learned counsel for the appellant rightly contended before us that even though the accused has pleased self-defence in her statement under Sec.313, Crl.P.C. she may not be entitled to take such a plea in view of the earlier statement given by her. He submitted that the prosecution case itself shows that the appellant was under constant illtreatment at the hands of the deceased. Further on the date of the occur rence, she acted only out of grave and sudden provocation. Learned counsel further submitted that the provocation that was meted out to the appellant on the date of occurrence may not be termed as sudden and grave. Further on the date of the occur rence, she acted only out of grave and sudden provocation. Learned counsel further submitted that the provocation that was meted out to the appellant on the date of occurrence may not be termed as sudden and grave. But the evidence available in this case clearly shows that there has been sustained provocation against the appellant for a considerable period of time. Therefore, the learned counsel relying on a recent judgment of this Court on the question of sustained provocation pleaded that the acts of the accused may be considered in the light of the said judgment. Therefore, we have to find out whether the said principle would apply to the facts of the present case. 12. Sec.299 of the I.P.C. defines culpable homicide. “Murder is an aggravated form of culpable homicide when it falls under any of the four circumstances stated in Sec.300 I.P.C.” The exceptions found therein read, that culpable homicide is murder if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or if it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or if it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or 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 injury as aforesaid. Exception 1 to Sec.300, I.P.C. states that culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident. In order to bring the case under this exception to Sec.300, I.P.C. it is necessary that the following facts should be established: 1. The offender must have done the act whilst deprived of the power of self-control; 2. He must have been so deprived by reason of the provocation; 3. In order to bring the case under this exception to Sec.300, I.P.C. it is necessary that the following facts should be established: 1. The offender must have done the act whilst deprived of the power of self-control; 2. He must have been so deprived by reason of the provocation; 3. The provocation must have been grave and sudden; 4. The provocation must not have been sought for by the offender; 5. It must not have been voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person; 5. The provocation must not have been given by anything done in.obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant or in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence. 13. It is common knowledge that the term “self control” in the said provision is a subjective phenomenon and it can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances of a given case. Therefore in order to find out whether the last act of provocation upon which the offender caused the death was sufficiently grave as to deprive him of the power of self-control, we have to take into consideration the previous act of provocation caused by the deceased person. This question was considered by the Supreme Court in K.M.Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra K.M.Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra 1962 MLJ. (Crl.) 531: A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 605: (1962)2 S.C.J. 347: (1962)1 Crl.L.J. 521 wherein the Supreme Court laid down the following principles: 5. The test of ‘grave and sudden’ provocation is whether a reasonable man, belonging to the same class of society as the accused, placed in the situation in which the accused was placed would be so provoked as to lose his self-control; 2. In India, words and gestures may also, under certain circumstances, cause grave and sudden provocation to an accused so as to bring his act with the first exception of Sec.300, I.P.C. 4. The mental background created by the previous act of the victim may be taken into consideration in ascertaining whether the subsequent act caused grave and sudden provocation for committing the offence. 5. The fatal blow should be clearly traced to the influence of passion arising from that provocation and not after the passion had cooled down by lapse of time, or otherwise giving room and scope for premeditation and calculation. 5. The fatal blow should be clearly traced to the influence of passion arising from that provocation and not after the passion had cooled down by lapse of time, or otherwise giving room and scope for premeditation and calculation. This principle of sustained provocation has been considered by this Court in a number of decisions following the above said observations of the Supreme Court. A Division Bench of this Court in Dharman v. State, CA.No.417 of l983, dt 10.9.1986 considered this question elaborately and applied the principles of sustained provocation to the facts of the said case. Again the said question came up before this Court in the decision reported in Chandran IN RE. Chandran IN RE. 1988 L.W. (Crl.) 113, wherein the Division Bench of this Court has accepted the plea of the accused that he cut the deceased on account of the sudden and grave provocation caused by the deceased and also on account of the sustained provocation the accused has been nurturing for a long period because of the conduct of the deceased in having illicit intimacy with his wife. A similar view was taken in the later case reported in Sityambukkani v. State Sityambukkani v. State 1989 L.W. (Crl.) 86 wherein David Annoussamy, J. speaking for the Bench made the following observation: “Though there has been here and there attempts in those decisions to bring the sustained provocation under Exception 1 to Sec.300 I.P.C. there is a cardinal difference between provocation as defined under Exception 1 and sustained provocation. The only word which is common is” provocation“. What Exception 1 contemplates is a grave and sudden provocation, whereas the ingredient of sustained provocation is a series of acts more or less grave spread over a certain period of time, the last of which acting as the last straw breaking the camel's back may even be a very trifling one. We are therefore far from grave and sudden provocation contemplated under Exception 1 to Sec.300 I.P.C. Sustained provocation is undoubtedly an addition by Courts, as anticipated by the architects of the Indian Penal Code.” 14. We are therefore far from grave and sudden provocation contemplated under Exception 1 to Sec.300 I.P.C. Sustained provocation is undoubtedly an addition by Courts, as anticipated by the architects of the Indian Penal Code.” 14. Bearing these principles in mind now, we have to analyse the prosecution case to find out whether the case of the accused would come under the first exception to Sec.300, I.P.C. When there is positive evidence to show that there was grave and sudden provocation at or about the time of occurrence, there would be no difficulty in applying the said principles. There are other type of cases where there has been sustained provocation for a considerable length of time and there would not have been a real sudden provocation immediately preceding the murder. In such cases, the Courts have given the benefit of Exception 1 to Sec.300, I.P.C. on the ground that the provocation which is the route cause for the commission of the offence need not arise at the spur of the moment. In a case like the one on hand we find that the accused was leading a miserable life for a long number of years. It is in evidence that all along she has been leading a difficult life with the deceased having nobody else to support her. She has given birth to five children and all along, she has been working in lands for eking out her livelihood. It is also in evidence that the deceased was addicted to drink and that he sold away even the little property owned by the family. It transpires from the evidence that even on the date of the occurrence he had sold away the cycle that he was having for the purpose of drinking arrack. He was not in the habit of providing sufficient funds to the appellant, but at the same time, he insisted that food should be served to him as and when he wanted. On the date of the occurrence, he beat the appellant severely and threatened her that he would kill her and her five children before the day break. This was not an isolated act of illtreatment on the part of the deceased, but it was a sustained illtreatment on his part. All along the appellant lived on the hope that the deceased would turn a new leaf in his life. This was not an isolated act of illtreatment on the part of the deceased, but it was a sustained illtreatment on his part. All along the appellant lived on the hope that the deceased would turn a new leaf in his life. At last a stage came when she could not tolerate any more of the illtreatment meted out to her. This part of her story finds support in the evidence of P.W.1 and D.W.1 both happen to be her sons. Even though P.W.1 figured as a prosecution witness, he has categorically admitted about the illtreatment given to his mother, the appellant herein. The conduct of the appellant shows that all along she-was under self-control, suppressing all her feelings perhaps for the welfare of her minor children. Only in this background we have to consider whether there was any justification for applying the said exception in favour of the accused. We have already stated that had occurred on the date of occurrence and we have also accepted the case of the appellant that she was under constant illtreatment at the hands of the deceased. Therefore the short point to be decided at this stage would be whether the appellant cut the deceased out of grave and sudden provocation. As we have already, noticed, the appellant was under self-control inspite of the continuous illtreatment on the part of the deceased till the time when she cut the deceased. Even according to the prosecution the deceased beat the appellant some time before the occurrence and abused her in filthy language. It appears that he had also alleged that she had illegal intimacy with P.W.5, Arunachalam Gounder. In this connection, the judicial confession made by the appellant before the learned Magistrate assumes some importance. In spite of the fact that she has gone back in her statement to some extent, we find that her version about the misconduct of the deceased appears to be true and convincing. We find that there is absolutely no evidence on the prosecution side to disprove the said aspect. We can therefore safely proceed on the basis that the appellant was under sustained provocation, which broke out, when the deceased beat her and suspected her conduct. Apart from that, there is evidence to show that the deceased threatened to take away the life of the appellant and her fiven children before the day break. We can therefore safely proceed on the basis that the appellant was under sustained provocation, which broke out, when the deceased beat her and suspected her conduct. Apart from that, there is evidence to show that the deceased threatened to take away the life of the appellant and her fiven children before the day break. When we take all these circumstances into consideration we feel that the appellant must have been under severe and sustained provocation. The last act of the deceased proved to be the last straw at the camel's back. 15. After seeing the deceased lying in the cot with a tappers knife, M.O.3 with a determination to kill the entire family, the appellant might have been provoked to the greatest extent possible and that might have been the reason why she had chosen to cut the deceased with the Aruval. While coming to his conclusion we are aware of the position that nobody is entitled to take away the life of another person and that a provocation to come under exception 1 must be grave and sudden in the real sense of the term. It is only in such cases, the question of sustained provocation can be applied and we do not propose to lay down any hard and fast rule in this regard. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each given case. The Courts have held that the provocation must be sudden and that there should not be any interval between the provocation and the act. It is the fundamental principle that whenever there was time to cool down, an accused person cannot take advantage of this exception, as the law protects only the cases where an accused person acted out of sudden and grave provocation and not in cases where he had time to cool down. Whenever there was time for cooling, the Courts have held that an accused is not entitled to the benefit of exception 1 to Sec.300, Indian Penal Code. Here again, the question whether there was sufficient time for an accused person to cool down or not is a matter which depends upon the facts and circumstances of the each given case. Bearing these principles in mind when we consider the present case we are satisfied that the appellant cut the deceased as a result of grave and sustained provocation which culminated in the last act of the appellant. Bearing these principles in mind when we consider the present case we are satisfied that the appellant cut the deceased as a result of grave and sustained provocation which culminated in the last act of the appellant. 16. On a careful consideration of all the materials placed before us, we are satisfied that the appellant is entitled to invoke exception 1 to Sec.300, Indian Penal Code and if it is so, she is not liable to be punished under See.302, Indian Penal Code. We find that the appellant has not come out from the jail and that she has been in jail for about 51/2 years from the date of conviction. Taking into consideration all the peculiar facts of the present case, we feel that it is unnecessary to keep her in jail any longer and therefore, we direct that she be sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone by her. She is directed to be set at liberty forthwith. 17. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the conviction is modified into one under Sec.304, Part I of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced as above. B.S. ----- Appeal allowed.