This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant/accused against the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Mahila Sessions Judge, Chennai in S.C.No.36 of 2013 dated 21.07.2014, in which, the Mahila Judge had convicted the appellant for the commission of offence under Section 306 of I.P.C. and sentenced her to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment.

2. The case of the prosecution is that one Vivek, who is the maternal grandson of the accused fallen in love with 15 years old girl by name Jessima, who is the deceased and daughter of the complainant and on 25.05.2012 at about 10.00 p.m., when Jessima was walking in the Muthiah Thotta street, the accused with an intention to insult her, scolded her with filthy language and induced her to commit suicide and since the minor girl Jessima was not able to bear the words uttered by the accused, poured kerosene, which was kept in her house on her and set fire as self immolation, as a result of which, she sustained burnt injuries and immediately, she was admitted in the Government Hospital, Royapettah, where, she died on 26.05.2012 at about 10.15 a.m. Therefore, a case was registered against the accused for the offence under Section 306 of I.P.C. by the respondent police in crime No.1039 of 2012.

3. After completion of investigation, the Inspector of Police, D3 Ice House Police Station, Chennai laid a charge sheet against the appellant before the learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, where the case was taken on file in P.R.C.No.330 of 2012 and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and the same was made over to the learned Mahila Sessions Judge, Chennai, where the case was taken on file in S.C.No.36 of 2013 and as prima facie case was found against the accused, she was charged for the commission of offence under Section 306 of I.P.C.

4. In order to prove the case of prosecution, on the side of prosecution, as many as 10 witnesses, P.W.1 to 10 were examined and Exs.P1 to 8 were marked. P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased and she has spoken about the complaint statement made before the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police. P.W.2 is the uncle of the deceased, who had admitted the deceased in the Government Hospital, Royapettah and spoken about the cause of the injuries sustained by the deceased. P.W.3 is the second husband of the complainant and P.W.4 is the mother of the complainant as well as the maternal grandmother of the deceased, who has spoken about the cause of injury sustained by the deceased. P.W.7 is the doctor, who gave treatment to the deceased and spoken about the A.R.Copy entry made in the G.H. Register and spoken about the condition of the deceased at that time, when she was admitted in the hospital. P.W.8 is the doctor, who has done postmortem and has spoken about the cause of the death. P.W.9 is the Special Sub Inspector of D3 Ice House Police Station and spoken about the registration of first information report and P.W.10 is the Inspector of Police, who investigated the matter and laid the charge sheet against the accused.

5. After examining the above said witnesses, the incriminating evidence as against the accused were put to her, for which, the accused denied the same as false and in order to disprove the case of prosecution, on the side of the accused, though D.W.1 was examined as defence witness, no document was marked.

6. The trial Court, after completion of trial, on the basis of oral and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution, found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 306 of I.P.C. and sentenced her as stated above. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction passed against the accused, the present appeal has been filed.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. There is no eye witness to prove that the accused scolded the deceased and due to that, she