JUDGMENT
Iqbal Ahmad, J.
1. The applicant, Nazir Ahmad, was convicted under Section 330 read with Section 114, I.P.C. by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Pilibhit and was sentenced to six months’ rigorous imprisonment and was further ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 500.
2. The case against him was that when Nisar Husain, Rahim Baksh and Nishana were maltreating the complainant Dori for the purpose of committing extortion, he tacitly, if not actively instigated the commission of the offence by those persons, by expressing approval of their conduct in maltreating a tenant and by suggesting that the tenants having lost their heads, they should be given a sound beating. The point argued before me by the learned Counsel for the applicant is that the facts disclosed by the evidence of the prosecution witnesses with regard to the part taken by Nazir Ahmad do not constitute the offence of which he has been convicted. It is argued that, the remark of Nazir Ahmad to the effect, that tenants ought to be beaten, was a mere expression of an opinion approving the actions of the persons who were actually engaged in beating Dori and did not in any sense amount to an instigation by him for the commission of the offence of extortion. I find myself unable to agree with this contention. It has been found by the learned Sessions Judge that blows were inflicted after Nazir Ahmad made the remarks noted above. As was observed in the case of Raghunath Das v. King-Emperor [1920] 5 Pat. L.J. 129.
instigation necessarily connotes some active suggestion, or support or stimulation to the commission of the act itself.
3. I am not, after hearing the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, relating to the part played by Nazir Ahmad, and after going through the observations of the learned Sessions Judge on this point, prepared to hold that the learned Sessions Judge was wrong in coming to the conclusion that by the remarks that Nazir Ahmad made on that particular occasion he did not stimulate the commission of the offence by the applicants in the connected case, and as such the conviction of Nazir Ahmad must stand.
4. But at the same time I cannot overlook the fact that It is only technically that Nazir Ahmad is being held guilty of the offence for which he has been convicted. There is nothing to show, that when he uttered the remarks noted in the judgment of the Court below, he ever intended thereby to induce Nisar Husain and others to further beat the complainant. In this view, I think that a sentence of one month’s rigorous imprisonment would meet the ends of justice in this case. Accordingly I reduce the sentence passed on Nazir Ahmad from six months’ rigorous imprisonment to one month’s rigorous imprisonment. The fine imposed on Nazir Ahmad, if paid, will be refunded to him.
