Judgment 1. Petition for bail. 2. Offence alleged under Section 302 of IPC in Crime No.278 of 2014. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even as per the prosecution version, even prior to the occurrence, there was quarrel between the petitioner and the deceased. Under grave and sudden provocation, she is alleged to have stoned her husband. However, it proved him fatal. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in the occurrence, petitioner also sustained grievous injuries. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that petitioner is having three children. She is languishing in jail for more than 55 days. She may be granted bail. 6. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate (crl.side) submitted that the petitioner had killed her husband. Investigation pending. 7. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions and perused the case-diary. 8. Kalyani (petitioner) married Periyannan (deceased). They were blessed with three children. But, Periyannan seems to be an useless husband. He is a trouble maker. Petitioner wanted to educate her children well. But with an useless husband, she could not do it. In the circumstances, her elder son went for mason job, like his father her second son also become useless. The rest being her daughter. 9. Periyannan was residing along with his family in Palakolai Village in Dharmapuri District. On 17.04.2014 night, in the house, Kalyani and Periyannan alone were there. On 18.04.2014 morning, Periyannan's father Singaravelu seen his son dead with injuries and Kalyani with injuries. 10. In the circumstances, Singaravelu complained to police. A case has been registered for offences under Sections 302 and 307 IPC. 11. Initially, it was a blind case. There is no clue. Their assistant is not known. The Investigating Officer was perplexed. He planted some informers. He gathered information. Based on that, petitioner was arrested. 12. In the course of investigation, it came to light that on the night of 17.04.2014, petitioner had put a big boulder on her husband and he died. She has to hit the door frame. She had sustained injuries. 13. Already, Periyannan is an useless husband. He is not useful to the family. He has become an headache to the family. He does not go for a job. He used to drink liquor. He used to beat her everyday mercilessly. He treated her a mere chattel. 14. She has to hit the door frame. She had sustained injuries. 13. Already, Periyannan is an useless husband. He is not useful to the family. He has become an headache to the family. He does not go for a job. He used to drink liquor. He used to beat her everyday mercilessly. He treated her a mere chattel. 14. On 17.04.2014, as usual, Periyannan came house fully drunk. Picked up quarrel with his wife. Beat her severely. He has tired. He threatened to continue the beatings after taking some rest. And he went to sleep. Kalyani stared at him. The thought of his continuous beating haunted her. His beatings are going to happen after he had awaken. 15. Under these circumstances, suddenly she went inside the house, brought a big boulder and thrown on her husband. She thought that her headache is over. But fate is otherwise. Kalyani became a killer wife. She has to go to jail. And she is in jail. 16. In 1992, in England, in London, Khiranjit Ahluwalia, an Asian woman, married a Punjabi cab driver. He liked liquor very much than his wife. He is also so fond of beating his wife daily. He was a sadist. He used to beat her with belt. After having tired of beating her he goes to sleep, after some time, he will continue the beating. On a day, after finishing his usual beatings because of alcoholic influence, he went sleep. Mrs. Ahluwalia stared at her husband. She was also awaiting further beating. Under these circumstances, she suddenly removed the bed sheet, poured kerosene and set fire on her husband. He was fried. He died. She was framed for homicide. She was sentenced to life. 17. She came to the Court of Appeal. As she had killed her husband after years of physical violence at his hands, the Court of Appeal had the occasion to overhaul its perspective of the law relating to provocation with respect to manslaughter and homicide. The English Court converted sentence for man-slaughter (see R v. Ahluwalia [1992 (4) All ER 889]). 18. The English Court converted her sentence. The English Court evolved the 'doctrine of battered women syndrome'. It is that as she was continuously battered by her husband and that had sustained her in mind and that had provoked her to commit the killing. 19. 18. The English Court converted her sentence. The English Court evolved the 'doctrine of battered women syndrome'. It is that as she was continuously battered by her husband and that had sustained her in mind and that had provoked her to commit the killing. 19. But even before the English Judges, an Indian Judge, by name, Dr. Justice David Anusamy, in 1989, in re Suyambukkani [1989 L.W.(Crl) 86], under similar circumstances, propounded the 'doctrine of Nallathangal Syndrome' shaping the law relating to sustained provocation in Indian criminal law. Thus, on the aspect of law relating to sudden / sustained provocation, the Indian Criminal Law developed much earlier. But, the English Criminal Law picked up only later [see also Rajesh vs. State [2012 (2) L.W.(Crl) 689]. 20. Now, Kalyani the petitioner herein is almost akin to Khiranjit Ahluwalia of England. 21. But, we are not justifying her killing. We are not giving licence to wives to kill their erring husbands. Killing is a killing. On any account, a killing cannot be justified, a killer cannot be glorified. But it is important to note that at the time of committing the crime, the petitioner was not able to control her mind. Her mind was not under her control. Her mind was swayed by the continued barbarity perpetrated on her by her husband. Thus, Periyannan had contributed or supplied provocative circumstances for Kalyani to take the extreme decision. 22. We made the deliberations for the limited purpose of finding a prima facie case to consider her bail plea. 23. Investigation is pending. The case depends on the nature of the evidence to be collected that will be appreciated by the Trial Judge. 24. The occurrence was on 17.04.2014. The F.I.R. was lodged on 18.04.2014. The arrest of the accused was long after the occurrence. Major part of investigation was also over. She is in jail for more than 55 days. 25. Considering all the above aspects and the finer movements in Indian and English Criminal Law, I am inclined to grant her bail. 26. Ordered as under; (i) Bail granted; (ii) Two sureties, who shall execute a bond for Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) each for a like sum to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dharmapuri; (iii) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Monday and Friday at 10.30 a.m. until further orders.