Judgment :- Thangamani, J. On Lakshmi has preferred this appeal against the conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life passed against her under Sec.302, I.P.C. for having committed the murder of her husband Pandi. 2. The evidence on record discloses that the appellant was married to the deceased Pandi about five years prior to the occurrence. Three children were born to her. One female child alone is surviving out of them. P.W.3 Kaliammal is the mother of Pandi. The deceased was living with his wife, mother and the child. Formerly they were living as tenants under P.W.2, Balasubramaniam. Later on they shifted their residence to a hut near Shanmuga High School. Since two years prior to the incident, relationship between the appellant and her husband became strained. There used to be frequent quarrels between them. P.W.3 would pacify them. Since the deceased harassed her suspecting her chastity, the appellant left to her father’s house. When Pandi went there and called her, she refused to come back. However, twenty days prior to the occurrence, she returned to her husband’s house of her own accord. On the day previous to the incident, the appellant’s younger brother Servant came to see his sister. Pandi scolded the appellant saying that she was keeping her brother. On the next day, Selvam left the house. 3. On 8. 1985 at 9.30 p.m. P.W.3, Kaliammal, was lying on M.O.4, mat, in front of her house with her grant daughter. The deceased came to the house drunk. He quarrelled with his wife. Then Pandi went to sleep. The appellant locked the door from inside and began to sleep..During mid-night, she wokeup. She found her husband sleeping. She thought that she could no longer endure, his torture and harassment. So she took an aruval nearby and cut her husband. Then she came out of the house in an agitated mood. P.W.3, her mother-in-law, asked her what had happened. Saying that she was going to attend calls of nature, the appellant went away. P.W.3 went inside add saw her son dead with bleeding injuries on the neck. She shouted and P.W.4, Pitchai, came there. 4. P.W.2 Balasubramaniam, is having a tea shop opposite to Government Hospital, Palani. On 8. 1985 at 2.00 a.m., he closed the shop and went in a cycle to his house at Sivagiripatti. P.W.3 went inside add saw her son dead with bleeding injuries on the neck. She shouted and P.W.4, Pitchai, came there. 4. P.W.2 Balasubramaniam, is having a tea shop opposite to Government Hospital, Palani. On 8. 1985 at 2.00 a.m., he closed the shop and went in a cycle to his house at Sivagiripatti. On the way, he found the appellant coming near Tansi in an agitated mood. P.W.2 enquired her. She told him that her husband used to quarrel with her often suspecting her fidelity. Since he went to the extent of alleging illicit intimacy between her and her own brother, she had killed him by cutting with an aruval, while he was asleep. Thereupon, this witness took her to the house of P.W.1, Village administrative Officer, at 3.00 a.m. P.W.1, recorded Ex.P-1 statement given by the appellant which was attested by P.W.2. Thereafter all of them went to Palani Town Police Station. 5. On 8. 1985, at 3.45 a.m. P.W.7, Sub-Inspector registered Ex.P-1 complaint in his Station Cr.No.516 of 1985 under Sec.302, I.P.C. He prepared Ex.P-6 Express F.I.R. and sent the same to Judicial II Class Magistrate, Palani. 6. On receipt of Express Report, P.W.9. Inspector, tookup investigation at 4.45 a.m. He inspected the scene place and prepared Ex.P-2, Observation Mahazar. He recovered M.O.1, blood stained earth M.O.2, sample earth, M.O.3 lamp M.O.4 blood stained mat, M.O.5, Aruval and M.O.6, Vessel from there under Ex.P-3 Mahazar. At 10.00 a.m. he seized M.O.7 bleed stained saree from the appellant under Ex.P-4 Mahazar after providing her with exchange cloth. From 7.00 a.m. to 9.00 a.m. the Inspector held inquest over the dead body. Ex.P-11 is the inquest report. He also drew Ex.P-12 rough sketch. After inquest, he sent the dead body for post-mortem examination through P.W.6 Police constable with a requisition. 7. On 8. 1985, at 9.30 a.m. the Inspector arrested the appellant at the place of occurrence. 8. At 11.45 a.m. P.W.5 Doctor commenced the post-mortem on the dead body of deceased Pandi. He found the following injuries: 1. An incised wound 11/2 x 3 1/2" over the middle and left side of mandible with extension of a lenear abrasion 3" long on either side upto the left angle mandible. 2. 8. At 11.45 a.m. P.W.5 Doctor commenced the post-mortem on the dead body of deceased Pandi. He found the following injuries: 1. An incised wound 11/2 x 3 1/2" over the middle and left side of mandible with extension of a lenear abrasion 3" long on either side upto the left angle mandible. 2. An incised wound oval in shape 11/2 x 1/2" exposing the broken mendible seen on the left side of neck with an incised wound 3" x 1/2" x 1" in the left side of neck. The intermediate part of the 2 injuries are joined by a lenear abrasions. 3. An incised wound 3 1/2" x 3/4" x 1 1/2" in depth present 1 mm below the previous injury with an abrasion extending from the anterior part of the chin. 4. An incised wound 4" x 3/4" x 11/2" deep oval in shape seen on the left side of neck 1/2 cm. below the injury No.3 exposing muscles and cut vessels with a lenear abrasions in the anterior part of the wound. 5. An incised wound 2" x 1/2 cm. x 1" deep over the left side of neck 2 mm. below the injury No.4 exposing the bleed vessels and deeper structures. 6. An incised wound 4" x3/4" x11/2 and oval in shape present over the left side of neck, 1 mm. below the injury No.5 with a lenear abrasion 2 1/2" extending anteriorly there was fracture of cervical spine 3,4,5 transverse process with cut vertebral artery. Liver pale, Stomach contains partially digested food particles. In the opinion of the Doctor, the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage on account of injuries sustained 8 to 12 hours prior to post mortem. Injury No.4 is necessarily fatal. Ex.P-5 is the post mortem certificate. P.W.6 constable who was present at the time of post mortem removed M.O.8 Lungi from the dead body and handed it over in the police station. 9. On receipt of Ex.P-7 requisition from the Inspector, P.W.8 Headclerk, Judicial II Class Magistrate Court, Palani arranged to send M.Os.l, 2 and 4 to 8 for chemical examination with Ex.P-8 coveringletter.Exs.P-9andP-10are there portsof the chemical examiner and Serologist. They disclose that M.O.5, Aruval, M.O.6 vessel, M.O.I earth, M.O.7 saree and M.O.8 lungi contained the same group of human blood. 10. On completion of investigation, the Inspector laid the charge sheet on 12. 1985. 11. They disclose that M.O.5, Aruval, M.O.6 vessel, M.O.I earth, M.O.7 saree and M.O.8 lungi contained the same group of human blood. 10. On completion of investigation, the Inspector laid the charge sheet on 12. 1985. 11. When examined under Sec.313, Crl.P.C. the appellant stated that her mother-in-law P.W.3 was not living with them. On the night of occurrence there was no quarrel between her and husband. Both of them went to bed on cordial terms. During the midnight she heard some noise. She felt that some thief had gained entry into the house. She got up and found that somebody was going towards east. She lighted the lantern to inform her husband what had happened. But she saw him lying dead in a pool of blood. She came out of the house shouting. P.W.4, Pitchai, Karup-paiah and one Chinna Pandi came there. They suspected that without her knowledge the occurrence could not have happened. Fearing that they may harass her, she went to the Police Station and told the police constable there what had happened. Later on, the Sub Inspector, P.W.4, Pitchai, Karuppaiah and Vellaipandi got her thumb impression on a white paper and kept her in lock up. 12. After trial, the learned Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty under Sec.302, I.P.C. convicted and sentenced her to imprisonment for life. He had also observed that this unfortunate young girl of 22 years was constrained to commit the murder of her husband on account of frustration and mental agony since her husband heaped on her insults continuously. She was silently bearing thecruel treatment meted out by her husband and with a view to escape from him, had gone to her father’s house. She could not remain there peacefully since the deceased went there often and quarrelled with her. She came from there to her husband’s abode, to avoid embarrassment to her parents. Her husband again harassed her and even went to the extent of alleging illicit intimacy between her and her younger brother. Considering the background in which the offence was committed her felt it was eminently fit case for the Government to commute the life sentence to one of simple imprisonment for two years and recommended for it. However, so far the Government have not passed any order of that. 13. Considering the background in which the offence was committed her felt it was eminently fit case for the Government to commute the life sentence to one of simple imprisonment for two years and recommended for it. However, so far the Government have not passed any order of that. 13. The learned Sessions Judge has taken the view that Ex.P-1 statement recorded by P.W.1, Village Administrative Officer is a confession statement and hence it is inadmissible in evidence as per the decision in Public Prosecutor v. Tulasingam, 1963 M.W.N. 599. There the accused was charged under Sec.304(A), I.P.C. He went to the police station and gave the first information report admitting that he drove the lorry at the time of occurrence. The lower court acquitted the accused on the only ground that there was no evidence to prove that he drove the lorry. So the Public Prosecutor preferred the appeal against the acquittal. After referring to the decision in NizarAli v. The State of U.P..A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 366:1957 M.L.J. (Crl.) 314: 1957 S.C.J. 392:1957 S.C.C. 128:1957 Crl.L.J. 550, Sadasivam,J., held that the First Information Report was not substantive piece of evidence and it can only be used to corroborate the statement of the maker under Sec.157 of the Evidence Act or to contradict under Sec.145 of that Act and it cannot be used as evidence against the maker at the trial if he himself becomes an accused nor to corroborate or contradict other witnesses and that it was therefore not evidence. But it may be noted that the complaint in the first decision cited was given by the accused before the police officer and so any admission made by the accused in the first case that he drove the lorry could not become evidence under Sec.25 of the Evidence Act. Similarly in NizarAli v. The State of UP., A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 366: 1957 M.L.J. (Crl.) 314:1957 S.C.J. 392:1957 S.C.C. 128:1957 Crl.L.J. 550, the First Information Report was given by a co-accused in the police station. Whereas in this case, Ex.P-1 report has been given by the appellant in the presence of P.W.1 Village Administrative Officer and P.W.2, Balas-ubramaniam before even the police came into the picture. So as an extrajudicial confession Ex.P-1 is admissible in evidence in entirety. 14. No doubt there is no actual eye witness to the occurrence. Whereas in this case, Ex.P-1 report has been given by the appellant in the presence of P.W.1 Village Administrative Officer and P.W.2, Balas-ubramaniam before even the police came into the picture. So as an extrajudicial confession Ex.P-1 is admissible in evidence in entirety. 14. No doubt there is no actual eye witness to the occurrence. However, we find from the evidence of P.W.3 Kaliammal the mother of the deceased that her son often used to pick up quarrel with his wife suspecting her conduct. On the night of the occurrence also he scolded the appellant saying that she was having illicit intimacy with her own brother. The evidence of P.W.4 Pitchai is also to the effect that the deceased quarrelled with his wife often alleging infidelity to her. So we find that the appellant had the necessary motive to do away with her husband. 15. It is also seen that as per the version of P.W.3 Kaliammal on that fateful night the deceased and the appellant went to sleep in their house by bolting the door from inside. This witness was lying in front of the house along with grant child. During midnight she felt that somebody had dashed against her leg. She woke up and found that the appellant was leaving the house in a hurry. Immediately she went inside and saw her son lying dead with cut injuries. On hearing the noise of P.W.3, Kaliammal, P.W.4 Pitchai also came there, went inside and saw the deceased with neck injuries. Thus P.W.3 mother of deceased and independent witnesses had seen Pandi with cut injuries immediately after the appellant left the house. Even the appellant admits in her Sec.313, Crl.P.C. statement that she and the deceased went to bad locking the door of her house from inside and she was the first person to see her husband lying dead with cut injuries in neck. 16. The medical evidence of P.W.5 Doctor also indicates that the deceased would have met with death in the four hours between 11.45 p.m. on 8. 1985 and 3.45 a.m. on 8. 1985 on account of the incised wound on the left side of his neck. 17. In Ex.P-12 the rough sketch, the mat used by P.W.3 Kaliammal and lying outside the hut is shown as No.4. 1985 and 3.45 a.m. on 8. 1985 on account of the incised wound on the left side of his neck. 17. In Ex.P-12 the rough sketch, the mat used by P.W.3 Kaliammal and lying outside the hut is shown as No.4. This physical feature observed by the Investigating Officer would go to show that the evidence of P.W.3 that she was sleeping put-side the hut was true. 18. Thus we find that Ex.P-1 extra judicial confession given by the appellant gets corroboration in all material particulars and the overwhelming circumstances in this case establish beyond the possibility of any doubt that the appellant alone had perpetrated the crime. .19. The question that remains to be considered is the nature of the offence that the appellant had committed. The learned Sessions Judge has found the appellant guilty under Sec.302, I.P.C. on the ground that she had intentionally caused the death of her husband by Inflicting as many as six incised injuries on his neck with an aruval. However, we have to arrive at a conclusion in the back ground in which this woman was driven to the extreme act of killing her own life partner. As the learned Sessions Judge himself has observed, the appellant was subject to continuous mental torture and cruelty by the deceased ever since the birth of their third child. He used to come home fully drunk and beat her. He suspected the conduct of the appellant and found fault with her whenever she spoke to others. Unable to bear this agony, the appellant left for her parent’s house. There also she could not remain peaceful. The deceased went there often and picked up quarrel with his father-in-law and mother-in-law. So twenty days prior to the occurrence, the appellant returned to her husband’s abode to avoid embarrassment to her parents. The deceased continued to drink and beat her on the day prior to the occurrence, when the brother of the appellant came there, the deceased went to the extent of alleging that she was having illicit relationship with her own brother. Only unable to endure the harassment any longer, this women had cut her husband. The deceased continued to drink and beat her on the day prior to the occurrence, when the brother of the appellant came there, the deceased went to the extent of alleging that she was having illicit relationship with her own brother. Only unable to endure the harassment any longer, this women had cut her husband. Under these circumstances, it is possible to comprehend that the words and deeds of the deceased could cause any housewife as actually caused to the appellant in this case a sudden and temporary loss of self control rendering her so subject to passions as to make her for the moment not master of her own mind. We are of the view that since she was under constant ill-treatment at the hands of the deceased and on that fateful night, when again the deceased scolded the appellant alleging illicit intimacy with her brother, She acted only out of grave and sudden provocation. 20. The evidence available in this case clearly shows that there has been sustained provocation for the appellant for a considerable period of time. Exception I under 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 caused the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident. It is common knowledge that the term self-control in is a subjective phenomenon and it can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances of a given case. In order to find out whether the last act of provocation on which the offender caused the death was sufficiently grave to deprive him of the power of self-control, we can always take into consideration the previous acts of provocation caused by the deceased person. As it has been pointed out by the Supreme Court in K.M.Nanavathy v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 605, the mental background created by the previous act of the victim is a fact that has to be taken into consideration in ascertaining whether the subsequent act caused grave and sudden provocation for committing the offence. .21. This principle of sustained provocation has been considered by this Court in a number of decisions following the above said observation of the Supreme Court. .21. This principle of sustained provocation has been considered by this Court in a number of decisions following the above said observation of the Supreme Court. A Division Bench of this Court in Chandran, In re., 1988 L.W. (Crl.)113, had no reservation in accepting the case 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 had been nurturing for a long period by the conduct of the deceased in having illicit intimacy with his wife. It held that the accused was entitled to the benefit of Exception I under Sec.300 of the I.P.C. A similar view was taken in a later case reported in Suyambukani v. State, 1992 M.L.J. (Crl) 1: 1988 L.W. (Crl.) 86, wherein David Annoussamy, J. has observed that ‘there is a cardinal different between provocation as defined under Exception I to Sec.300 and sustained provocation. The only word which is common is ‘provocation’. What Exception I 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. Sustained provocation is undoubtedly an addition as anticipated by the architects of the I.P.C." The provocation which is the root 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 appellant was leading a miserable life for about two years prior to the occurrence. The deceased was addicted to drink and used to scold her in unimaginable words. The last of that being his attribution of illegal intimacy between his wife and her own brother. Only in this back ground we have to consider whether there was any justification for applying Exception I to Sec.300 in favour of the appellant. 22. It is true that nobody is entitled to take away the life of any other person and that a provocation to come under Exception I to Sec.300 must be a grave and sudden one in the real sense of the term. 22. It is true that nobody is entitled to take away the life of any other person and that a provocation to come under Exception I to Sec.300 must be a grave and sudden one in the real sense of the term. In which cases the theory of sustained provocation can be applied depends upon the facts and situation of each given case. Though this plea of provocation and loss of self-control on the part of the accused had not been taken during trial, we cannot over look the mental make-up of an illiterate cobbler woman like the present appellant who was put to continuous insult by the words and deeds of the deceased, inclusive of the fateful night. So we have no hesitation in holding that there has been sustained provocation for a considerable length of time by the deceased. At last, a stage came when she could not tolerate any more the ill-treatment meted out to her. 23. So we are of the opinion that the conviction recorded by the learned trial Judge under Sec.302, I.P.C. and the sentence to imprisonment for life cannot be sustained. And instead, the appellant has to be convicted only under Sec.304, Part I, I.P.C. In view of the peculiar circumstances and the predicament in which the appellant was placed and on account of the fact that the learned trial Judge himself has chosen to recommend to the Government to commute the sentence to one for simple imprisonment for two years, we feel that the ends of justice would be met by awarding simple imprisonment for two years in this case. 24. In the result, the conviction and sentences passed under Sec.302, I.P.C. are set aside and the appellant is acquitted of that charge. Instead she is found guilty under Sec.304, Part I, I.P.C. convicted and sentenced to undergo S.I. for two years. Appeal ordered accordingly.