Judgment :- 1. The revision petitioners herein are Accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C.No.188 of 2002 on the file of the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam. 2. Totally there are three accused in this case. All the three accused were charged for the offence under Sections 498-A and 304 (B) I.P.C. But, they were convicted only for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-each, in default, to undergo six months imprisonment each and they were acquitted for the offence under Section 304 (B) I.P.C. 3. Challenging that conviction and sentence, all the three accused preferred an appeal before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam, in C.A.No.52 of 2008. The learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam, acquitted the third accused from the charge under Section 498-A I.P.C. also and confirmed the conviction imposed on Accused No.1 and 2, but reduced the sentence of imprisonment from two years rigorous imprisonment to one year rigorous imprisonment. 4. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, Accused Nos.1 and 2 have preferred this criminal revision petition before this Court. 5. It is now brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Senior Counsel Mr.Chellaiah that both the petitioners / A.1 and A.2 served the sentence of imprisonment fully. Pending revision, the first petitioner / A.1 had died. The Sub Inspector of Police, Thittacherry filed a copy of the death certificate of the first petitioner/ A.1 and as per the death certificate, the first accused died on 9.2.2012. 6. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:-P.W.1 is the father of the deceased Priya. The marriage of the deceased was arranged with the third accused. Petitioners 1 and 2 / A.1 and A.2 are the parents of the third accused. The marriage was performed on 27.5.2001. At the time of marriage, 7 sovereigns of gold, cash of Rs.7,000/- and other articles were given as sridhana. After the marriage, the deceased was living with her husband. At that time, P.W.1, the father of the deceased was residing in Chennai. After marriage, the deceased did not come to Chennai. Even though a reception function was arranged in Chennai after the marriage, the accused did not send the deceased to Chennai. Therefore, the mother of the deceased consumed acid and died in the hospital. At that time, P.W.1, the father of the deceased was residing in Chennai. After marriage, the deceased did not come to Chennai. Even though a reception function was arranged in Chennai after the marriage, the accused did not send the deceased to Chennai. Therefore, the mother of the deceased consumed acid and died in the hospital. A telegram was sent to the accused about the same. The third accused and the daughter of P.W.1, the deceased Priya came to the place of P.W.1. At that time, as P.W.1 was not having money, the third accused handed over the chain of his wife to P.W.1 and it was pledged and an amount of Rs.6,000/-was obtained, which was spent for cremation expenses. Thereafter, the third accused and his wife returned to their house. When P.W.1 asked the accused to send his daughter for the month of Audi, the accused have refused to send her saying that the jewel which was pledged, had not been returned. They have tortured the deceased since the jewel was not redeemed by P.W.1 and did not hand over to the accused. Therefore, on 10.9.2001, the deceased had committed suicide by hanging. 7. Learned Senior Counsel Mr.A.E.Chelliah appearing for the second petitioner submitted that there is no material to show that the deceased was ill-treated by the accused and the trial Court having acquitted the third accused, erred in convicting the mother of the third accused relying on the same set of evidence. The only piece of evidence that P.W.1 did not redeem the jewel, which was pledged, and did not hand over to the accused, is not sufficient to convict the second petitioner / A.2, in the absence of any specific evidence that the deceased was ill-treated by her. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that even the evidence of P.W.2, who is the brother of P.W.1 does not speak about any cruelty and the evidence of P.W.4, who is an employee of P.W.2 also does not reveal about the deceased being subjected to cruelty by the accused. 8. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that even the evidence of P.W.2, who is the brother of P.W.1 does not speak about any cruelty and the evidence of P.W.4, who is an employee of P.W.2 also does not reveal about the deceased being subjected to cruelty by the accused. 8. Per contra, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that both P.W.1, the father of the deceased and P.W.2, the brother of P.W.1 have deposed that after the marriage, the deceased was not sent to the place of P.W.1, even for the marriage reception which was arranged by the parents of the deceased and the deceased was ill-treated for the reason that the jewel which was pledged by P.W.1 was not redeemed and was not returned to them. The petitioners / A.1 and A.2 were insisting for the return of the jewel and they have not sent the deceased to her parent's house even for the month of Audi. This deliberate act of the petitioners / A.1 and A.2 is ill-treatment to the deceased. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) further pointed out that P.W.4, in his evidence, has stated that he received a phone call from the deceased, who informed him that she was subjected to cruelty in the house of the accused. 9. This Court considered the submissions and perused the records. 10. Of course, it is not a case of dowry death. The petitioners / A.1 and A.2 were convicted only for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. The appellate Court acquitted the third accused, the husband of the deceased even from the charge under Section 498-A I.P.C. The question that now arises for consideration is, since the third accused / the husband of the deceased being acquitted from the charge under Section 498-A I.P.C., whether the mother of the third accused could be convicted for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. 11. It appears from the evidence that after the marriage, the deceased was not sent to her parent's house. She was prevented from going to her parent's house. Even though after the marriage, a marriage reception function was arranged by her parents, the deceased was not sent to their home. Hence, the mother of the deceased committed suicide by consuming acid. The third accused and the deceased had gone to the cremation of the mother of the deceased. She was prevented from going to her parent's house. Even though after the marriage, a marriage reception function was arranged by her parents, the deceased was not sent to their home. Hence, the mother of the deceased committed suicide by consuming acid. The third accused and the deceased had gone to the cremation of the mother of the deceased. It appears from the evidence that the petitioners / A.1 and A.2 did not go for the cremation. Therefore, it appears that the petitioners / A.1 and A.2 were stubborn in their attitude. The jewel which was given to the deceased at the time of marriage by her father, had been utilized for getting money for the cremation expenses. The said jewel had not been redeemed by P.W.1. In the said situation, the second petitioner / A.2 refused to send her daughter in law to her parent's house. It is the specific evidence of P.W.2 that when P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the house of the accused for taking the deceased to the house of P.W.1, the second petitioner / A.2 refused to send her stating that only if the jewel is returned, the deceased would be sent along with them. It is also the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that the deceased had informed them that she was subjected to ill-treatment as the jewel was not returned. Even P.W.4, who had no animosity against the accused, had deposed that he received a phone call from the deceased and she informed him that she was subjected to harassment. 12. Therefore, evidence is available to the extent that the deceased was subjected to harassment by the petitioners / A.1 and A.2 by making unlawful demand for return of the jewel. Hence, the conviction and sentence imposed on the second petitioner / A.2 are confirmed. 13. In fine, the criminal revision petition is dismissed. However, it appears that the second petitioner / A.2 had already undergone the sentence of imprisonment fully imposed on her. 14. Ms.B.Sujatha, Women Lawyer Association, Chennai was appointed as Legal Aide Counsel to defend the case of the petitioners. Since she did not appear for the petitioners, the Legal Aid Authority is directed to pay the remuneration to Mr.A.Annadurai, who was appointed by the Court as Legal Aid Counsel.