ALI HUSAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed by the applicant against his conviction under section 394 I.P.C. and sentence of one year's rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-awarded to him for the offence.

(2.) THE applicant was charged for having committed robbery along with two other accused. THE case for the prosecution, in brief, was that in the night between 7/8-5-1970 Smt. Jaivanti along with his mother-in-law had gone out of the house to answer a call of nature. While she was returning the three accused surrounded her. Accused Ali Husain, the present applicant flashed his torch, accused Rajendra grappled her and accused Happu started giving her lathi blows. Ali Husain continued to flash the torch on her while Rajendra snatched away her ornaments. On alarm being raised by her, witnesses appeared and recognised the miscreants. A First Information Report was lodged and the three acgused were prosecuted.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant has further contended that even if the evidence be believed, the applicant cannot be held guilty of committing offence under section 394 I. P. C. The contention is that he had only flashed the torch and had not actually robbed the woman. Even a person who lends support to the offenders by his presence and makes possible the commission of an act has to be held guilty. In the present case Ali Husain had performed even an overt act and that act was of importance in the commission of the robbery; he had flashed the torch, created light and facilitated the commission of the offence. He had surrounded the woman at the time of the commission of the crime and had continued to flash the torch and it was in its light that the woman was robbed. The part played by him was thus an important part in the commission of the crime. The conviction of the applicant cannot, therefore, be held to be erroneous. The sentence awarded can also not be said to be excessive.