This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the conviction and sentence passed by the Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Track Court V, Tiruppur, in S.C.No.189 of 2011, by its judgment, dated 17.11.2011, convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentencing her to undergo the punishment of life imprisonment.

2. The brief facts of the case necessary for the disposal of the above Criminal Appeal are as follows :

2.1 The accused Madammal is the wife of the deceased Rajendran. They had three daughters and one son. Both the accused and the deceased had been working as construction workers. The deceased Rajendran is a drunkard. He used to come home drunk and beat up his wife Madammal, the accused herein. While so, on 11.9.2010, at about 4 p.m., the deceased Rajendran had attempted to assault the accused Madammal with a grinder stone. He had also abused her by stating that her character was in question. At about 5.00 p.m., while the deceased was in his house, at Door No.8/920, Mummurthy Nagar, the accused had beaten the deceased with a wooden log on his hands and legs and she had pushed him down on the floor, resulting in his death. Therefore, the accused Madammal had been charged for having committed the offence of murder, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. In order to prove the charges, on the side of the prosecution, 11 witnesses had been examined. 11 documents and one material object had been marked.

4. It is the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 that the deceased Rajendran and the accused Madammal, were living together in one of the three houses belonging to P.W.1, as tenants. P.W.1 is the landlord of the house in which the deceased and the accused were living together as tenants. He has stated that the accused and the deceased used to quarrel frequently. He has further stated that on 12.9.2010 at about 11.00 a.m. he came to know that the deceased was lying dead in his house. Then he went to the police station and made a complaint at 12.00 noon on 12.9.2010, upon which the present case was registered for an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. The complaint and the F.I.R. had reached the court at 7.40 p.m. on 12.9.2010.

5. P.W.2 had turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. P.W.3 has stated that on 12.9.2010 at about 10.00 a.m., the accused spoke to her over phone and wanted her to see whether her husband was sleeping in the house. He went to the house of the deceased and at that time the deceased was lying dead. This witness has not stated anything incriminating against the accused. P.W.4 has stated that on 11.9.2010 at 9.00 p.m., the accused came to her house and got the cell phone number and left. On the next day morning by 10.00 a.m., she spoke to her and wanted to know whether her husband was still sleeping. On the request made by P.W.4, her husband P.W.3 went to the house of the deceased and at that time he found the deceased dead. P.W.5 has spoken about the seizure mahazar and the rough sketch. P.W.6 has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. P.W.7 has stated that on the arrest of the accused, she gave a voluntary confession, based on which a wooden log was recovered. P.W.8 has spoken about the postmortem conducted and his final opinion regarding the cause of death. P.W.9 has stated that he took the dead body to the hospital and handed over the same to the Doctor for conducting postmortem. P.W.10 has spoken about the registration of the case and P.W.11 about the investigation done.

6. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused, under Section 313 Cr.P.C, she had denied the same as false. 8) On behalf of the accused, it had been pleaded that the accused, who is the wife of the deceased had nothing to do with the death of her husband, namely, Rajendran. The deceased had visited a liquor shop near the place of occurrence and after taking liquor he had