“DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY”

“SABBAVARAM,
VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P.” INDIA

PROJECT TITLE
LAW OF ABETMENT IN INDIA- A LEGAL STUDY

SUBJECT- IPC
FACULTY- DR. KATARI SRINIVASA RAO

ANUPRIYA DASILA
20LLB014
3RD SEMESTER

“
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT”
“I would sincerely like to thank our IPC teacher, Mr. Dr. Katari Srinivasa Rao Sir, for allowing
me the privilege to work on this topic, and for helping me and guiding me when necessary. I
have collected information and compiled it here to the best of my knowledge”

Throughout recorded history, the need for military manpower has challenged
Throughout recorded history, the need for military manpower has challenged
Throughout recorded history, the need for military manpower has challenged
Throughout recorded history, the need for military manpower has challenged
“
 CONTENTS

Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………..……….4
Synopsis…………………………………………………………………………...………..…….5
Abetment of a thing (section 7)......................................................................................................9

Abetment is constituted by:............................................................................................................9

Ingredients of abetment-...............................................................................................................10

Abetment by Instigation................................................................................................................11

Willful misrepresentation or Concealment-..................................................................................13

Abetment by Conspiracy -............................................................................................................14

Abetment by Aid...........................................................................................................................15

Abetment in India of Offences Outside India...............................................................................17

Punishment for Abetment under section 110 -.............................................................................17

Liability of Abettor When Different Act is Done.........................................................................18

Abetting Commission of Offence by Public.................................................................................19

Quantum of Punishment...............................................................................................................20

Penalty In Case of Abetment by Concealment.............................................................................20

Faguna Kanta Nath v State of Assam 26......................................................................................21

Criminal Conspiracy –..................................................................................................................21

Punishment of criminal conspiracy (120B)..................................................................................21

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………..………………..23
Bibliography……………………………………………………………………….
…………….24
 ABSTRACT

Law keeps a check on human behaviour. It categorizes them into criminal and non-criminal
behaviours. However, every non-criminal behaviour even something as simple as buying a knife
for your kitchen becomes criminal when there are criminal intentions behind it.
In common parlance, the word ‘abet’ signifies help, co-activity and support and incorporates
within its ambit, illegitimate reason to commit the crime. Provoking, encouraging and aiding
anyone for doing any criminal act which is punishable by law is known as abetment. This article
talks about chapter V of Indian Penal Code, 1860 i.e Abetment. Criminal Law in itself is very
clear while imparting any kind of punishment and holding anyone liable under any kind of
offences.
Chapter V of Indian Penal Code, 1860 is the first offence which starts in Indian Penal Code,
1860 stating that the mastermind behind the commission of offence should not be set free on the
mere ground that the actusrea has not been done by the person behind the offence committed or
yet to be committed. The concept of abetment has widens the scope of criminal law to
incorporate these criminal intension and penalize them according to the provision laid down
under chapter V of Indian Penal Code, 1860.So as to bring an individual abetting the doing of a
thing under any of the conditions specified under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, it isn’t
just important to demonstrate that the individual who has abetted has participated in the means
of the transactions yet additionally has been associated with those means of the transaction
which are criminal. 
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.
 SYPNOSIS
INTRODUCTION
A person is liable as an abettor under the Penal Code if he instigates another to commit a crime,
or if he engages in a conspiracy with another to commit a crime and some act is done in support
of such conspiracy, or if he willfully aids another to enable the commission of a crime. In
general, the term 'abet' means to help, advance, aid, conduce, and promote. The word 'abet' has
been described as meaning to help; to assist or give assistance; to order, procure, or counsel; to
countenance; to urge; induce, or assist in encouraging or setting another to commit.

OBJECTIVE OF STUDY
 Meaning of Abetment, and its respective sections in Indian Penal Code.

 Study and analyze the application of concepts in various case laws.

SCOPE OF STUDY
Study would cover the meaning, sections and application through case laws of Abetment.

SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY
This study would help us to understand the meaning of Abetment, with the sections of IPC and
application of case laws.

LITERATURE REVIEW
The researcher has taken information from various books, journals and web sources.
Web Sources:
www.manupatra.com
SCC-Online
Book:
Criminology, Victimology and Penology by Ahamad Siddique [ EBC Reader]

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The study is a doctrinal study and the method of citation is OSCOLA

TYPES OF RESEARCH
The research is a basic research.
RESEARCH QUESTION
Whether or not the respective sections of Indian Penal Code for Abetment has been clearly
applied in case law?
 MEANING OF ABETMENT
Under the Penal Code a person becomes liable as an abettor if he instigates another to commit
a crime, or engages in a conspiracy with another to commit a crime and some act is done in
furtherance of such conspiracy or if he intentionally aids another in order to facilitate the
commission of a crime. The term 'abet' in general usage means to assist, advance, aid, conduce,
help and promote. The word 'abet' has been defined as meaning to aid; to assist or to give aid;
to command, to procure, or to counsel; to countenance; to encourage; induce, or assist, to
encourage or to set another one to commit

The term 'abetment' in criminal law indicates that there is a distinction between the person
abetting the commission of an offence (or abettor) and the actual perpetrator of the offence or
the principal offence or the principal offender. Chapter V of the IPC on 'Abetment' provides for
the law covering the responsibility of all those considered in law to have abetted the
commission of offence. The chapter on abetment contains 15 sections. Section 107 which
defines abetment generally speaks of three kinds of abetment, viz., abetment by instigation,
abetment by conspiracy and abetment by aid. Section 108 explains as to when an abetment of
an offence takes place, and S. 108-A provides for the case of abetments-in India of an offence
committed in a foreign country. Section 109 prescribes the punishment for the offence of
abetment when the offence abetted is committed, while S. 110 prescribes the punishment for
abetment where the person abetted commits the act with a different intention or knowledge
from that of the abettor. Section 111 provides for cases of abetment resulting in a different
offence but which is a probable consequence thereof. Section 112 provides for cumulative
punishment in cases covered by S. 111. Section 113 which is supplementary to S. 111 provides
for punishment in cases where the act abetted causes a different effect from that intended by
the abettor. Section 114 provides for cases where the abettor is present at the time of the
offence, and makes him liable for the main offence and not merely as an abettor. Sections 115
and 116 prescribe for the punishment in cases where the offence abetted is not committed.
Section 117 deals with abetment of offences by the public generally or large groups of persons.
Section 118 prescribes the penalty for concealing the existence of a design in another to
commit a grave offence. Sections 119 and 120 provide for punishment in the case of public
servants and others respectively for concealment of a design in another person to commit the
offence not covered by S. 118.

'To abet' has been defined as meaning to aid; to assist or to give aid; to command, to procure
 ,to counsel; to countenance; to encourage, counsel, induce, or assist; to encourage or to set
another on to commit.

Used with 'aid' - The word 'abet' is generally used with the word 'aid' and similar words. In
order to bring a person abetting the doing of a thing, under any one of the clauses enumerated
under Section 107, it is not only necessary to prove that the person who has abetted has taken
part in the steps Of the transactions but also in some way or other, he has been connected with
those steps of the transactions which are criminal. The offence of abetment depends upon the
intention of the person who abets, and not upon the act which is actually done by the person
whom he abets.2
Abetment of a thing (section 107)
Firstly. - 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 thing;
Explanation 1.—A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by wilful 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.
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.

For the purposes of the first two clauses of this section, it is immaterial whether the person
instigated commits the offence or not, or the persons conspiring together actually carry out
the Object of the conspiracy. 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 .

Abetment is constituted by:

(l) instigating a person to commit an offence; or
(2) engaging in a conspiracy to commit it; or
(3) Intentionally aiding a person to commit it.

2
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab,AIR 1994 Cri LJ 3139;
Ingredients of abetment-

To constitute abetment or in order that a person may be convicted as an accomplice, it is not

necessary that the perpetrator should have been brought to trial or convicted, or even that his
identity should be known, but it is necessary for the prosecution to prove:
(a) that the accused aided, abetted, counselled or procured the commission of the principal
offence

(b) That he had the intent to aid or encourage its commission. 3

Characteristics of abetment– Following are the characteristics of abetment

1)- “Abetment is a substantive offence abetment is a substantive offence therefore the fact
that a principal cannot be brought to trial does not prevent a charge of abetment against
abettor.

2)-Abettor may be convicted for separate offence. The fact that his abettor found guilty of
abetting an offence of manslaughter does not prevent principal offender from being guilty of
murder

3)- Actual knowledge or intention necessary in order to constitute abetment intention is

necessary the person having no knowledge of fraud could not have intended to aid the
commission of an offence under section 406.”4

Offence punishable with imprisonment under section 120 if offence is punishable with
imprisonment only and the offence is committed to punishment that imprisonment that may
extend to one fourth provided for the offence with or without fine and if offence is not
committed that imprisonment may extend the n eight of the longest term provided for the
offence with or without fine.

Mens rea - ln order to proceed against a person for criminal offence under Section 107,
prosecution must prove the element of mens rea. Negligence or carelessness or the facilitation
cannot be termed to be abetment so as to punish the guilty as per the provision of penal laws.

3
Cross and jones , introduction to criminal law , 9th Edn. Para 19.4 p. 387
4
Available at http://enotes.com.pk/definition-of-abetment-and-abettor/ (last accessed 17-august-2017)
In order to constitute abetment, the abettor must be shown to have 'intentionally' aided to
commission of the crime. Mere proof, that the crime charged could not have been committed
without involvement and or interposition of the alleged abettor is not enough compliance
with the requirements of Section 107. It is not enough that an act on the part of the alleged
abettor happens to facilitate the commission of the crime. Intentional aiding and therefore
active complicity is the gist of the offence of abetment under the third paragraph of Section
107.5

Principle of constructive liability - Principle of constructive liability which is also

know is rule of joint liability according to which if two or more person committed and
offence jointly in furtherance of common intention each one of them would be held liable for
it as if he had done it individually liability for abetment is determined under the is principle
i.e. the punishment of abetment is determined keeping this principle on view since in
abetment the mens rea of one person has translated in the actus reus of another.6

Abetment by Instigation
Abetment by instigation: The word 'instigate' literally means to goad, urge forward, provoke,
incite, or encourage to do an act and a person is said to instigate another when he actively
suggests or stimulates him to the act by any means, or language, direct or indirect, whether it
take the form of express solicitation or of hints, insinuation or encouragement or a wilful
misrepresentation or wilful concealment of a material fact. It is not necessary that express
words should be used to indicate what should be done by the person to whom the directions
are given.7 While there has to be a reasonable certainty in regard to the meaning of the word
s used in order to decide whether there was incitement, it is not necessary in law to prove the
actual words used.8 Advice amounts to instigation only when intended to actively suggest or
stimulate the commission of an offence. Mere acquiescence does not amount to instigation.
Thus the word denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or unadvisable action or to
stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of
instigation. It is common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or in a spur of the
moment cannot

5
Shri ram v. state of U.P. , AIR 1975 SC 175
6
Available at http://enotes.com.pk/definition-of-abetment-and-abettor/ (last accessed 17-august-2017)
7
(1977) 81 Cal W N 713 (723): 1977 Cri LJ (NOC) 96 (DB).
8
AIR 1957 All 177 (183): 1957 Cri LJ 337 (DB)
be taken to be uttered with mens rea required to constitute instigation as they are uttered in a
fit of anger and emotional state.910

So, Instigation to commit an offence is an act of inciting or urging or prompting a man to do a

thing prohibited by law. An act, in order to be called instigation requires that some active role
must be played by the abettor. Mere acquiescence or silence does not amount to instigation.
For example, A says to B, 'I am going to stab C.' B replies, 'You may do as you wish and take
the consequences.' A goes and stabs C. B cannot be said to have instigated A to stab C.

There might be occasions when the approval of an act leads to an instigation in the particular
circumstances of the case. In Queen v Mohit,10 it was held that the persons who followed a
woman preparing herself for sati to the pyre, and chanted 'Rama Rama,' were guilty of
abetment by instigation to lead that woman to commit suicide. The very fact that such
persons approved of the woman's act by participating in the procession gave encouragement
to the woman to commit suicide.

Instigation may also take place by wilful misrepresentation or by wilful concealment of a

material fact which a man is bound to disclose. A, a public officer, is authorized by a warrant
from a court of law to arrest Z. B knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, wilfully
represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally caused A to apprehend C. Here, B abets
by instigation the arrest of C. B knowing the fact that C is not Z, wilfully misrepresented the
public officer to believe a thing which was false.11

Mere acquiescence, silent assent or verbal permission would not constitute instigation -
“A tells B that he intends to murder C, B says do as you like, A kills C, here B cannot be said
to have instigated.
Reason- it was meant actively to suggest or stimulate the commission of an offence.

9
Swamy Prahaladdas v. State ofM.P. & Am.,AIR 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 438; Mahendra Singh v. State ofM.P.,
AIR 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 731
10
NWP 316
11
I.P.C. 1860 , s 107
Willful misrepresentation or Concealment-
Explanation I of section 107 of IPC says that instigation may be constituted of willful
misrepresentation or willful concealment of a material fact by one who is bound to disclose
it.

Instigation by Letter- Instigation may be direct or it may be by a letter. Where A writes a

letter to B instigating thereby to murder C, the offence of abatement by instigation is
completed as soon as the contents of the letter become know to B. if the letter never reaches
B, it is only an attempt to abet but not abatement.”12

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. 13 Iqbal
Singh's case was referred to and relied upon by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Ram
Kumar
v. State of MP14, which considered the case of suicide committed by a woman who was
married for twenty years during which her husband continuously treated her cruelly and
demanded divorce. The husband had been convicted by the trial court for abetting the suicide
under S. 306, IPC and sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs 1000.
The high court held that while asking for divorce by itself cannot be called provocation to
commit suicide, it is the cruelty and the overall atmosphere created by cruelties precedent and
antecedent of such demands of divorce, which are material and which had the effect of
leading the deceased person to take poison to end her life. The word 'instigate', it was held,
should not be given restricted meaning to actual words spoken, but ought to be given a wider
meaning commensurate with the 'ordinary experiences of life'. While every case has to be
examined against the specific circumstances and facts of that case, in the present case, it was
the cruel conduct of the accused husband which provoked his wife to commit suicide. Hence,
he was rightly convicted of abetment to commit suicide under S. 306 IPC, and the sentence
was not interfered with.

12
Available at http://likemindness.blogspot.in/2010/11/abatement-under-indian-penal-code.html (last accessed
17 -august- 2017)
13
e State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh, AIR 1991 SC 153 14
1998 Cri LJ 952, para 28 at 959.
Abetment by Conspiracy -
A person is said to abet the commission of an offence by conspiracy if he enters into an
agreement with one or more persons to do a legal act by illegal means, or to do an illegal act,
and some act is done in pursuance thereof. For instance, A, a servant enters into an agreement
with thieves to keep the doors 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 his master's property. A is guilty of abetment by conspiracy for the offence of theft.

Abetment and Conspiracy - Difference - Criminal conspiracy postulates an

agreement between two or more persons to do, or cause to be done, an illegal act or an act
which is not illegal, by illegal, means. It differs from other offences because mere agreement
is made an offence, even if no step is taken to carry out that agreement. Though there is close
association of conspiracy with incitement and abetment, the substantive offence of criminal
conspiracy is somewhat wider in amplitude than abetment by conspiracy as contemplated
under Section 107 1.P.C.14There is no analogy between Section 120B and Section 109 of the
Indian Penal Code. There may be an element of abetment in a conspiracy; but conspiracy is
something more than an abetment. Offences created by Sections 109, and 120B I.P.C. are
quite distinct and there is no warrant for limiting the prosecution to only one element of
conspiracy, that is abetment when the allegation is that, what a person did was something
over and above that.15

Conspiracy consists, in a combination and agreement by persons, to do some illegal act or

effect a legal purpose by illegal means. So long as such a design rests in intention only, it is
not indictable. When two parties agree to carry it into effect, the very plot is an act in itself,
and the act of each of the parties, promise against promise, actus contra actum, capable of
being enforced, if lawful, punishable, if for a criminal object or for the use of criminal means.
And so far as proof goes, conspiracy is generally a matter of inference, deduced from certain
criminal acts of the parties accused, done in pursuance of an apparent criminal purpose in
common between them. In order to constitute the offence of abetment by conspiracy, there

14
Noor Mohammad . Yusuf Momin V. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1971 SC 885
15
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Kandimalla Subbaiah , AIR 1961 SC 1241
must be a combining together of two or more persons in the conspiracy and an act, or illegal
omission, must take place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that
thing.16

It is not necessary 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. Where parties concert together, and have a common object, the act of one of the
parties done in furtherance of the common object and in pursuance of the concerted plan, is
the act of all. Where an offence is committed in conspiracy, it is optional for the prosecution
to proceed either under Section 107, penal Code, for abetment of the offence by conspiracy,
or under Section 120-B of the said Code.86 Conspiracy 87 In terrorist and abetment however
are distinct offences. Conspiracy is something more than abetment.in terrorist attack on
Parliament, the accused was a party to the conspiracy, as he had taken active part in the series
of steps taken to pursue the objective of conspiracy. Death sentence for the offence of
abetting the waging of war was held to be justified. 17

Abetment by Aid
“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 prohibited by law. Mere intention to
render assistance is not sufficient.
There must be some active conduct on the part of the abettor and the act must accomplished
in pursuance thereof .A incites B to kill C by uttering the words maro-maro and D puts the
knife in B’s hand. Here, both A and D are guilty of abetting the offence of murder one by
instigation and the other by aiding to commit the offence.
Aid may be given both by an act of commission as well as by an act omission. For instance, if
a police officer keeps himself away illegal place knowing that certain persons were likely to
be tortured for the Of extorting confession, he is liable for abetting the offence of extortion 18
by an act of omission.”19

16
Kali Munda v. King Emperor , 28 Cal 797
17
State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot sandhu ,AIR 2005 CrLj 3950 (SC)

19
KD GAUR , Criminal Law : Cases and Materials , Lexis Nexis , Gurgaon , 2009
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. There must be some active conduct on the part of the abettor and the act must be
accomplished in pursuance thereof. Aid may be given both by an act of commission as well
as by an act of illegal ommission. For instance, if a police officer knowing that certain
persons were likely to be tortured for the purposes of extorting confession, keeps himself
away from the place, he is liable for abetment to the offence of extortion by an act of
omission.20 a) The act or omission which constitutes the aid must have been done
intentionally (48 b). The aid must have been given either prior to or at the time of the
commission of the offence abetted.

It was held that unless it is shown that the commission of the crime was not possible without
the specific aid rendered by a person, he would not be liable for an offence under this section.
2321
Aiding and abetting of an offence are different from actual participation in a crime. Hence,
where the accused have been charged with actual participation in a crime but are only found
to have aided and abetted the commission of the crime, they cannot be convicted of the crime
charged. However, insignificant the aid may be, it would be abetment if it was given with the
requisite intention or knowledge. The test is not to determine whether the offence would or
would not have been committed if the aid had not been given but whether the act was
committed with the aid of the abettor in question.22

Abettor(section 108) - A person abets an offence, who abets either commission of an

offence, or 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.

Explanation l-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.

20
Faguna Kama Nath v. State of Assam, AIR 1959 SC 673
21
Cri LJ 1378 (1380, 1381) (Delhi).
22
AIR 1966 Bom 393 (395, 396): 1960 Cri LJ 1189; AIR 1934 Rang 30 (31)
Explanation 2.-To constitute 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. 23

Explanation 3-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 or knowledge as that
of the abettor or any guilty intention or knowledge.

Explanation 4-The abetment of an offence being an offence, the abetment of such an

abetment is also an offence.

Explanation 5-It is not necessary to the commission of the offence of abetment by

conspiracy that the abettor should concert the off with the person who commits it. It is
sufficient if he engages in conspiracy in pursuance of which the offence is committed.

Abetment in India of Offences Outside India

Section 108A is, in substance, another explanation of what constitutes abetment. The section
states that a person would be guilty of an abetment, if he abets the commission of an act
outside India, which if done in India would constitute an offence. A, in India, instigates B, a
foreigner in Nepal, to commit murder in Nepal. A is guilty of abetting murder, since A would
have been liable for abetting murder, had the person abetted been in India.

PUNISHMENT FOR ABETMENT - Sections 109 to 120 of the Indian Penal Code
prescribe certain rules as to punishment for different kinds of abetment. Sections 109 and 110
prescribe punishment of abetment, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of abetment,
whereas S. 115 and 116 provide for punishment where the offence is not committed in
consequence of the abetment. Sections 109 and 110 provide for punishment in cases in which
the act done is the act abetted.

Punishment for Abetment under section 110 -

Section 110 makes an abettor liable for the act abetted in the same manner and to the same
extent, even if the person abetted does the act with a different intention from that of the
abettor.
23
Kehar singh v Delhi Administration AIR 1988 SC 1883
The variation between the intention and knowledge of the abettor and the person abetted is
immaterial so long as the act done is the same as the act abetted.
For example, A, intending to cause a theft to be committed, instigates B to take property
belonging to Z out of Z's possession. A induces B to believe that the property belongs to A. B
takes the property out of Z's possession, in good faith believing it to be A's property. Since B
was acting under misconception fact and had no dishonest intention, he is not liable for theft,
but A Guilty of abetting theft, and is liable to the same punishment as if B had committed
theft.

Liability of Abettor When Different Act is Done

Section 111 holds the abettor liable when the act done is different from the act abetted. The
section enunciates the principle of constructive liability. As the person abetted is working as
an agent of the principal, the abettor is responsible in law for his deeds. The liability of the
abettor under this section is based on the well-established principle of criminal law that 'every
man is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequence of his act'. A natural and
probable consequence of an act is one which is likely or which can reasonably be expected to
follow from such an act.
An abettor is liable for the act he abets and not for any other act that might have been
committed by the persons employed for the purpose.

Section 111 and 113 provide two exceptions to this general rule. section 111 extends the
liability of an abettor in respect to an act done which was not contemplated for by the
abettor provided, the act done was the probable consequence of the act abetted .
An act is said to be the probable consequence of another act, if it can be expected to take
place from such an act. A instigates a child to poison into the food of Z and gives him poison,
the child in consequence of the instigation by mistake puts the poison into the food of y who
is sitting by the side of Z Since the child was acting under the influence of A's instigation,
and the act done was under the circumstances—
A probable consequence of the abetment, A is liable in the same manner and to the same
extent as if A had instigated the child to put the poison into the food of Y.
However, an unusual consequence, which could not be expected to ensue as a result of an act,
cannot be said to be the probable consequence of an act of abetment. For instance, A
instigates B to burn Z’s house. B sets fire to the house and at the same time, B commits theft
of property.
A, though guilty of abetting the burning of the house, is not guilty of abetting the theft, for
theft was a distinct act, and not a probable consequence of the burning.

Section 113 is complimentary to s 1 11. Section 113 extends the liability of an abettor to a
situation where the act done causes a different effect from that intended by the abettor. In
such a case, the abettor would be liable for the effect caused in the same manner and to the
same extent as if he had abetted the act with the intention of causing that effect, provided he
knew that the act was likely to cause that effect. B, in consequence of A's instigation, causes
grievous hurt to Z, who dies. Here, if A knew that the grievous hurt abetted was likely to
cause Z's death, A is liable to be punished for murder.

Section 112 provides for cumulative punishment in cases covered under s 111. An abettor is
liable to punishment both for the offence that was abetted, as well as for the offence that was
the probable consequence of the abetment, provided, cumulative sentence could be passed in
that particular case. For instance, when A, by putting B under fear of instant death, induces B
to burn a stock of corn belonging to Z, A is liable both for abetting B to burn the stock of
corn, and also for putting B under fear of death.

Section 114 says that if an abettor is present at the time offence abetted is committed, 'he
shall be deemed to have himself committed such offence.' In such cases, an abettor is liable to
punishment as that accorded to a principal offender. The actual coupled with the prior
abetment amounts to the commission of offence. 24

Abetting Commission of Offence by Public

Section 117 contemplates of a situation where abetment is made for the commission of an
offence to the public generally, or to any class of persons ten in number. In such a case, an
abettor is liable to punishment upto three years of imprisonment, or with fine or with both.
For example, A affixes in a Public place a placard instigating a sect consisting of more than
10 members to meet at a certain time for the purposes of attacking the members of an adverse
sect, while engaged in a procession. A has committed the offence defined in s 117.

24
Mathura Adi Reddy v State of Hyderabad AIR 1956 SC 177
Quantum of Punishment
Sections 109, 115 and 116 state the quantum of penalty to be accorded in different
cases of abetment.
Section 109 says that in the absence of an express provision for punishment of an act abetted,
the abettor shall be subject to the punishment as that accorded to the principal offender if the
act abetted was committed, provided there was identity of intention in their acts and the
offence was committed in pursuance thereof. For instance, if A and B conspire to poison Z,
and A, in pursuance of the conspiracy, procures the poison and delivers it to B in order that
he may administer it to Z in absence and thereby causes Z's death, B is guilty of murder and
A is guilty of abetting the offence of murder by conspiracy, and is liable to the punishment
for murder.
Section 115 provides that in cases of offences punishable with death, or life imprisonment
(and where no express provision is made for punishment), the abettor may be liable to
imprisonment which may extend upto seven years and fine, if the act abetted has not taken
place, and upto 14 years of imprisonment and fine, if harm is caused in pursuance thereof.

For example, if A instigates B to murder Z, three possibilities may arise,

First, if B murders Z, both A and B would be liable to death sentence or imprisonment for
life. Secondly, if the offence is not committed, A would be liable for imprisonment for a. term
which may extend to seven years and also to a fine.
Thirdly, if hurt is caused to Z in consequence of the abetment, A would be liable to
imprisonment, which may extend to 14 years and fine.
Section 116 provides for punishment in cases of abetment of the offences punishable with
imprisonment. In case the offence is not committed in consequence of the abetment, and no
express provision is made for the punishment of such abetment, the abettor is liable to
onefourth of the term of imprisonment or with fine or with both as is provided for the
offence. If the abettor is a public servant, he would be liable to one-half of the punishment
provided for that offence,

Penalty In Case of Abetment by Concealment

Section 118-120 provide for penalty in cases of abetment by concealment. If a person
conceals of a design to commit an offence, or knowing the existence of a design to commit
such offence,
gives false information of such design, he is said to have abetted the commission of an
offence by concealment. The obligation to give information in such cases arises only where
there is a legal obligation as provided by the Cr PC. 25 In such cases, where the abettor is
punished according to the provisions of ss 118 and 120, and if he happens to be a public
servant, according to s 119, IPC.

Faguna Kanta Nath v State of Assam 26

One Narendra Nath was carrying paddy to sell in the bazaar when he was stopped by an
inspector, Khalilur Rahman, accompanied by the appellant and two others. The inspector
demanded Rs 200 as bribe but he offered Rs 80 but ultimately paid Rs 150 and was forced to
execute a promissory note for a sum of Rs 70 in favour of the appellant. The appellant was
tried and convicted under s 165A of IPC for having abetted Khalilur Rahman for taking
gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act by the latter under s
161, IPC. The high court maintained the conviction of the appellant.

Criminal Conspiracy –
Definition of criminal conspiracy – when two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be
done –
1)- an illegal act , or
2)-an act which is not illegal by illegal means , such an agreement is designated a criminal
conspiracy
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a
criminal conspiracy unless some acts besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to
such agreement in pursuance thereof
EXPLANATION- it is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such
agreement, or is merely incidental to that object .

Punishment of criminal conspiracy (120B)

(1)-Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death,
2[imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall,

25
CrPC 1973 , ss 39 and 40
26
AIR 1959 SC 673
where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be
punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2) -Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit
an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.]

Comparison with English law-“ According to English law, criminals are divided into
four classes —

(1) Principal in the first degree.—One who actually commits the crime.

(2) Principal in the second degree.—One who aids and abets the persons who commit the
crime at the very time of its commission.

(3) Accessory before the fact. — One who being absent at the time of commission of the
offence procures, counsels, commands or abets another to commit it.
(4) Accessory after the fact.—One who knows that an offence has been committed and
receives, relieves comforts or assists the offender.

Under the Indian law, accessories after the fact are known as “harbourers” of offender, and
punished as such.

So, Under English law criminals are divided in four classes, as, criminal of first degree and
second degree, accessories before or after the act. Such classification is not in Indian system.
In Indian law abetment is constituted in following way as by instigating a person or by
conspiracy or by intentionally aiding a person to commit an offence. Abetment is an offence
only if the act abetted is an offence.

This Chapter penalizes abetment as the latter leads to crime and the commission of many
offences would be impossible but for the support and encouragement received from others
who
though do not actively participate but prepare the ground of crime and facilitate the work
of criminal.27

CONCLUSION
As we can see this particular chapter (chapter 5) of IPC, deals with and provides for people
who are not directly involved in commission of a crime but are very much responsible for
its occurrence. A person when angry/scared/nervous is in an unstable state of mind and
cannot think clearly. This is a crucial time for that person and any sort of advise or help or
a ‘remedy’ that is given to him during that period would be immediately implemented by
him without thinking of its’ consequences. Here the advisor or the person who sowed the
seeds of such a crime in the perpetrator’s head is also equally responsible for the crime
since had he not been there chances are that the particular offence would never have been
committed, hence the abettor here should definitely be punished. This is a just and fair law
enhancing the principles of natural justice in the judicial system.

27
Available at http://www.shareyouressays.com/119739/what-do-you-mean-by-abetment-indian-criminal-
laws ( last accessed 17-August-2017)