Abettor
Section 108 defines abettor. It provides that a person
abets an offence:
 Who abets either the 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.
The difference between Section 107 and 108 is that
former covers 'doing of a thing' while latter covers
abetment of an 'offence'. If the thing abetted is not an
offence then the person abetting will not be termed as
abettor within the meaning of this section.
Explanation 1: The abetment of the illegal omission of an
act may amount to an offence althoug the abettor may not
himself be bound to do that act.
For example, 'A' a student instigates 'B' a police officer to
illegally abstain from duty to prevent the commission of
the cognizable offence which was being committed in his
presence. In this case A' may not be guilty of offence
because 'A' is not bound to prevent the cognizable offence
but still he is guilty of abetment of offence.
______________________________________________
Explanation 2: 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. For example, A insuga B to murder C'. 'B'
refuses to do so. A' is guilty of abetting b' to commit
murder.
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 g intention or knowledge.
For example, 'A' with a guilty intention, abets a child to
commit an act which would be an offence, if committed by
a person capable by law to commit an offence. Here A is
guilty of abetment, whether or not the offence is
committed. In this case the child is not capable by law an
offence but still 'A' will be guilty of abetment.
Explanation 4: The abetment of an offence being an
offence, the abetment of such an abetment is also an
offence.
For example, 'A instigates B to murder Z, B accordingly
instigates 'C' to murder Z. 'B' accordingly instigates C to
murder Z and 'C commits the offence. In this case A is
also liable to be punished for abetment.
Explanation 5: It is not necessary for 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. [refer to
illustration to Explanation 5]
Abetment of offences outside India
Section 108A provides that a person abets an offence
who, in India, abets the commission of any act without and
beyond India which would constitute an offence if
committed in India. It was added by Indian Penal Code
(Amendment) Act, 1895 to overrule a decision of the
Bombay High Court in Queen­Emp v.Ganpatrao
Ramchandra. In this case it was held that abetment in
India by an Indian citizen of an offence committed in a
foreign country was not punishable under the Code. For
example, 'A', in India, instigates 'B', a foreigner in Nepal, to
commit a murder in Nepal. 'A is guilty of abetting murder.
__________________________________________
Liability of abettor when offence abetted is
committed
Liability of abettor when offence abetted is committed is
categorized in the following ways
1. Offence abetted committed in consequence of
abetment [Section 109]
2. Person abetted does act with different intention
from that of abettor [Section 110].
3. One act abetted but different act done [Section
11l).
4. Act abetted committed but different effect caused
[Section 113].
5. Abettor present at the time and place of
commission of offence Section 114
Offence abetted committed in consequence of
abetment:
Section 109 provides that whoever abets any offence
shall:
 If the act abetted is committed in consequence of
the abetment, and
 No express provision is made by this Code for the
punishment of such abetment,
 Be punished with the punishment provided for the
oftence.
According to explanation, an act or offence is said to be
committed in consequence of abetment, when it is
committed in consequence of the instigation, or in
pursuance of the conspiracy, or with the aid which
constitutes the abetment.
The liability of the abettor has been made co­extensive
with the principal provided that the act is committed in
consequence of abetment and has not been expressly
made punishable by any othes provision of the Penal
Code. Supreme Court in Sohan Lale Sohan Singh v.
State of Punjab All 2003 SC 4466 held that an offence
under Section 109 actually constitutes a substantive
offence and it may be so charged. It creates a distinct
offence though punishable in the context of other offences.
___________________________________
Person abetted does act with different intention
from that of abettor
Section 110 provides that if the person abetted does an
act with different intention or knowledge from that of the
abettor, then the abettor will be punished with punishment
provided for the offence which would have been comitted
if the act had been done with the intention or knowledge of
the abettor.
One act abetted but different act done
Section 111 provides that when an act is abetted and a
different act is done, the abettor is liable for the act done,
in the same manner and to the same extent as if he had
directly abetted it.
This provision is only applicable when the act done was a
probable consequence of the abetment, and was
committed under the influence of the instigation, or with
the aid or in pursuance of the conspiracy which constituted
the abetment. A probable consequence may be explained
as an act which is likely, or which can be reasonably
expected to follow from another act. If an unusual or
unexpected consequence of an act which a reasonable
man cannot be expected to foresee would follow from
such act then such consequence cannot be said to be
probable one. Further, Section 112 provides that if the act
for which the abettor is liable under Section 111 is
committed in addition to the act abetted, and constitutes a
distinct offence, the abettor is liable to punishment for
each of the offences.
For example, 'A' instigates 'B' to burn Z's house. 'B' sets
fire to the house and at the same time commits theft of
property there. 'A', though guilty of abetting the burning of
the house, is not guilty of abetting the theft, for the theft
was a distinct act, and not a probable consequence of the
burning.
Act abetted committed but different effect
caused
Section 113 provides that when an act is abetted with the
intention on the part of the abettor of causing a particular
effect, and an act for which the abettor is liable in
consequence of the abetment, causes a different effect
from that intended by the abettor, the abettor is 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 abetted
was likely to cause that effect,
For example, 'A' instigates 'B' to cause grievous hurt to Z.
'B', in consequence of the instigation, causes grievous hurt
to "Z. Z dies in consequence. Here, if 'A' knew that the
grievous hurt abetted was likely to cause death, 'A' is
liable to be punished with the punishment provided for
murder. Abettor present at the time and place of
commission of offence
Section 114 provides that whenever any person, who is
absent would be liable to be punished as an abettor, is
present when the act or offence for which he would be
punishable in consequence of the abetment is committed,
he shall be deemed to have committed such act or
offence.
Section 114 creates a rule of joint and constructive liability.
If the conditions of Section 114 are fulfilled then the
abettor shall be deemed to have committed the offence
himself. Supreme Court in Kulwant Singh v. State of Bihar,
(2007) 15 SCC 670 held that actual presence coupled with
prior aberment can mean nothing else but participation. In
this case it is not essential that abettor should share any
common intention with the abetted person or should have
actually participated in the commission of the offence.
Mere presence would be sufficient to make him liable.
___________________________________
Liability of abettor when offence abetted is
not committed
Liability of abettor when offence abetted is not committed
is categorized in the following ways­
Abetment of offence punishable with death or
imprisonment for life
Section 115 provides that whoever abets the commission
of an offence punishable with
 Death or imprisonment for life;
 Shall, if that offence be not committed in consequence
of the abetment; and abetment,
 No express provision is made by this Code for the
punishment of such abetment
 Be punished with imprisonment which may extend to
seven years, and shall also be liable to fine
If any act for which the abettor is liable in consequence of
the abetment, and which causes hurt to any person, is
done, the abettor shall be liable to imprisonment for a term
which may extend to fourteen years, and shall also be
liable to fine. For example, 'A' instigates 'B' to murder 'Z.
The offence is not committed.
If "B" had murdered "Z", he would have been subject to
the punishment of death or imprisonment for life.
Therefore 'A' is liable to imprisonment for a term which
may extend to seven years and also to a fine; and any hun
be done to "Z" in consequence of the abetment, he will be
liable to imprisonment for a term which may extend to
fourteen years, and to fine.
Abetment of offence punishable with imprisonment
Section 116 provides that whoever abets an offence
punishable with imprisonment shall>
 If that offence be not committed in consequence
of the abetment, and
 No express provision is made by this Code for the
punishment of such abetment,
 Be punished with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to one­fourth part of the longest term
provided for that offence; or
 With such fine as is provided for that offence, or
with both.
If the abettor or the person abetted is a public servant,
whose duty it is to prevent the commission such offence,
the abettor shall be punished with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to one­half of the longest Em provided
for that offence, or with such fine as is provided for the
offence, or with both.

For example, 'A' offers a bribe to 'B', a public servant, as a

reward for showing 'A' some favour in the exercise of B's
official functions. 'B' refuses to accept the bribe. 'A' is
punishable under this section.