JUDGMENT :

V. Bharathidasan, J.

The appellant, a sole accused, in S.C.No.220 of 2003, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli, stood charged and convicted for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo six months Rigorous Imprisonment. Challenging the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief as follows:

The deceased Priya @ Ruba, one year and three month old child, is the daughter of the appellant/accused. P.W.1 is the husband of the appellant/accused, and they are also having two other female children. P.W.1 was working as a driver and there were frequent quarrel between him and the appellant/accused. On 14.09.2002, there was a quarrel between the husband and wife, due to that, the appellant left P.W.1’s house along with the deceased child. On the next day, i.e., on 15.09.2002, P.W.1 was informed that a child was floating in a well belongs to P.W.4. P.W.1 went there and found that it is his child. Immediately, he informed the same to the appellant’s parental house at Pillayarpalayam, but nobody came there and the appellant also absconded. Thereafter, P.W.1 has given a complaint before the respondent police at about 11.00 a.m. on 15.09.2002.

3. Based on that complaint, a F.I.R. has been registered by P.W.10, Sub Inspector of Police in Crime No.401 of 2002 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and he has prepared the First Information Report (Ex.P.7), sent the same to the Judicial Magistrate at 11.30 a.m. He recovered the body of the deceased child and conducted inquest in the presence of Panchayatars, prepared Inquest Report (Ex.P.8) in the presence of P.W.7 and he has also prepared Observation Mahazar (Ex.P.2) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P.9). Then, he sent the body of the child for autopsy with a requisition (Ex.P.3) through P.W.11, a Head Constable, to Government Hospital at Thuraiyur.

4. P.W.9 is a Doctor, working at Government Hospital at Thuraiyur. He conducted autopsy and prepared post-mortem report (Ex.P.6). He gave his opinion that, the deceased would have died 16 to 20 hours prior to the autopsy and the deceased appeared to have died of asphyxia.

5. Subsequently, on 25.09.2002, the appellant appeared before P.W.12, Inspector of Police, and gave a confession, admitting her guilt. After recording her confession, P.W.12, altered the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and prepared Express Report (Ex.P.11) and sent the same to the concerned Judicial Magistrate and also higher officials. P.W.12 arrested the appellant and remanded her to judicial custody. Then, he examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and 8 and recorded their statements, thereafter, handed over the investigation to P.W.13 and he continued the investigation and recorded the statements of other witnesses and after completing the investigation, he filed the final report on 21.04.2003.

6. Considering the above materials, the trial Court framed charges for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and the accused denied the same as false. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses, marked 12 documents and also produced 6 material objects.

7. Out of the witnesses examined, P.W.1 is the husband of the appellant and father of the deceased. According to him, there was a quarrel between him and the appellant on 14.09.2002, and hence, the appellant left for parental house along with the deceased child. P.W.2 tried to pacify her, despite that, she left the matrimonial home. Thereafter, P.Ws.1 and 2 and others went to her parental house and brought her back. On the next day, on 15.09.2002, P.W.1 got an information that a child was floating in the well belongs to P.W.4 and he identified it as his third daughter Priya. Despite intimation given to appellant’s parents house, none of them came to the P.W.1’s village and the appellant also did not come. Thereafter, he appeared before the respon