Iqbal Ahmed Ansari, J.

"All anger is not sinful, because some degree of it, and on some occasions, is inevitable. But it becomes sinful and contradicts the rule of Scripture, when it is conceived upon slight and inadequate provocation, and when it continues long."

Wilson Mizner, American playwright

1. Manju Lakra, the appellant in the present appeal, is one of those Indian housewives, who confront and suffer, day in and day out, unprovoked acts of domestic violence; but, on one occasion, the violence boomeranged and devoured the perpetrator, her husband, Bhadra Lakra.

Tried and convicted for the offence of murder, the appellant, Manju Lakra, stands before us posing a question whether her act was sinful or was she just a victim of the circumstances?

His appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 29.06.2007, passed by the learned Sessions Judge (FTC), Biswanath Chariali, in Sessions Case No. 115 of 2006, convicting the accused-appellant, Smti. Manju Lakra, under Sections 302 IPC and sentencing her to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months.

2. The case of the prosecution, as emerged at the trial, may, in brief, be described as under:

(i) Deceased Bhadra Lakra was the husband of the accused Smti Manju Lakra. The couple resided with their children in one of the labour quarters of Gahpur Tea Estate. Deceased Bhadra Lakra was in the habit of coming home in drunken state at night and beat his wife.

(ii) On 22.01.2006, Bhadra Lakra came home, as usual, in drunken state and started beating his wife, i.e., the accused. As a result of the beating, the accused sustained injuries on her head and also on her eyes. Failing to bear, any longer, the regular beating at the hands of her husband, the accused snatched away the piece of wood with which the accused was beating her, and, by means of the said piece of wood, the accused hit her husband on his legs, head, neck, chest and the abdominal area. As the husband of the accused was drunk, he could not get up on being so assaulted by his wife and, by 5.00 a.m., on 23.01.2006, he succumbed to his injuries.

(iii) Leaving her husband dead at their residential quarter, the accused went to Gahpur Police Station and informed the police about the death of her husband. The oral information, so given by the accused, was recorded, at the said police station, in the form of General Diary Entry No. 539, dated 23.01.2006. Upon making the General Diary, the Investigating Officer (PW5), who was, at the relevant point of time, Officer-in-Charge of the said police station, came to the place of occurrence and held inquest over the said dead body, which was also subjected to post mortem examination.

(iv) On being shown by the accused, the Investigating Officer seized a wooden stick (lathi), as the weapon of offence, by Seizure List (Ext.8). Thereafter, the accused, on being produced before a Judicial Magistrate, made a judicial confession, which was accordingly recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. This apart, on 23.01.2006, when the villagers came to know about the death of Bhadra Lakra, Rajesh Ekka, one of the co-villagers of the said deceased, informed the police by lodging an Ejahar, in writing. On an Ejahar having been so lodged regarding the occurrence, Gahpur Police Station Case No. 17 of 2006 was registered, under Section 302 IPC, against the accused, treating formally, the said Ejahar (Ext.7) as First Information Report (in short, FIR). In course of time, on completion of investigation, police laid charge-sheet, under Sections 302 IPC against the accused.

3. At the trial, when a charge, under Section 302 IPC, was framed against the accused, she pleaded not guilty thereto.

4. In support of their case, prosecution examined as many as 5 (five) witnesses. The Court also examined, as a Court Witness, the Judicial Magistrate, who had recorded the judicial confession of the accused. The accused w