The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt, the analysis of evidence, and the application of appropriate legal provisions based on the evidence presented.

1. The accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C.No.34 of 2006 decided by the Principal Sessions Judge, Theni were prosecuted in the said case for offences punishable under Sections 323 IPC and 306 IPC. At the conclusion of trial, the learned Principal Sessions Judge held them guilty of both the offences, convicted them for both the offences and sentenced them to undergo four years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-with a default sentence of six months simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC and imposed a fine of Rs.500/- with a default of sentence of three months simple imprisonment, without any substantive punishment for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC.

2. The judgment of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Theni dated 26.04.2007 is challenged by the appellants/accused in this criminal appeal both in respect of conviction and sentence.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:-

The second appellant/2nd accused-Mariyammal is the daughter of the 1st appellant/first accused-Kaliyammal. They are residing in Goodshed Street, Theni. There was a previous enmity between the appellants/accused on the one hand and the deceased on the other hand. On 15.07.2004 at about 07.00 a.m, the deceased Renganayagi was sweeping the vacant space on the backyard of her house. At that point of time, the appellants/accused picked up quarrel with her and abused her with filthy and unparliamentary words asking her how she could venture to claim the thorns put up by the appellants/accused to be that of the deceased. The appellants/accused also attempted to beat her with brooms, besides addressing the deceased in public that Kanchanayounger sister of the deceased was doing prostitution and the deceased was helping her in such prostitution. The appellants/accused also threw small branches of thorny pushes carrying the thorns and also bricks at the deceased. The same drove the deceased to commit suicide by self immolation, setting fire on herself after dousing her with kerosene. The fire was put out by P.W.1-Dhanam (the mother of the deceased) and P.W.2-Kanchana (the younger sister of the deceased). Though they made an attempt to save her life by getting her admitted in the hospital, she succumbed to the burns and thus the appellants/accused had committed offences punishable under Sections 323 IPC and 306 IPC. Based on the statement of the deceased given by her while she was given treatment in the hospital marked as Ex.P.1, a case was registered on the file of the Theni Police Station in Crime No.278 of 2004. The case was investigated by the police and a charge sheet was filed against the appellants/accused alleging commission of the above said offences by the appellants/accused. The case was initially committed to the Sessions Division and on the question of jurisdiction had been made over to the Mahila Court, Madurai in S.C.No.605 of 2005. After framing of charges again on the question of jurisdiction the case was transferred to the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Theni and renumbered as S.C.No.34 of 2006.When charges were framed and the accused were asked to make their plea, they denied having committed the offences, pleaded not guilty and wanted the case to be tried.

4. In the trial, 13 witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 13 and 20 documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to P20 besides producing M.Os.1 to 3, on the side of the prosecution in order to prove the charges against the appellants/accused. After giving an opportunity to the appellants/accused to explain the incriminating parts of the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution and recording the fact that the appellants/accused did not have any oral or documentary evidence, the learned trial Judge considered the evidence on record in the light of the arguments advanced on both sides and pronounced a judgment holding both the appellants/accused guilty of the offences with which they stood charg