Hari Swarup, J. - (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. Accused Ali Husain took the defence that while he was returning from village Astpur with his bullocks he saw some women and men quarrelling among themselves and when he tried to intervene to settle their dispute, he was implicated in this offence. The prosecution, besides other witnesses, examined Smt. Jaiwanti. Both the courts below have believed her testimony and the testimony of other witnesses. Nothing has been shown on the basis of which it may be possible to hold that the view taken by the courts below about the participation of accused Ali Husain in the offence suffers from any error. Ali Husain had himself admitted his presence on the occasion. The only question remains about his participation. The testimony of Smt. Jaivanti and others is sufficient to prove his participation.
(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. The revision accordingly fails and is dismissed. The applicant is on bail; he shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence awarded to him. Revision dismissed.;