Judgment :- R. Banumathi, J. 1. Challenge in this Appeal is to the verdict of conviction by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Namakkal in S.C.No.48/2005 dated 29. 2005 convicting the Appellant/Accused U/s.302 IPC imposing life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- and also U/s.307 IPC imposing imprisonment of 5 years and fine of Rs. 250/-. 2. In nutshell case of the prosecution is as follows:- (i) Accused is the wife of PW10-Mani and they have been residing in Moolapalayam, Erode. PW10-Mani was a cooly worker. As he was not getting sufficient income to run the family, on 310. 2004 PW10 Mani went to Ooti seeking for work and he has not returned till 011. 2004. Accused did not have means to feed their children [deceased child Arunkumar, aged one year and child Gowthaman, aged 4 years] and therefore accused was greatly dejected. (ii) On 011. 2004 – 11.05 A.M., accused had thrown their younger child Arunkumar into Cauvery river. When she was about to throw her elder child Gowthaman, she was prevented by PW3-Muthusamy who witnessed the occurrence. (iii) After saving accused and younger child, PW3-Muthusamy entrusted the accused and child Gowthaman to PW2-Tamizhmani who in turn handed over them to PW1 Parameswaran – VAO. After recording statement of accused [Ex.P1], PW1 prepared his report [Ex.P2] and lodged complaint before Pallipalayam Ps. On receipt of Ex.P2-VAOs report, PW9 Inspector of Police registered the case in Cr.No.952/2004 U/s.302 and 307 IPC. PW8 – SI of Police had taken Video photographs of the scene of occurrence. (iv) PW9 – Inspector of Police had taken up investigation. On being interrogated, accused had given confession statement which was recorded by PW9. Regarding scene of occurrence, Ex.P5-observation mahazar and Ex.P13-Rough plan were prepared. Witnesses were examined by PW9 – Investigating Officer. (v) On 011. 2004 body of the child Arunkumar was recovered near Ponni Nagar. Regarding place of recovery of body, Ex.P6- observation mahazar and Ex.P14 rough plan were prepared. PW10-Mani identified the body of child Arunkumar. PW9 held inquest and Ex.P15 is the inquest report. PW5 Dr.Elangovan conducted autopsy and issued Ex.P9 post-mortem certificate. PW5 Dr.Elangovan opined that deceased died of asphyxia by drowning about 24 to 36 hours prior to the autopsy. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused U/s.302 and 307 IPC. 3. PW10-Mani identified the body of child Arunkumar. PW9 held inquest and Ex.P15 is the inquest report. PW5 Dr.Elangovan conducted autopsy and issued Ex.P9 post-mortem certificate. PW5 Dr.Elangovan opined that deceased died of asphyxia by drowning about 24 to 36 hours prior to the autopsy. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused U/s.302 and 307 IPC. 3. In the trial court, eye witness PW3 Muthusamy and husband of the accused PW10 Mani and PW5 Dr.Elangovan and other police witnesses were examined. Exs.P1 to P16 and Mos.1 to 5 were marked. Appellant was questioned U/s. 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating circumstances and evidence. Appellant/accused denied all of them and pleaded not guilty. On the evidence of PW2 and PW3, learned Sessions Judge held that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond reasonable doubt and accused was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment as aforesaid in Para (1). 4. Mr. T.M. Ramalingan, learned counsel for the appellant/accused submitted that there was no intention to commit the offence and that trial court did not properly appreciate defence plea that the child had accidentally slipped in the river. 5. We have heard Mr. P. Kumaresan, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. Taking us through the evidence of PW2 and PW3, learned Addl. PP submitted that PW3 who happen to pass through the bridge had every chance of witnessing the occurrence and his evidence is amply corroborated by the evidence of PW2 who searched for the child. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor would support the findings of the learned trial court by submitting that based on the evidence of PW2 and PW3, trial court rightly found the accused guilty of the offence. Learned Addl. PP would also submit that defence plea of accidental slip of the child is totally improbable and was rightly negatived by the trial court. 6. We have carefully examined the records and considered the submissions. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused firstly submitted that in Erode-Pallipalayam bridge normally there would be heavy traffic and movement of people and while so, the occurrence during day time – 11.05 A.M. would not have gone unnoticed. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly submitted that non-examination of any independent witness by the prosecution is fatal to the prosecution case. 8. PW3 who is having Rice Mandy in Pallipalayam was proceeding in his TVS-50 vehicle on the date of occurrence on 011. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly submitted that non-examination of any independent witness by the prosecution is fatal to the prosecution case. 8. PW3 who is having Rice Mandy in Pallipalayam was proceeding in his TVS-50 vehicle on the date of occurrence on 011. 2004 at about 11.05 A.M. In his evidence, PW3 has categorically stated that he saw the accused standing near the bridge and throwing the child in the river. PW3 further deposed that when accused was about to throw another child, PW3 raised voice "nghlhnj nghlhnj@ and prevented the appellant/accused from throwing another child also in the river. PW3 though a passer by is an independent natural witness to speak about the occurrence. 9. As rightly submitted by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, evidence of PW3 is amply corroborated by the evidence of PW2 who was also proceeding in his TVS-50 vehicle in the bridge. In his evidence, PW2 has stated that he saw PW3 shouting the appellant/accused and he came to know from PW3 about appellant/accused throwing the child in the river. PW2 and others who searched the drowned child which could not be traced [later body was recovered on 011. 2004 from cauvery river near Ponni Nagar]. Evidence of PW3 is well corroborated by the evidence of PW2. Learned Sessions Judge who had opportunity of seeing and hearing PW3 and PW2 relied upon their evidence to hold the accused guilty of the offence. We do not find any reason to take a different view from that of the learned Sessions Judge. 10. Drawing our attention to the cross-examination of PW2 and PW3, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there are several contradictions in the evidence of PW2 and PW3 and PW2 and PW3 have made improvements in their statement before the Police. It was therefore contended that in view of the contradictions, it would be unsafe to rely upon the evidence of PW2 and PW3 to sustain the conviction. In our considered view, the contradictions that are pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant are not material contradictions affecting the credibility of PW2 and PW3. 11. In fact, evidence of PW2 and PW3 is strengthened by the subsequent conduct of the accused. After the occurrence, PW3 entrusted the appellant/accused to PW2 for handing her over to Police. PW2 in turn handed over the appellant to PW1 – VAO. 11. In fact, evidence of PW2 and PW3 is strengthened by the subsequent conduct of the accused. After the occurrence, PW3 entrusted the appellant/accused to PW2 for handing her over to Police. PW2 in turn handed over the appellant to PW1 – VAO. On being questioned by PW1 VAO, appellant had given a statement [Ex.P1] admitting the occurrence. Ex.P1 would also strengthen the evidence of PW2 and PW3. 12. Defence plea is that while walking along the bridge, the child accidentally slipped and fallen in the river and there was no intention to throw the child. In the questioning U/s.313 Cr.P.C., appellant/accused had stated that while she was walking along the bridge, child was accidentally slipped and fell in the river and a false case was foisted against her. 13. In the light of the above defence plea, we have gone through Ex.P5 observation mahazar and Ex.P13 rough plan. By careful perusal of Ex.P13 rough plan, we find that the parapet wall on either side of the bridge is about 3½ feet height with gaps at short points. Having regard to the height of the bridge, we are of the considered view that it would have been quite improbable for the child carried by the appellant in her arms accidentally slipped and fell in the river. 14. Based upon the evidence of PW2 and PW3 and other circumstances, learned Sessions Judge has rightly held the appellant/accused guilty of the offence U/s.302 and 307 IPC. 15. Crucial question as to what is the offence that is made out and quantum of sentence to be imposed upon the appellant/accused. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for appellant there was no mens rea to commit the offence. Only poverty and frustration has led the accused to the extreme level of throwing her own child in the river. 16. Elaborately noticing the scope of Exceptions to Sec. 300 IPC in 1989 LW (Crl) 86 [Suyambukkani v. State of TN], Division Bench of this Court has held that in all Exceptions "either premeditation or ill-will is absent and when both are present", the matter would not be an Exception. The Division Bench of this Court has held as under:- "22. .... In this connection, it is necessary to examine what is the true nature of the Exceptions. The Division Bench of this Court has held as under:- "22. .... In this connection, it is necessary to examine what is the true nature of the Exceptions. The Exceptions are in the nature of important excusing circumstances and they have the following characteristics: Table One thing is clear from the above analysis viz., in all the Exceptions either premeditation or ill-will is absent. Therefore, when both are present, it will be impossible to counter the matter as an exception." 17. The facts of Suyambukkanis case are almost identical to the case on hand. In Suyambukkanis case, due to poverty and ill-treatment of her husband was alleged to have caused death of two children, aged 2½ years and 10 months by throwing them in the well. Observing that the offence though may not exactly fall within Exceptions 1 to 5, but would fall under "sustained provocation", the Division Bench has modified the conviction from Sec.302 IPC [2 counts] to Sec.304 Part I IPC and modified the sentence as period of sentence already undergone. In our view, the ratio of the decision in Suyambukkanis case is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. We are in respectful agreement with the decision 1989 LW (Crl) 86 [Suyambukkani v. State of TN]. 18. During questioning U/s.313 Cr.P.C., appellant/accused stated that she is living with her husband and that at the time of questioning she was in the family way of about 7 months. During questioning, she has also stated that in future she would mend her ways and would lead a prudent life. In the facts and circumstances of the case and also efflux of time between the occurrence and now, in our considered view that sentencing the accused to the period already undergone would meet the ends of justice. 19. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the conviction of the appellant/accused U/s.302 IPC in S.C.No.48/2005 is modified as that of Sec.304 Part I IPC. Conviction U/s.307 IPC is confirmed. Sentence imposed upon the accused for conviction u/s 304 Part I IPC and 307 IPC is modified to the period already undergone by the appellant/accused. Imposition of fine shall hold good.