MUSSARAT BEGUM Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIR No. 422/87 had been registered at police station Seelampur under Section 498A/406/34 IPC on the complaint of Mussarat Begum against five persons namely her husband Mohd. Yunus, her father-in-law Sultan Ahmed, her mother-in-law Sugra Begum, her other relatives in-law i.e. Shamim Begum and Shabnam Begum.

(2.) Vide judgment dated 9.11.2001 accused Mohd. Yunus and Sultan Ahmed had been convicted under Sections 498A, 406/34 of the IPC; accused Sugra Begum had been convicted under Section 498A of the IPC; accused Shamim Begum and Shabnam Begum had been acquitted. Vide order of sentence dated 21.11.2001 considering their old age and their medical condition Sultan Ahmed and Sugra Begum had been granted the benefit of probation and had been released on probation on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of lis. 10,000 each with one surety of the like amount for a period of one year; they had been directed to pay Rs.2,000 each as costs of the proceedings. Convict Mohd. Yunus had been sentenced to undergo R1 for one year for the offence under Section 498A of the IPC and a fine of Rs.1,000, in default of payment of fine R1 for two months; for the offence under Sec-' tion 406 of the IPC he had been sentenced to undergo R1 for one year and fine of Rs.500, in default of payment of fine R1 for one month.

(3.) Present revision petition has been filed under Sections 397/401 of the IPC impugning the said order. It is submitted that the sentence awarded to the three convicts should be enhanced; Sultan Ahmed and Sugra Begum could not have been released on probation; jewellery articles of the complainant also be directed to be returned back to her.