MGM Law College

Law of Crimes

What is Abetment And punishment of

Abetment

Submitted By: Vijendra Yadav

Roll No.: 19/159

LL.B. 1st Year (2nd Semester)

 INDEX

1. introduction

2. Definition of Abetment

3. Types of Abetment

4. Abettor

5. Punishment for Abetment Under Indian Penal

Code,1860

6. Conclusion
Introduction

Chapter 5 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with offences relating to
abetment. Abetment basically means the action of instigating, encouraging
or promoting a person into committing an offence. It can also mean aiding
the offender while he is committing a crime.

When more than one person contributes to committing an offence, each

person’s involvement may vary. This variation may be either in the manner
or in the degree to which the involvement occurs.

For example, one person may procure a gun and hand it over to another
who may shoot somebody with it. The former person is guilty of abetment,
while the latter commits murder.

Definition of Abetment

The definition of abetment under Section 107, IPC requires a person to abet
the commission of an offence. This abetment may occur in any of the three
methods that the provision prescribes.

The Section says that abetment basically takes place when a person abets
the doing of a thing by:
1. Instigating a person to do that thing; or
2. engaging with another person (or persons) in a conspiracy to do that
thing; or
3. intentionally aiding a person to do that thing.
When any of these requirements exists, the offence of abetment is complete.
Sometimes a person
may commit more than one of these three circumstances in a single offence.

1. Abetment by Instigation
Instigation basically means suggesting, encouraging or inciting a person to
do or abstain from doing something. Instigation may take place either
directly or indirectly, by written or oral words, or even by gestures and hints.
The instigation must be sufficient to actively encourage a person to commit
an offence. It should not be mere advice or a simple suggestion. The
Instigator need not even possess mens rea (a guilty intention to commit the
crime).

Explanation 1 of this Section throws some lights on what instigation may

mean in this context. It says that instigation may generally happen even by:
(a) wilful misrepresentation; or
(b) wilful concealment of a material fact which a person is bound to disclose.

For example, a court directs Amit, a police officer, to arrest Raj under an
arrest warrant. Brijesh informs Amit that Chandan is Raj despite knowing
that he is not. Under this misrepresentation, Amit ends up arresting
Chandan instead of Raj. In this case, Brijesh is guilty of abetting Amit in
wrongfully apprehending Chandan.

2. Abetment by Conspiracy
Conspiracy basically means an agreement between two or more persons to
commit an unlawful act. Merely intending to commit an offence is not
sufficient for this purpose. Thus, the conspirators must actively agree and
prepare themselves to commit that offence, it becomes a conspiracy.
Furthermore, the act which the conspirators conspire to commit itself must
be illegal or punishable.

For example, in dowry death cases, the in-laws of the victim are often guilty
of abetment by conspiracy. They may do so by constantly taunting, torturing
or instigating the victim. Evensuicides may take place in this manner
through abetment by conspiracy.

3. Abetment by Aiding
The third manner in which abetment may take place is by intentionally
aiding the offender in committing that offence. This generally happens when
the abettor facilitates the crime or helps in committing it. The intention to
aid the offender is very important.

For example, merely giving food or clothing to an alleged offender may not
be punishable. But giving him food, clothing and shelter to help him hide
from the police or commit a crime is punishable.

Abettor
Section 108 of Indian Penal Code,1860 talks about abettor, a person who
abets an offence, who abets either the commission of an offence, or either
the commission of an act which would be an offence, if committed by a
person capable by law with the same intension or knowledge as that of the
abettor.
Five propositions as to Abetment, contained in section 108 of IPC, which
are as follows:
• 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.
Thus, if a public servant is guilty on an illegal omission of duty made
 punishable by the code, and a private person instigates him he abets
the offence of which public servant is guilty, although the abettor,
being a private person, could not himself have been guilty of the
offence.
• To constitute the offence of abetment, it is not necessary that the act
abetted is committed or not. The offence of abetment depends upon
the intention of the person who abets, and not upon the actual act
done by the person abetted.

Illustration: A instigates B to murder C. B refuses to do so. A is guilty

of abetting B to commit murder.
• To constitute the offence of abetment, it is not necessary that the
person abetted should be capable by law of committing an offence, or
have the same guilty intention or knowledge as that of the abettor.
Abetment is a substantive offence irrespective of the criminal intention
or knowledge to be the same as that of abettor, mere instigation to
commit a criminal offence is necessary and does not consider the
abetteeie to whom abettor abets to do an act, either capable by law or
not.

Illustration: A with a guilty intention, abets a child or a lunatic person

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 weather the act be committed or not, is guilty of
abetting an offence.
• When the abetment of an offence is 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 commits that offence in consequence of
 B’s instigation. B is liable to be punished for the offence with the
punishment for murder and as a instigates B to commit the offence, A
is also liable for the same punishment.
• To constitute the offence of abetment by conspiracy, 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 will be liable. Section
108A talks about when a person abets an offence within the meaning
of this code who in India, abets the commission of any act beyond
India which would be liable for an offence if committed in India.

Punishment for Abetment Under Indian Penal

Code,1860:
From section 109 to section 120 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with
punishment for abetment which are as follows:
Section 109:
Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequences,
and where no express provision is made for its punishment:
If a person abets an offence, and the act abetted is committed in
consequences of the abetment where no expressed provision is made under
this code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the
punishment provided for the offence with is abetted and committed.
Whereas in some case of abetment the express provision is made for the
punishment. It is to be made clear that an act or offence is said to be
committed in the consequences of abetment, when it is committed in
consequences of instigation, or in pursuance of conspiracy, or with
aiding, which constitute the abetment. According as offence abetted is
cognizable or non-cognizable, bailable or non- bailable, triable by court and
non-compoundable.
Illustration:
• A instigates B to give false evidence B under the instigation of A
commits an offence. Here A is guilty of abetting the offence, and is
liable for same offence as of B.
• A offers a bribe to B , a public servant, as a reward of showing some
official favour to A. B accepts the bribe A has abetted the offence and
is liable for the offence defined in section 161 of IPC.

Section 110:
Punishment of abetment if person abetted does act with different intension
from that of this abettor. This section laid down the provision for punishment
of abetteei.e the per on abetted, if does the act with different knowledge or
intension from that of the abettor, be punished with the punishment
provided for the offence which would have been committed if the act has
been done with the same intension and knowledge of the abettor. The
person abetted for the commission of an offence and commit and act cannot
take a defence mere on the ground that the act done in the consequences
of the abetment is done with different intension and knowledge from that of
abettor, he will be equally liable for the punishment. According as offence
abetted is cognizable or non- cognizable, bailable or non- bailable, triable by
court and non- compoundable.

Section 111:
Liability of the abettor when one act abetted, and different act done:
When an act abetted and a different act is done, the abettor is liable for the
act done in the same manner as if abetted directly, provided that the act
done was likely to be caused as a course of offence abetted, and was
committed under the influence of instigation, or with aid, or with pursuance
of conspiracy which constitute the abetment. And if any act done which is
not the probable consequences of abetment, the abettor is hereby not liable
for any different kind of offence committed. According as offence abetted is
cognizable or non- cognizable, bailable or non- bailable, triable by court and
non-compoundable. Illustration: A instigate a child to put poison into the
food of Z and give him the poison for that purpose. The child in consequence
of the instigation, by mistake put the poison into Y’s food which was kept
just next to that of Z which result in death of Y. Here A is liable in the same
manner and the same extent as if he has abetted the child to poison Y,
because child is acting under the influence of abetment.

Section 112:
Abettor when liable to cumulative punishment for act abetted and for act
done. Section 112 is an extension of section 111 of Indian Penal Code.
According to section 111 if the offence committed is different from that of
act abetted but it is in probable consequences of the abetment, done under
the influence of instigation or aiding for the commission of an act.
The abettor is held liable of the act in the same manner as if abetted
directly. Further it is said that the word cumulative used here in this section
states that the act abetted and act done in pursuance of abetment exceeds
in nature and thereby causing additional act resulting in additional offence of
that abetted. Abettor is liable for the additional offence, if that offence is
result of the probable consequence of abetment.

Section 113:
liability of abettor for an effect caused by the act abetted different from that
intended by the abettor. Intension and knowledge plays an important role in
any criminal act done or abetted. If an act abetted with different intension
causing different effect as a result, abettor will be liable of the effect cause,
on the ground that he knew that the act abetted was likely to cause such
effect. Although intension is different from the act caused but one will be
liable for the effect mere on the ground of knowledge. The major difference
between section 111 and section 113 is that section 111, says that when
one act abetted and difference act is committed and in section 113, the act
abetted and committed is same but the effect cause is different. According
as offence abetted is cognizable or non- cognizable, bailable or non-
bailable, triable by court and non- compoundable.

Section 114:
Abettor present when offence is committed. This section states that
whenever any person who is absent would liable to be punished as an
abettor, is present when the act or offence is being committed in
consequences of the abetment for which he would be punishable, the law
will resume that the abettor himself has committed such offence and act.
And the abettor will be liable to be punished for the offence committed and
not for the abetment of offence. According as offence abetted is cognizable
or non- cognizable, bailable or non- bailable, triable by court and non-
compoundable.

Conclusion
Abetment as a provision has been sufficient both from the view of the
offence as well as the penalty for the offenders of abetment. However, with
the development of technology and looking at the current scenario, the
legislation of India has tried to bring the required changes in this provision.
Through the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, the section
has been amended to give a wider meaning to the act and omission by the
use of encryption or any electronic method.

Therefore, we can say that abetment as an offence is a just and fair law
which enhances the principles of natural justice in the legal system.