R. P. GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19th March, 1991 passed by the Sessions Judge, Guna, in Sessions Trial No. 48/ 90. The appellants being father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased. Smt. Dropadi Bai alias Guddi have been convicted for having committed offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code in so far as they treated her with cruelty. Her husband, Jai Narayan and his brother Han Om were acquitted of all the charges, Even these two persons were acquitted of the charge under sections 304-B and 306 of IPC. The trial court has found that the girl Guddi alias Dropadi Bai who was wife of Jai Narayan get burnt accidentally, at least there is no evidence that she committed suicide. For this reason, the provisions of sections 304- Band 306 of the I. P. C. , were not attracted. The trial court, however, found that only the parents of Jai Narayan i. e. the appellants were responsible for cruel treatment of their daughter-in-law. Smt. Dropadi Bai. This allegation against Jai Narayan, husband of the deceased and Han Om was not found established. The trial court has found that there was no evidence of cruel treatment because of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. So, the allegation of demand of dowry was found to be not established beyond doubt. Another aspect of the matter is that the brother of the deceased made an allegation that the father-in-law and the mother-in-law i. e. , the appellants had made immoral or overtures towards his deceased sister in her life time but this part of the narration was an improvement over the police statement given by him under section 161 Cr. P. C. So this allegation was ignored. The facts found established regarding cruelty were that these accused generally harassed her and had been beating her i. e. , the deceased. Smt. Dropadi Bai before her death. She died within 5 to 6 years of her marriage with Jai Narayan. ( 2 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the appellant. I am satisfied with the finding recorded by the trial Court that these accused treated the deceased with cruelty in their capacity as father-in- law and mother-in-law of the deceased, Smt. Dropadi Bat alias Guddi. She died within 5 to 6 years of her marriage with Jai Narayan. ( 2 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the appellant. I am satisfied with the finding recorded by the trial Court that these accused treated the deceased with cruelty in their capacity as father-in- law and mother-in-law of the deceased, Smt. Dropadi Bat alias Guddi. They, thus are punishable under Section 498-A of I. P. C. This finding of the court below has not been seriously challenged by the learned counsel for the appellant before this Court. ( 3 ) AS regards sentence, the trial Court has awarded two years rigorous imprisonment to each of the appellants. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that both of the appellants/accused have been in custody for about four months before trial and during trial. It is argued that this is sufficient punishment for them. It has been stated that they have already paid the fine of Rs. 500/- each. ( 4 ) CONSIDERING all the aspects of the case. I deem it proper to tone down the punishment as under: (i) imprisonment for the offence under Section 498-A I. P. C. , is reduced to the period for which the accused/appellants have already been in custody; (ii) a fine of Rs. 3. 000/- to each of the accused/ appellants has been imposed; in default of payment of the fine, they have to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months each; (iii) the appellants/accused shall have to deposit the amount of fine within a period of one month from today; otherwise, they shall surrender before the trial court to undergo the jail sentence. (5) The trial court shall be intimated accordingly. Order accordingly. .