Mr. M. Venugopal, J.

The Appellants/A1 and A2 have preferred the instant Criminal Appeal before this Court as against the Judgment dated 18.05.2015 in S.C.No.13 of 2013 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Mahila (Fast Track) Court, Udhagamandalam.

2. The Learned Sessions Judge, Mahila (Fast Track) Court, Udhagamandalam, while passing the impugned Judgment in S.C.No.13 of 2013 on 18.05.2015, at paragraph 23, had, inter alia, observed that '... Ex.P7 - Complaint was recorded in the presence of Kothagiri Government Hospital Doctor and that Dying Declaration - Ex.P5 was recorded by the Learned Judicial Magistrate at Coimbatore Government Hospital and based on these two documents, Loganayaki, who was studying in 12th standard, had loved Chandrasekar (P.W.10) and that the P.W.10's mother viz., the 1st Accused, Saraswathi (1st Appellant) and his Aunt, the 2nd Accused (2nd Appellant) had scolded Loganayaki (deceased) in harsh, unparliamentary words and also criminally intimidated because of which Loganayaki took kerosene from her house poured on her body and set fire to herself and prior to her death, she was in a conscious state and for setting fire to herself, she had categorically stated that the Accused were responsible for that and the same was proved etc. and resultantly, found the Appellants/A1 & A2 guilty in respect of the offences under Section 294(b), 506(i) and Section 306 I.P.C.

3. In fact, the trial Court had imposed a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each to the Appellants/A1 and A2 in respect of the offence under Section 294(b) I.P.C., in default of payment of the said fine amount, they were directed to undergo Simple Imprisonment of one month each and in respect of the offence under Section 506(i) I.P.C., they were imposed with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, they were directed to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month each. In so far as the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. is concerned, the trial Court had awarded a sentence of one year Rigorous Imprisonment each to the Appellants/A1 and A2 and also imposed with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of payment of said fine amount, they were directed to undergo three months Simple Imprisonment each. Further, the period already undergone by the Appellants/A1 & A2 from 29.12.2011 to 07.01.2012 was directed to be set off by the trial Court under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

4. Challenging the correctness and the legality of the Judgment of Conviction dated 18.05.2015 in S.C.No.13 of 2013 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Mahila (Fast Track) Court, Udhagamandalam, the Appellants/A1 & A2 have filed the instant Appeal by taking a plea that the trial Court had failed to consider that there were no independent witnesses available to convict the Appellants is clearly unsustainable in the eye of Law.

5. According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellant, P.W.1 (mother of deceased Loganayaki) had scolded her daughter Loganayaki (deceased) for the love affair, she had with the 1st Appellant/A1's son and although there were enough evidence in this regard, the trial Court had materially ignored the same.

6. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants projects an argument that Ex.P5 - Dying Declaration does not fulfil the ingredients of Sections 306 and 107 I.P.C. However, the trial Court had not considered the same in a proper and real perspective.

7. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants takes a stand that the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 were quite contrary to each other relating to the first occurrence.

8. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants strenuously submits that Ex.P5 (Dying Declaration - marked through P.W.6) does not say about any inducement or cruelty or abetment to suicide, except saying they scolded her and further, the Accused names were not mentioned and as such, Ex.P5 was not a reliable one.

9. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants brings it to the notice of this Court that the trial Court had failed to appreciate the evidence of D.W.1 to D.W.3, which ha