ABETMENT

The offence of abetment comes under section 107 to 120 of the IPC. Section 107 defines

‘abetment of a thing’ and section l08 defines ‘abettor’.

A person abets the doing of a thing, who:

1. Instigates any person to do that thing, or

2. Engages in a conspiracy for the doing of that thing

3. Intentionally aids the doing of that thing

A. BY INSTIGATION ANY PERSON TO DO THAT THING:- According to the first

clause of section 107 a person is said to abet a thing when he instigates any person to do

that thing. A person is said to instigate another when he incites, urges, encourages,

provokes, counsels, procures or command him to do something.

EXPLANATION :- A person who by wilful misrepresentations or by wilful concealment of a

material fact, which he is bound to disclose, voluntary causes or procures or attempts to cause or

procures a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that things.

ILLUSTRATION:-

A Police 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.

CASE LAWS:
In Gurbachan Singh v. Sat Pal Singh, AIR 1990 A newly wedded girl died of burns. The

father of deceased had stated in FIR that the deceased committed suicide because of harassment

and constant taunt for insufficient dowry. It was held by the SC that the deceased had committed

suicide at the instigation of her husband and in laws and it was not a case of accidental death.

In Cyriac v. Sub Inspector of Police, Kaduthuruthy,  2005 Cr LJ 4322 the Kerala High Court

observed that a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage doing of

an act by the other by goading or urging forward. The deceased owed Rs. 200/- to the accused.

The accused persons cannot be said to have abetted deceased to commit suicide by merely telling

him in public “Why are you remaining as a burden to earth; why can’t you go and die” etc. This

is insulting and abusive but not abetment by instigation to commit suicide. “Words uttered in fits

of anger or emotion also, will not amount to abetment”

B. ABETMENT BY CONSPIRACY

The second clause of this section states that a person abets the doing of a thing who engages with

one or more other persons in conspiracy for the doing of that thing. If an act or illegal omission

takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy and in order to doing of that thing then it is called

abetment by conspiracy. If an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy.

ILLUSTRATION:-

A concerts with B a plans for poisoning Z. It is agreed that A shall administer the poison. B then

explains the plan to C mentioning that a third person is to administer the poison, but without

mentioning A’s name. C agrees to procure the poison and deliver it to B for the purpose
explained ‘A’ administers the poison and Z dies. Here A and C have not conspired together, yet

C has therefore committed the offence and is liable for punishment.

CASE LAWS:-

In Queen v. Mohil Pandey, (1871) 3 NWP 316 a married woman whose husband had died

prepared herself to commit suicide in presence of the accused persons who followed her to the

funeral pyre and remained there with her step-sons chanting ’Ram Ram’ and one of the accused

persons admitted that he had told the woman to say ’Ram Ram’ and she would become ’sati’. It

was held that since the above facts proved active connivance and unequivocal countenance of the

suicide by the accused person, all were liable for abetment by conspiracy to commit suicide

justifying the inference of an engagement on their part

In Rup Devi v. State, 1955 CriLJ 679 the deceased and his wife had strained relationship. The

wife had illicit intimacy with the accused. The deceased was scheduled to go to a ’sadhu’ on a

particular day. The wife told the accused about this programme of her husband even though she

knew that the accused was waiting for an opportunity to kill him. The accused ambushed and

killed him. It was held that on the basis of this much evidence the wife could not be held guilty

of abetment by conspiracy even though her conduct was open to censure. (Punished under

section 201 and not 302)

C. ABETMENT BY AIDING:

The third clause of the section says that,” A person abets the doing of thing who intentionally

aids by any act or illegal omission of the doing of that thing.

EXPLANATION:- 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 thereby facilitates the commission

thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.

ILLUSTRATION:- If the servant keeps the gate open of the master’s house so that thieves may

enter but the thieves do not come, he cannot be held to have abetted the commission of theft.

CASE LAWS:-

In Muthammal vs State of Bomaby,  AIR 1960 Bom 393, a priest, who officiated at a

bigamous marriage was held to have intentionally aided it but not the persons who were merely

present at the celebration or who permitted its celebration in their house, where such permission

affords no particular facility for the act.

In Ram Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1995 SC 1965 the 19 year old prosecutrix

was taken to the police station by the accused who kept a watch over her husband while she was

being raped by the co-accused. In this custodial rape the accused turned deaf ears towards the

cries of the prosecutrix and did nothing to help her. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of

the accused for abetment of rape.

In Trilochan Singh v. Karnail Singh, 1968 CriLJ 1199 the respondent was charged, inter alia,

with having entered into an agreement with two influential leaders of the Harijans that if the

Harijans voted for him he would donate a sum of Rs. 1500/- towards construction of a

‘dharmshala’ for them. The amount was paid on this understanding in presence of the accused

who was charged with the offence of abetment. The Punjab High Court held that the failure on

the part of the accused to inform the authorities about the transaction did not make him liable for

abetment by aiding as there was no legal obligation on him to inform the authorities about it and
not informing them, therefore, did not amount to illegal omission. The decision would remain the

same even if the accused had intentionally done so because even then it would not be an illegal

omission on his part.

WHO IS AN ABETTOR?- SECTON 108

A person can become an abettor in two ways:-

1. When he abets the commission of an offence

Example: Where he abets ‘B’ to commit murder of ‘Z’. Here A is an abettor.

2. When he abets the commission of an act which would be an offence if it is committed by

a person capable by law to commit an offence with the same intention or knowledge as

that of the abettor.

Example: “A” abets B, a five year old child, to commit murder of Z, he is still an abettor

under the 2nd category because even though the child will not be guilty of anything by

virtue of the protection given to him by section 82 of the IPC.

To define the abettor the explanation must be read as:-

EXLPLANATION No.1:- 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.

ILLUSTRATION: ‘A’ instigates B to murder C. B refuses to do so. A is guilty of abetting B to

commit murder.

EXPLANATION NO.2:- To constitute the offence of abetment it is not necessary that the act

abetted should be committed.

ILLUSTRATION: ‘A’ instigates B to Murder D. B in pursuance of the instigation stabs D. D

recovers from wound. A is guilty of instigation B to commit murder.

EXPLANATION NO. 3:- It is not necessary that the abettor & the person abetted must have

same guilty intention or knowledge.

ILLUSTRATION: ‘A’ with a guilty intention, abets a child or a lunatic to commit an act which

would be an offence if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence and

having the same intention as A. Here A, whether the act be committed or not is guilty of

abetting an offence.

EXPLANATION NO. 4:-The abetment of an offence being an offence the abetment of such an

abetment is also an offence.

ILLUSTRATION: ‘A‘ instigates B to instigate C to murder Z. B accordingly instigates C to

murder Z and C commits that offence in consequences of B’s instigation. B is liable to be

punished for his offence with the punishment for murder and as A instigated B to committed the

offence. A is liable to the same punishment.

EXPLANATION NO. 5: 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.

ILLUSTRATION: ‘ A’ concerts with B a plan of poisoning Z. It is agreed that A shall

administer the poison. B then explains the plan to C mentioning that a third person is to

administer the poison but without mentioning A’s name C agrees to procure the poison & deliver

lit to B the purpose of its being used in the matter explained. ‘A” administers the poison, Z dies

in consequence. Here though A and C have not conspired together, yet C has been engaged in the
conspiracy in pursuance of which Z had been murdered. C has therefore committed the offence

defined in the section and is liable to the punishment of murder.