Abetment 107-120 IPC

(For B.A. LL.B 5th Sem 2020-25)

Anil K. Thakur Asst. Prof. Lloyd Law College
Last updated: Oct-Nov, 2022
 INTRODUCTION

• Chapter V (Of Abetment) of the IPC provides for the

law governing the liability of all those considered in
law to have abetted the commission of offences.
• Many crimes would be impossible but for support and
encouragement received from others, who, though
not actively co-operating in the crime, still prepare the
ground and facilitates its commission.
• The objective behind inclusion of Chapter relating to
Abetment was to punish all those who may have lent
their support and assistance to the commission of a
crime.
 MEANING OF ABETMENT
• Thus, any act of an individual, which aids, helps
or assists another to commit a crime, falls within
the offence of abetment.
• The term ‘abetment’, in criminal law, thus
indicates that there is a distinction between the
person abetting the commission of an offence
(or abettor) and the perpetrator of the offence
or the principal offender.

11/4/2022
 SCOPE OF ABETMENT
• A majority of crimes are committed by two or
more persons.
• In most such crimes, there sometimes exist
persons who by themselves may not participate
in the crime, but through other means, as
through instigation, or aid or extending help or
cooperation, enable the others to commit the
crime.
• These persons can be said to facilitate the
commission of the offence or crime.
 SCOPE OF ABETMENT
• As it is said, just as a man owning properties and
riches needs a sentinel to guard his properties,
so does a thief or a criminal need others to assist
him in the commission of an offence.
• This chapter of IPC covers the different ways in
which such assistance or abetment may be
provided such as to make them liable in criminal
law for punishment.

11/4/2022
 SCOPE OF ABETMENT
• James Stephen and Prof. Kenny have given the
term as "Inchoate crime. Inchoate crime means
incomplete crimes.
• The instance of inchoate crimes under Indian
Penal Code of 1860 are Abetment, Cr. Conspiracy
and Attempt.

11/4/2022
 Position in English Law
• At the very outset, it will be useful to compare and
contrast briefly the position in English lay as compared to
the Indian position.
• In English law, persons who themselves are not the main
offenders, but who assist or aid them, are known as
accessories.* English law recognizes three types of
accessories:
(1) Accessories before the fact;
(2) Accessories at the fact; and
(3) Accessories after the fact.
* For details see, Russell on Crime, AN Cecil Turner (ed), vol
1, 12th edn, Stevens & Sons London, 1964, p 131, et seq.
11/4/2022
 Position in English Law
• Further, when there are two or more parties to a crime,
then they are classed into:
• Principals in the First Degree, i.e. those who actually
commit the crime or offence with their own hands or
through innocent agent;
• Principals in the Second Degree, i.e. Those who are
present at the commission of the crime and extend aid
and assistance for its commission;
• Accessories before the fact, i.e., those who through not
present in the scene of occurrence or where the crime in
committed, counsel, procure or command another to
commit the crime; and
• Accessories after the fact, i.e. those who knowing that a
person has committed an offence knowingly receive,
relieve, comfort, harbour or assist him from escaping from
the clutches of law.
11/4/2022
 Principals in the First Degree
• Principals in the first degree are persons who
perpetrate a crime directly, i.e., through their
own hands or through an innocent agent, i.e., a
person, like a child below the age of discretion
or a person of unsound mind, who, by reason of
either immaturity of understanding or of
impairment of mind, is legally incompetent to
commit a crime.
• Thus, the presence of the principals in the first
degree at the occurrence of offences is not
essential.
11/4/2022
 Accessories at the fact
• Accessories at the fact are generally classified as
principals of the second degree, that is as alders
and abettors of the principal offender in the
commission of the offence, and who may be
actually or constructively present in the scene of
occurrence.
• They do not actually participate in commission
of the crime. But they remain present, actually
or constructively, at the occurrence of the crime
and thereby aid, assist, encourage or abet
commission of the crime.
11/4/2022
IPC does not expressly recognize such a
classification
• The distinction between principals in the first
degree and of the second degree is not so
crucial, as both are subjected to same
punishment.
• However, the IPC does not expressly recognize
such a classification of parties to a crime.
• Nevertheless: it seems that the classification of
parties and the consequential complicity of
parties were there in the mind of the authors of
the IPC.
 Indian Law on Abetment
• Principals in the second degree and accessories
at the fact are thus two classifications denoting
essentially the same type of offenders, and they
have been classed as abettors in this chapter.
• A distinction is however made as regards the
punishment that is liable to be inflicted on them
depending on the nature of participation, as for
example in Sec 144, IPC.
 Indian Law on Abetment
• The IPC makes separate provisions to cover the
liability of persons who, knowing well that a person
has committed a crime, nevertheless associated
with or extend help, assistance or aid to him to flee
from justice, as for example in Sec 136, 157, 201,
212, 216, 216A, 310, 411 and 412.
• Under the Indian Penal Code 1860, accessories after
the fact are known as ‘harbourers’.
• Section 52A defines the term harbour’ to include
‘supplying of shelter, food, drink, money, cloths,
arms, ammonization or means of conveyance, or
assisting of a person by any means, to evade
apprehension’.
 Abetment

Principal Offender Accessory

before at After
1st 2nd the the the
degree degree fact fact fact

Helping
after crime
Sec 34, 149 IPC may apply By By Sec. 136,
instigating engaging Aiding 157, 201,
in 212, 216,
conspiracy 216A, 221,
310, 411,
412
 Abetment under the Indian Penal Code
• The concept of abetment widens the horizons of
criminal law to incorporate these criminal intentions
and penalize them even when the person who
bought the knife did not actually kill anyone but
handed it over to someone else to do it.
• To explain the concept of abetment, the word ‘abet’
should be given a deep scrutiny.
• In general use, it means to aid, advance, assist, help
and promote.
• When the Abetment succeeds, both the abettor and
the doer are liable for the same offence.
 The chapter on abetment will be
examined in two parts.
• In the first portion- PART (A), we shall
examine the scope of sec 107 providing for
abetment and definition of abettor in sec 108.
• In the second part- PART (B) , we shall study
the provision proposing liability for abetment
in its various manifestations and results, and
the punishments imposed for the various
offences (sec 109-120).

11/4/2022
 PART (A)
ABETMENT & ABETTOR
Sec. 107-108 IPC

11/4/2022
 Section 107
• Abetment of a thing.- A Person abet the doing
of a thing, who-
• First - Instigates any person to do that thing; or
• Secondly - Engages with one or more other
person or persons in any conspiracy for the
doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission
takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and
in order to the doing of that thing; or
• Thirdly - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal
omission, the doing of that thing.
11/4/2022
 Explanation 1.
• Explanation 1. - A person, who by willful
misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a
material fact which he is bound to disclose,
voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause
or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate
the doing of that thing.
• Illustration
• A, a public officer, is authorized by a warrant from a
Court of Justice to apprehend Z.B., knowing that
fact and also that C is not Z, willfully represents to A
and C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to
apprehend C. Here B abets by instigating the
apprehension of C.
11/4/2022
 Explanation 2.

• Explanation 2.- Whoever, either prior to or at

the time of the commission of an act, does
anything in order to facilitate the commission of
that act, and thereby facilitates the commission
thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.

11/4/2022
 MEANING OF ABETMENT
• A person who does not himself commit a crime, may however
command, urge, encourage, induce, request, or help a third
person to bring it about and thereby be guilty of the offence of
abetment.
• The term ‘abet’ in general usage means to assist, advance, aid,
conduce, help and promote. In Corpus Juris Secundum*, the
meaning of the word 'abet' has been given as under: ‘To abet’
has been defined as meaning to aid; to assist to give aid; to
command, to procure, or to counsel, to countenance, to
encourage, counsel, induce, or assist, to encourage or to set
another on to commit (Kartar Singh v State of Punjab (1994)
Cr LJ 3139 (SC), para 62 )
• Corpus Juris Secundum is an encyclopedia of U.S. law
containing an alphabetical arrangement of legal topics as
developed by U.S. federal and state cases.

11/4/2022
Sanju vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2002) 5 SCC 371
• This case is one of the landmark cases of Abetment to
suicide.
• FACTS: there was a fight between the husband and wife. In
the heated arguments, the husband told the wife to “go
and die”. After two days, the wife committed suicide and
there was a dying declaration of the deceased.
• JUDGEMENT: mere pronouncing of the phrase “go and
die” does not amount to abetment in any form. The
element of mens rea has to be present necessarily.
Moreover, the suicide was committed two days after the
quarrel and hence this shows that the suicide was not the
direct result of the fight.
• Hence, this shows that the husband cannot be held liable
for the suicide of his wife under the section of abetment.
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994 Cri LJ 3319

• The definition of ‘abet’ as laid down, makes it

clear that abetment only occurs when there
are at least two person involved, which
further directs us towards
the arrangement and operation of the act.
 Meaning of Abetment
• A person abets the doing of a thing when-
(1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or
(2) engages with one or more other persons in
any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or
(3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission,
the doing of that thing,
three ways abetment can be done
• Broadly it can be said that the three
strategies of committing the crime
of Abetment are by-
• Instigating
• Engaging in conspiracy
• Intentional Aiding
a person abets the doing of a thing
• Thus, according to s 107, a person abets the
doing of a thing when he:
• 1. Instigates a person to commit an offence to
• 2. Engages with one or more persons in a
conspiracy to commit an offence; or
• 3. Intentionally aids a person by any act or
illegal omission to commit an offence or illegally
omits the doing of an act which would prevent
the commission of the offence.
11/4/2022
 IMPORTANT ELEMENT - MENS REA
• The essence of abetment is active and intentional
assistance of a person to the perpetrator of an offence.
• It is therefore essential to keep in mind when considering
the law relating to abetment is the requirement of mens
rea as a precondition for liability.
• As can be gauged from a plain reading of Sec 107,
instigation, engaging with another in a conspiracy to do a
thing or intentionally aiding another are all acts in which
the person abetting knowingly encourages or assists
another person in the commission of the offence.
• Thus, knowledge about the act and its effect is implicit in
the construction of the provision itself.

11/4/2022
Where strict liability exists in public welfare or social
legislations,
mens rea is not required for proving abetment
• The position is, however, different in the case of
offence where the statute itself provides that no
mens rea is required to make a person liable.
• Thus, for an act where the doing of an act itself
amounts to an offence, as for example, in the
sale of obscene books or other objects under
Sec 292, IPC, or where strict liability exists in
public welfare or social legislations, mens rea is
not required for proving abetment.

11/4/2022
 Instigating
• Instigating someone literally means to incite, provoke, urge or bring
about by persuasion to do anything.
• The word ‘instigate’ has been interpreted in the case of Sanju v. State of
M.P (2002) 5 SCC 371-
• One might argue that the actus reus and the mens reus do not merge to
a single person, therefore, abetment to do a thing should not be an
offence.
• In abetment by instigation, there has to be some active involvement of
the abettor towards the preparatory phase of the crime.
• This is broadly considered as the actus reus in the crime of abetment,
combined with the intention of getting something done or illegally
omitted would constitute a complete criminal offence.
• However, there needs to be sufficient proof that the individual has
willfully influenced and coerced the individual to commit a crime but at
the same time, it is not necessary for the person abetted to have the
same guilty intention or knowledge.
 Instigating
• The person abetted can totally have a different set of
intention and knowledge, still, the offence is committed
because the preparatory phase is being dealt with in
isolation to the execution phase. The entire liability of
the abettor is decided within the first two stages of the
crime.
• Now even if the execution gets a different result, the
crime has been committed. Advice amounts to
instigation only when intended to actively suggest or
stimulate the commission of an offence. Mere
acquiescence does not amount to instigation.
Commission of the offence is not necessary for the
first two clauses of Section 107
• Commission of the offence is not necessary for
the first two clauses of Section 107
• Faguna Kanto v. State of Assam, AIR 1959 SC
673-It is immaterial whether the person instigated
goes ahead to commit the crime or a group
conspiring together executes the object of the
conspiracy.
• Jamuna Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1967 SC 553-
When the alleged abettor has instigated another or
engaged with another in a conspiracy to commit an
offence, it is not necessary for the offence of
abetment that the act abetted must be committed.
Mere verbal permission or silent assent
would not constitute instigation
• If A tells B that he intends to loot a bank C, B
says do as you like, A succeeds in looting the bank
C, here B cannot be said to have instigated.
 Willful misrepresentation or Concealment is
sufficient to constitute abetment
(illustration of Explanation 1, Sec 107)
• Explanation 1.—A person who, by willful
misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of
a material fact which he is bound to disclose,
voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to
cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to
instigate the doing of that thing.
• Illustration- A, a public officer, is authorised by a
warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z,
B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z,
wilfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby
intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here B
abets by instigation the apprehension of C
illustration of Explanation 1, Sec 107
• The illustration appended to the explanation
reveals instigation by ‘wilful
misrepresentation’.
• Instigation by ‘wilful concealment’ refers to a
case where a person who is obliged to
disclose a fact keeps quite and thereby
renders, abets the commission of the act.

11/4/2022
 Ramrup v Crown AIR 1951 Cal 36
• What is crucial to note is that the illegal
omission should be of an act that the person is
in law expected to do.
• Thus, when the law imposes on a person a duty
to discharge, his illegal omission to act renders
him criminally liable.
• A lorry driver, who allowed a child to drive,
knowing the child did not know driving, resulting
in accident, it was held the driver abetted the
offence by illegal omission.
11/4/2022
 Whether there was instigation, is a question of fact.

• There needs to be a close causal connection

between instigation and the act committed.
• A person is said to instigate another to do a thing
when he actively suggests, stimulates, supports,
hints or insinuates the commission of the act.
• A mere association of the accused with the
perpetrator of an offence does not make him an
abettor unless it is proved that he instigated or had
intention either in aiding or in commission of the
offence.
• A person who is a silent spectator and rakes no
active part in the commission of offence is not
abettor.
11/4/2022
 Prem Narayan v/s State, AIR 1957 All 177
• It may, however, be kept in mind that there must
be reasonable certainty in understanding the
meaning of words used for incitement.
• Where a murderer was incited by these words,
"Mar do us ko, mauka achha hai, kya dekhat hai,
mar us ko" it was held that a charge of abetment
was sufficiently made out.
• Instigation can be made by letter or by
telephone provided contents are made known to
the addressee.
11/4/2022
 Direct or Indirect Instigation

• Where a person gives to an unlawful assembly a

general order to beat, it is a case of a direct
instigation.
• The instigation would be indirect when instead of
such an order a person raises a slogan “Cowards
die many times before their death, the valiant die
but once” will intend to provoke. This is direct
instigation whereas indirect instigation would be A
instigating B to commit a crime not by saying so
but by harping upon the wrongs he has suffered.
 Conduct amounting to Instigation in
Dowry Death Cases
• Protima Dutta v State of West Bengal
(1977) Cr LJ (NOC) 96 (Cal)
• Instigation as a form of abetment has generally been one
of the essential considerations in cases involving death of
young brides or women within seven years after
marriage, as a consequence of dowry harassment.
• In above said case a charge under s 306 read with s 34,
IPC, was laid against the mother-in-law of the deceased
and her husband of having abetted the commission of
suicide by instigating and inciting her to commit suicide.
• The evidence revealed many circumstances which
showed that the mother-in-law suggested to the
deceased by conduct, language and direct or indirect
expressions to commit suicide.
11/4/2022
Protima Dutta v State of West Bengal
(1977) Cr LJ (NOC) 96 (Cal)
• Although, it did not amount to express
solicitation, her cruel conduct towards the
deceased over the months made the deceased
suffer mentally.
• Therefore, the series of conduct amounting to
actively suggesting and stimulating the
deceased to commit suicide, it was held, clearly
amounted to instigation

11/4/2022
 Instigation in Dowry Death Cases
• In the context of bride-burning and dowry related
deaths, s 306 which provides for abetment of
suicide, is often pressed into service.
• Here too, abetment is in terms of promoting,
encouraging and thereby instigating suicides.
• A plethora of cases exists on this aspect. It will
suffice to cite but a few* in which it has been
held that the conduct of the husband and his
relatives in creating such a miserable situation to
evolve in which the deceased has no other
recourse than to commit suicide, in fact, amounts
to abetment by instigation.
• *For example see State of Punjab v lqbal Singh
AIR 1991 SC 1532 and Pawan Kumar v State of
Haryana AIR 1998 SC 958
11/4/2022
K Prema S Rao & Anr v Yadla Sriniuasa Rao & Ors
AIR 2003 SC 11, (2003)
• In this case the Supreme Court held that a
continued and persistent demand, associated
with physical torture and harassment, by a
husband of a deceased wife for transfer of a piece
of land given to the latter by her father as
stridhan amounts to abetment by willful conduct
to commit suicide under Sec 306 of the IPC.
• It also further ruled that failure to frame a charge
under Sec 306 does not preclude a court from
convicting a person there under if facts narrated
in the statement of charges reveal all the
necessary and constituting ingredients of Sec
306.
11/4/2022
 Recent Developments
• Let us look at some of the recent developments
regarding Abetment to Suicide which put forth the
ingredients of the offence as well.
• M. Mohan v. State 2011(3) SCC 626 - Proving
the direct involvement by the accused in such
abetment to suicide cases is necessary.
• However, abetment of suicide is a long mental
process and rarely easy to prove. A conviction
cannot be handed over under 306 unless clear
mens rea is proved. The elements that need to
be satisfied in order for an offence to come
under section 306 IPC are suicidal death, and
abetment thereof held in Sangarabonia Sreenu
v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1997 SC 3233
 Recent Developments
• Clear mens rea to commit the offence is a sine qua
non for conviction under Section 306 IPC
• Channu v. State of Chattisgarh, 2017 SCC OnLine
Chh. 1234 - Merely because wife committed suicide
in matrimonial house, husband and in-laws can’t be
charged for abetment to suicide.
• Gurucharan Singh v. State of Punjab, 2016 SCC
OnLine SC 1415 - In order to convict a person for
abetment of suicide, there has to be a clear mens
rea to commit an offence.
Abetment By Engaging in a Conspiracy
• Conspiracy and abetment by conspiracy are
distinct offences.
• The sections 120A and 107 of the Indian Penal
Code dealing with the offences of conspiracy
have clearly stated the difference between the
two.
 In order to constitute abetment by
conspiracy four things are essential:
• (a) there must be at least two persons,
• (b) they must ‘engage’ in the commission of an
act,
• (c) some act or omission must take place in
pursuance of that conspiracy, and
• (d) that act or omission must have taken place
‘in order to the doing of that thing’.
• All these elements must combine to constitute
abetment by conspiracy.
11/4/2022
Noor Mohammad Momin v. State of Maharashtra
AIR 1971 SC 885
• The case shows the difference between
criminal conspiracy and abetment by
conspiracy. Criminal conspiracy has a wider
jurisdiction than abetment by a conspiracy.
• An individual is guilty of conspiracy with the
mere agreement between a group of people to
commit an offence.
• Criminal conspiracy is somewhat wider in
amplitude than abetment by conspiracy
Noor Mohammad Momin v. State of Maharashtra
• In this case, Noor Mohammad Momin was accused under
Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code for abetting other
three accused persons for committing the murder of
Mohd Nahya for the right to passage and the right to tap
water.
• The question before the court was that whether the
accused that is Noor Mohammad Mominis liable under
Section 109 of IPC or not.
• In this landmark case, the Hon`ble Apex court held that
the ambit of Section 120A i.e., criminal conspiracy is
wider than the section under abetment. It covers wider
amplitude of illegal commission or omission of an act.
• Moreover, it was also held that the presence of abettor-
accused is not always necessary for abetment by
conspiracy.
11/4/2022
 Abetment by Conspiracy
• Under Abetment by Conspiracy a mere combination of
person or agreement is not enough, an act or illegal
omission must also take place in pursuance of the
conspiracy and the act or illegal omission must also be
done in order to the doing of the thing agreed upon
between them.
• Explanation 2 of Section 107 has to be read together with
Explanation 5 of section 108, which provides that it is not
necessary to the commission of the offence of abetment
by conspiracy that the abettor should concert the offence
with the person who commits it.
• It would be sufficient if he engages in the conspiracy in
pursuance of which the offence is committed.
 107 vs. 120-A IPC
• It has been held in State Of Bihar vs Srilal Kejriwal And
Ors AIR 1960 Pat 459 that where a criminal conspiracy
amounts to an abetment under Section 107, it is
unnecessary to invoke the provisions of Section 120A and
120B, as the Indian Penal Code makes specific provision
for the punishment of such a conspiracy.
• A, a servant enters into an agreement with thieves to
keep the door of his master’s house open in the night so
that they might commit theft. A, according to the agreed
plan keeps the doors open and the thieves take away the
master’s property. A is guilty of abetment by the
conspiracy for the offence of theft. But should the thieves
not come; A will not be liable under section 107. But it
will be covered u/s 120A.
 Intentional Aiding
• A person is said to abet the commission of an offence if he
intentionally renders assistance or gives aid by doing an act or
omitting to do an act. Mere intention to render assistance is not
sufficient.
• Ingredients
1. Doing an act that directly assists the commission of the crime, or
2. Illegal omission of a duty you are bound to do, or
3. Doing any act facilitates the commission of a crime.
• For instance, two factory workers begin quarrelling and the owner
in a fit of anger shouts that if he had a weapon he would teach
them a lesson. Now, if another labourer in the factory on hearing
this hands him a weapon and the owner subsequently injures them
with it, the labourer who supplied the weapon which facilitated the
act is guilty of abetment through assistance.
 Merely being present at the crime scene does
not amount to aiding
• Unless the intention was to have an effect by
being present or the person was aware that an
offence is about to be committed or he
actively supports or holds some position, rank
in committing of the offence.
 act must have been done
• It is clear from explanation 2 that in order to attract
thirdly of Sec 107, the act must have been done for one
cannot be held to have aided the doing of a thing when
the thing has not been done at all!
• For example, if a servant has kept open the gate of his
master’s house with a view to facilitate the entry of
thieves, he cannot be held guilty of the offence of
probable theft by others.
• But if the servant, after having opened the door had
invited the thieves to enter the house, he is guilty of
abetment in so far as he had encouraged them by his
conduct to Commit theft
• So also accomplices standing at a distance to help thieves
in conveying the property stolen are abettors, even if they
took no part in theft and were standing at a distance.
11/4/2022
 Facilitating the Commission of a Crime
• In Ram Kumar v State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR
1995 SC 1965 the Supreme Court considered the
case of a constable who dragged a young newly
married 19 year old girl and her husband from the
latter's brother’s house.
• In the police station, the Head Constable took the
girl to a room, repeatedly beat her and committed
rape on her, while another constable kept watch
outside holding the hapless husband, who was
helplessly hearing the frantic screams of his wife.
• The Supreme Court held that the constable, who
kept watch on the husband, by his conduct, had
facilitated and thereby abetted rape.
11/4/2022
 Abetment by Aiding and
Corruption Cases
• In Central Bureau of Investigation v VC Shukla & Ors, AIR 1998
SC 1406 otherwise known as the Hawala case or the Jain Diary
case involving allegation of large scale bribes paid by an
industrialist family to prominent politicians of different parties,
the charges framed against two politicians, LK Advani and VC
Shukla, were quashed by the Delhi High Court
• The CBI filed appeals against the same before the Supreme
Court.
• One of the issues was the question of abetment of the Jain
brothers (who were alleged to have paid bribe amounts) of the
crime.
• The Supreme Court held that the appropriate provision
covering the offence was the thirdly of Sec 107, and held:

11/4/2022
 Central Bureau of Investigation v
VC Shukla & Ors, AIR 1998 SC 1406
• It is thus clear that under the third clause when a person
abets by aiding, the act so aided should have been
committed in order to make such aiding an offence. In
other words, unlike the first two clauses, the third clause
applies to a case where the offence is committed.
• However, since the Supreme Court had already reached
a conclusion that there was no prima facie cases to
prove that Advani and Shukla were parties to the
conspiracies or of having committed an offence under
Sec 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 (PC Act),
the question of the Jains having committed an offence
under Sec 12 of that Act (which is the relevant section
providing for abetment of offences under the PC Act)
does not arise.
11/4/2022
When Principal Offender is acquitted in a Case
Involving Charge of Abetting by Aiding
• In Trilok Chand Jain v State of Delhi, AIR 1977 SC
666; see also, Mahendra Singh Chotelal Bhargad
v State of Maharashtra AIR 1988 SC 601
• the Supreme Court was considering the case of a
person accused of abetting the principal
offender, an inspector in the Delhi Electricity
Supply Undertaking, of receiving a sum of money
as bribe for providing electricity connection to
the complainant.
11/4/2022
 Trilok Chand Jain v State of Delhi,
AIR 1977 SC 666
• However, when the principal offender himself had been
acquitted and exonerated by the trial court of committing
the offending act, then nothing survived of the charge as
there was no evidence that the appellant, a lower cadre
employee, had demanded money.
• It was the particular case of the prosecution that it was the
inspector who had demanded money.
• Thus, the accusation of the prosecution that the money
was demanded by the appellant labourer for himself (ns
the principal offender had been acquitted) was held to be
unsustainable and the person was acquitted.
• When the principal offender himself was acquitted, then it
was held that the person accused of aiding could not be
convicted.
11/4/2022
 Effect of Acquittal of Person
Committing the Offence on Abettor
• In Jamuna Singh v State of Bihar AIR 1967 SC 553 , the
Supreme Court considered the issue of Jamuna Singh,
accused of instigating another person to set fire to the hut
of another, thereby committing an offence under Sec 436
read with Sec 109, IPC.
• However, the but was set on fire not by the person
instigated but another. Further, the Patna High Court had
acquitted Jodha Singh, the person who allegedly set fire to
the hut.
• In considering the challenge to the continued conviction of
the appellant as the main person himself had been
acquitted, the Supreme Court, after a detailed
consideration of the case law

11/4/2022
 Jamuna Singh v State of Bihar
AIR 1967 SC 553
• SC held: It cannot be held in law that a person cannot ever be
convicted of abetting a certain offence when the person
alleged to have committed that offence in consequence of the
abetment has been acquitted.
• The question of the abettors guilt depends on the nature of
the act abetted and the manner in which the abetment was
made.
• The offence of abetment is complete when the alleged
abettor has instigated another or engaged with another in a
conspiracy to commit the offence. It is not necessary for the
offence of abetment that the act abetted must be committed,
it is only in the case of a person abetting an offence by
intentionally aiding another to commit that offence that the
charge of abetment against him would be expected to fail
when the person alleged to have committed the offence is
acquitted of that offence.
11/4/2022
 Jamuna Singh v State of Bihar
AIR 1967 SC 553
• In this case, the conviction of the accused
Jamuna Singh was altered from one under Sec
436 read with Sec 109, IPC, to offence under
Sec 436 read with Sec 115; IPC.
• Since the latter offence prescribed a lower
sentence, the sentence of eight years’ rigorous
imprisonment for offence under Sec 436 read
with Sec 109, IPC, was reduced to four years.

11/4/2022
 Madan Raj Bhandari v State of
Rajasthan AIR 1970 SC 436
• In Madan Raj Bhandari v State of Rajasthan
wherein the appellant, who was charged with
having abetted with another in causing
miscarriage to a woman, was convicted even
though the woman was acquitted, the Supreme
Court, relying upon the Faguna Kanta’s Case,
reiterated that ‘a charge of abetment fails
ordinarily when the substantive offence is not
established against the principal offender’.
11/4/2022
 Sunder v State of U.P.
(1995) Cr LI 3481 (All)
• In the Allahabad High Court has ruled that only
the charge of abetment by intentional aid fails
when the person alleged to have committed that
offence is acquitted of that offence.
• Conviction of the alleged abettors accused of
abetment by aiding cannot obviously sustain as it
postulates commission of the principal offence. If
the perpetrator commits no offence, the aiding
by another person, apparently becomes
impossible.
11/4/2022
When Substantive Offence is not Established

• When the substantive offence is not

established and the principal offender is
acquitted, then generally the abettor cannot
be held guilty.
• In other words, when the substantive charge
fails, then the charge of abetment also fails.

11/4/2022
 Supreme Court rulings
• A line of Supreme Court rulings from Faguna
Kanta Nath v State of Assam, AIR 1959 SC 673 ,
Jamuna Singh v State of Bihar, AIR 1967 SC 533
to Madan Raj Bhandari v State of Rajasthan, AIR
1970 SC 436 was considered by the Supreme
Court in Haratihan Chakrabarty v Union of India
AIR 1956 SC 33 in which the appellant was
convicted for having abetted, with his superior
army officer, theft of 250 wheel drums.
• The officer, who was the principal offender, and
eight others who were accused of abetting him,
were acquitted.

11/4/2022
 Haratihan Chakrabarty v Union of India
AIR 1956 SC 33
• Therefore, Haradhan Chakrabarty sought acquittal of the
offence of abetment. The court, acquitting the petitioner,
held:
• ...Unless the substantive offence against the principal
offender is established, the question of the abettor being
held guilty (under these circumstances) does not arise.
The petitioner is alleged to have entered into a
conspiracy along with eight others and abetted the
commission of the offence.
• All the other alleged abettors are acquitted and the
principal offender... is also acquitted. And the petitioner
alone remains in the picture as one having abetted the
offence by entering into conspiracy. It is axiomatic that
there cannot be a conspiracy of one.
11/4/2022
 What follows after this
• Having examined the scope of the provision of
abetment in Sec 107, IPC, which stipulates
abetment to commit a thing, we will examine
Sec 108 which defines abettors in relation to
‘offences’ they abet.

11/4/2022
 Section 108
•Who is an Abettor?
 Abettor:
• The first thing which comes to mind about this
section is why at all a definition of ‘abettor’
because the Indian Penal Code gives
definitions of various crimes only and the
definitions of perpetrators of those crimes are
not needed.
• For instance, definitions of theft, murder etc.
are given but definitions of theft, murderer,
etc. are not needed because one who
commits theft is a thief or one who commits
murder is a murderer, and so on.
 Abettor
• Therefore, when definition of abetment has
been given where is the need to define
abettor because one who abets should be an
abettor.
• At the outset, therefore, it seems that a
definition of ‘abettor’ should be unnecessary.
• But a careful reading of section 107 leads to
the conclusion that such is not the case.
• The reason is that section 107 defines
‘abetment of a thing’ and not ‘abetment of an
offence’
 Why A Separate Definition ?
• There may be many abetments of things which
cannot lead to criminal liability because criminal
liability accrues only when a crime is committed
and all abetments of things can obviously not be
abetments of crimes.
• Therefore, whenever an abetment of a thing will
lead to criminal liability had to be stated.
• What kind of abetment will bear liability has been
done by incorporating the definition of ‘abettor’
who is criminally liable.
• That is the reason as to why a separate definition
of ‘abettor’ had to be given in the form of a
separate section 108.
 two ways
• There can be two ways by which a person can
become an abettor according to this section
• firstly, when he abets the commission of an
offence, or
• secondly, when he abets the commission of an
act which would be an offence, if committed by a
person capable by law of committing an offence
with the same intention or knowledge as that of
the abettor.
• An abettor may be either instigator, or a
conspirator, or helper in commission of a crime as
defined in section 107.
 Explanation 1
• According to the first explanation the abetment of the
illegal omission of an act may amount to an offence
although the abettor may not himself be bound to do that
act.
• For instance, a husband is legally bound to provide food to
his wife. He fails to do so and, therefore, it is an illegal
omission on his part. If a person abets the husband for
committing such illegal omission, he is liable as an abettor
even though he, not being the husband of that woman, is
not bound to provide food to her.
• Similarly, a public servant has certain duty to perform. He
makes a breach of the same which naturally is an illegal
omission on his part. Where a person abets him to commit
such an illegal omission, he becomes liable as an abettor
even though not being a public servant he is not bound to
do that act.
 Explanation 2
• The second explanation states that to constitute the offence of
abetment it is not necessary that the act abetted should be
committed or that the effect requisite to constitute the
offence should be caused.
• This explanation shows that the effect of an abetment is
immaterial. In other words, abetment in itself is a crime. The
two illustrations given under this explanation explain the point
clearly.
• For example, A instigates B to murder C and B refuses to do
so, A will be guilty of abetment to commit murder.
• Similarly, on A's instigation B stabs C to kill him but C recovers
as the wound was not sufficient to cause death. A is guilty to
abet B for committing the murder.
• Thus the offence of abetment is complete whether act
abetted is done or not.
 Explanation 3
• According to the third explanation it is not necessary that the person
abetted should be capable by law of committing an offence, or that he
should have the same guilty intention of knowledge as that of the
abettor, or any guilty intention or knowledge. The legal status of the
person abetted has no bearing on the liability of the abettor.
• Therefore, even if the person abetted is incapable by law of committing
an offence, the abettor is liable for the abetment of the offence.
• Similarly, it is not necessary that the abettor and the person abetted
must have same guilty intention or knowledge, or the person abetted
may have any guilty intention or knowledge at all.
• For instance, the person abetted may not be guilty at all for the act he
does in furtherance of the abetment because some defence like
mistake of fact, unsoundness of mind or infancy etc. is available to him,
but that does not change the liability of the abettor. The four
illustrations under this explanation explain the point clearly but they are
not meant to be exhaustive.
 Explanation 4
• This explanation says that the abetment of an offence being an
offence, the abetment of such an abetment is also an offence.
Thus abetment of an abetment is also punishable.
• In view of this explanation, abetment of an abetment of an
abetment an offence is itself punishable. The first line of
explanation postulates that abetment of an offence itself is a
substantive offence and second line clarifies that abetment to
commit abetment of an offence is also an offence.
• Abetment of an abetment is an offence even though the second
abetment is ineffective.
• Therefore, it is an offence like any other offence such as murder,
theft etc., and since abetment of an offence is an offence,
abetment of such an abetment is also an offence.
• For instance for example, A, instigates B to instigate C to murder
D, B does so and C murders D in consequence thereof. Here A and
B both are equally liable to be punished.
 Explanation 5
• This fifth explanation is applicable only to the offence of
abetment by conspiracy. It states that it is not necessary to
the commission of the offence of abetment by conspiracy
that the abettor should concert the offence with the
person who commits it.
• It is sufficient if he engages in the conspiracy in pursuance
of which the offence is committed. The explanation
emphasises that for abetment by conspiracy the important
thing is engagement between persons and not concert
between them.
• The illustration very aptly points out as to what is meant
by engagement. In it С procures the poison and delivers it
to В with full knowledge that the same would be used for
an unlawful purpose. Even though С does not know the full
details to be liable for the offence of criminal conspiracy,
he is liable for abetment by conspiracy to murder as he has
sufficiently engaged himself in this crime.
 Is attempt of abetment of an offence possible?
• Since abetment of an offence is an offence, an attempt of
abetment of an offence is also possible.
• For instance, A instigates В by a letter to commit murder of
X. The letter never reaches B, or if it does reach В but В does
not read it. A is guilty of attempt to commit abetment of
murder.
• Similarly, A instigates В by telephone to commit murder of
X” but the telephone becomes dead at B’s side without A
knowing about it, A is guilty of attempt to commit abetment
of murder.
• Yet again, if A instigates B, a deaf person, to commit murder
of X without A knowing that В cannot hear, A is guilty of
attempt to commit abetment of murder.
• In R v Ransford (1874) 13 Cox 9, the accused wrote a letter
to X to commit a crime. X did not read the letter. The
accused was held guilty of attempting to incite X to commit
the crime.
 Abetment in India of offences
outside India:
• Section 108A puts abetment of offences to be
committed outside India on the same footing as the
abetment of offences to be committed in India.
• Under this section, although the offence abetted
may be committed outside India, the abetment
itself must be committed in India.
• Illustration: A, in India, instigates B, a foreigner in
Nepal, to commit a murder in Nepal. A is guilty of
abetting murder.
11/4/2022
 PART (B)
Punishment for Abetment
Sec. 109-120 IPC
Overview of the Provisions

11/4/2022
 Sections 109 to 120
• Provisions for the punishment of the different
kinds of abetment are contained in Sections
109 to 120.
• These are different amplifications of Sections
107 & 108.

11/4/2022
 Sec 109 IPC
• Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is
committed in consequence and where no express
provision is made for its punishment: the following
things are required:
• (a) there must be abetment of an offence,
• (b) the act abetted must have been committed in
consequence of the abetment, and
• (c) there must be no express provision in the Code
for punishment of such abetment.
• (d) such abettor shall be punished with the
punishment provided for the offence.
• Illustration: A offers a bribe to B, a public servant, as
reward for showing A some favour in exercise of B’s
official functions. B accepts the bribe. A has abetted
the offence defined in section 161, IPC.
11/4/2022
 Section 109
• Thus, where specific provision has been made in
the IPC, providing for punishment in cases of
abetment, in those case Sec. 109 will not
operate.
• Therefore, Sec. 109 will not apply for the
following sections where specific provisions for
punishments have been made :-
• Sections 121-130 :-Abetting the Waging of War.
• Sections 131-135 and 138:- Abetting Mutiny or
Attempting to Seduce a soldier, etc.
11/4/2022
 identity of intention
• Section 109 meets the situation when there was
identity of intention between the abettor, and
theperson abetted committing the act, and the
act was committed as it was abetted, then the
liability of the abettor and the principal offender
is equal.
• A complete identity of intention and act
committed may not always be possible and
there may exist variation or difference between
the intention and the actual act committed, and
its different combinations.
11/4/2022
 Sections 110-120
• If the act abetted is committed & where no express provision
is made punishment of abetment, Section 109 will apply
• If, intention is different Section 110 will apply.
• Sections 111 to 113 deal with aggravated acts
• If, act is different Section 111 will be applicable
• If, if the act abetted is done along with another act which is the
probable consequence of abetment, liable for two offences,
cumulative punishments, Section 112 will apply
• If, effect is different Section 113 will be applicable
• If, abetment + presence of the abettor on the spot = Actual
Offence Section 114 will be covered the situation.
• Where no offence is committed, Sections 115 & 116 will be
applied as per the situation.
• Sections 118 – 120 penalize for a variety of ways in which an
offence is facilitated by concealing the design or intention to
commit such offences.
11/4/2022
 Sections 34 and 114
• Both the sections are not punitive but they
state a principle of criminal liability.
• In Section 34, the act is required to be done by
all in furtherance of common intention whereas
under Section 114, the abettor simply remains
present and does not commit the offence with
his own hands.
• There need not be any abetment under Section
34 and there need not be any common
intention in the case under Section 114.
11/4/2022
 Sec 117
• The offence u/s 117 is an aggravated form of
abetment and refers to offences abetted by
the public generally.
• It provides punishment for abetment of an
offence by the public or by any member or
class of persons exceeding ten.
• If abetment is made to public in general or to
a class of persons exceeding ten the abettor
shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description not extending to 3 years with or
without fine.
11/4/2022
inprotected.com