JUDGMENT

M. Karpagavinayagam, J. - Mahendran, the son and Endammal, the mother, were convicted for the offences under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and under Sections 498-A and 304-B of I.P.C. and each sen-tenced to undergo R.I. for ten years. Challenging the same, they have filed this appeal.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

“(a) The deceased Velumani got married to the first appellant Mahendran in the year 1984. Dr. Natarajan, P.W.1 is her brother working as a pro-fessor in a Government College. At the time of marriage, 20 sovereigns of gold jewels and other articles were provided as Seervarisai to her. Out of the wedlock, a female child was born.

(b) The deceased Velumani was staying with her husband, the first appellant as well as with her mother-in-law, the second appellant and father-in -law. Not satisfied with the dowry already provided, the appellants harassed the deceased asking her to get some more jewel and also to get a Moped from her parents. At the request of the deceased, P.W. 1 and his parents gave some more jewels and also money for purchase of Moped.

(c) Even then, the torture conti-nued demanding more money and jewels. Unable