Analytical study on abetment ( 107 - 120 )in Indian penal code.

ABSTRACT :

Undoubtedly, in many cases, the definition of a legal term or an entity provided by

lawyers has significant difference with the definition provided by the institution of the

legislature. Therefore, it can be distinguished between the concept of abbeting from a legal

perspective, i.e., from the perspective of lawyers and the legal perspective as well as that of the

legislature. There is no single definition of abetment from a legal standpoint, but there are

various definitions of the term. However, the definitions have much in common. Iranian

legislator has not defined “abetment” in the Islamic Penal Code (2003) but addressed some cases

of behaviors that may constitute complicity in the crime. In addition, the Iranian legislator has

extended the scope of the crimes that shall also apply abetment in IPC (2013). This is contrary to

the principle of minimumality of criminal law based on the scope of the criminal law must be

limited. In addition, the new law has serious flaws that have the current paper tried to remind

objections and provide recommendations for amendments.

INTRODUCTION:

A person not committing a crime himself, may still encourage, urge, command, request,

induce or assist a third party in committing the wrong and as a result of such commission be guilty

of the offence of abetment. The meaning of abetment as has been given in corpus juris

secundum is : The Indian Penal Code therefore while using the word ‘abetment’, distinguishes the

person abetting the commission of an act and the person who is the actual perpetrator of the action.

Chapter V of them Indian Penal Code deals with the offences related to abetment. The English

have similar laws governing the liability of person involved in abetting the commission of an

offence. Further, there are parties known as ‘Principals in the first degree’ who are directly

connected with the perpetrating the crime i.e. by themselves or by using an innocent agent.

‘Principals of second degree’ are the persons who abet and assist the principle of a crime.

ABETMENT.

In Indian Penal Code, Abetment is defined under section 107 as:7

Abetment of a thing - A person abets the doing of a thing, who: -

a). Instigates any person to do that thing; or

b.) 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

c.) Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing

In comprehensive way under Indian Penal Code, abetment can be defined as, 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. AbettorAbettor is a person who 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.

1. Abetment by instigation .

2. Abetment by conspiracy .

3. Abetment by aid

Section 108: Abettor

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

Explanation 1. .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.

Illustrations -(a) A instigates B to murder C. B refuses to do so A is guilty of abetting B to commit

murder.

Section 109: Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence and

where no express provision is made for its punishment

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 offence.

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.

Illustrations -(a) 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 accepts the bribe. A has abetted the offence defined in

section 161.

Section 110: Punishment of abetment if person abetted does act with different intention from

that of abettor

Whoever abets the commission of an offence shall, if the person abetted does the act with a

different intention or knowledge from that of the abettor, be punished with the punishment

provided for the offence which would have been committed if the act had been done with the

intention or knowledge of the abettor and with no other.

Section 111: Liability of abettor when one act abetted and different act done

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: Proviso. Provided 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.

Illustrations -(a) A instigates a child to put poison into the food of Z, and gives him poison for that

purpose. The child, in consequence of the instigation, by mistake puts the poison into the food of

Y, which is by the side of that of Z. Here, if 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 he had instigated the child to put the

poison into the food of Y.

Section 112: Abettor when liable to cumulative punishment for act abetted and for act done

If the act for which the abettor is liable under the last preceding section is committed in addition

to the act abetted, and constitutes a distinct offence, the abettor is liable to punishment for each of the offences.

Illustration -A instigates B to resist by force a distress made by a public servant. B, in consequence, resists that distress. In offering the resistance, B voluntarily causes grievous hurt to the officer executing the distress. As B has committed both the offence of resisting the distress, and the offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt, B is liable to punishment for both these offences; and, if A knew that B was likely voluntarily to cause grievous hurt in resisting the distress A will also be liable to punishment for each of the offences.

Section 113: Liability of abettor for an effect caused by the act abetted different from that

intended by the abettor.

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, caused 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.

Section 114: Abettor present when offence is committed

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 115: Abetment of offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life if offence

not committed

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 no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Concealing Designs or Plans to Commit offences: S.118-120.

Sections 118, 119 and 120 deal with abetment by way of concealing the design of commission of

crimes. The element of crime in such cases lies in the act of concealment, despite having

knowledge of the plans of the commission of the offence and thereby facilitating and enabling the

commission of such offence. Two ingredients are required to be established to constitute

conviction under these provisions:

Existence of a criminal design on the part of persons who intend to commit the crime

Concealment of such design by others

There must be an active intent to conceal the design and possession of knowledge that such

non-disclosure will assist in perpetrating the offence. These provisions basically envisage three

things:

1. Concealment by an act or illegal omission and this must be voluntary

2. Making a false representation knowingly with regards to the design or plan to

commit an offence.

Punishment for Abetment:

Abetment of certain offences is punishable under specific Sections of IPC or under other laws.

For example, abetment of suicide is punishable under Section 306. However, when no specific

provision exists, the abettor will be punished with the punishment prescribed for that particular

offence he has abated.

RELATED CASE LAW :

In Jamuna Singh v. State of Bihar.

This was a case of abetment of fabrication of false evidence. Accused pleaded that the

fabrication had not taken place and hence he was not guilty.

Court held that 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.

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.

Reference:

1.https://www.toppr.com

2.www.legalbites.in

3.www.hellocounsel.com

4.https://www.google.co

credit: SUMITHRA.M

clg name: Dr. Ambedkar law University (soel)