Table of Contents

 Introduction 
 What do you mean by abetment
 Abetment under Section 107 IPC
o The scheme of provisions related to abetment under the Indian Penal Code,
1860
o Mens rea is the essence of abetment
 When mens rea is not required in case of abetment?  
o Abetment by instigation
 Instigation in dowry death cases 
o Abetment by conspiracy 
 Difference between abetment and conspiracy
o Abetment by aid
o Abetment by illegal omission 
 Punishment for abetment
o Section 109 IPC, 1860
o Section 110 IPC, 1860
o Section 111 IPC, 1860
o Section 112 IPC, 1860
o Section 113 IPC, 1860
o Section 114 IPC, 1860
o Section 115 IPC, 1860
o Section 116 IPC, 1860
 Common questions related to the offence of abetment
o What happens to other offenders when the principal offender gets acquitted
in a case involving a charge of abetment by aiding
o What is the effect of acquittal of a person committing the offence on an
abettor
o Is giving advice a kind of instigation
o What happens when the substantive offence is not established in abetment
cases
 Conclusion
 References 

Introduction 
Two or more people commit a vast majority of crimes. In most of these
crimes, there are sometimes people who do not participate in the crime
themselves but assist others to commit the crime through various means,
such as instigation, aid, or providing help or cooperation. These
individuals might be said to aid in the commission of the crime, as it is
correctly said, “just as a man with property and wealth has a sentinel to
protect his assets, a thief or criminal requires others to assist him in
committing an offence”. This article discusses the offence of abetment
and its related components in detail. 

What do you mean by abetment

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.

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 according to
the decision of the case of Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994).

In the case of Emperor v. Parimal Chatterjee (1932), it was decided that

an abettor is a person who aids in the commission of a crime or aids in
the commission of an act that would be an offence if undertaken by a
person capable of committing an offence with the same intent or
knowledge as the abettor. The essentials are as follows:

1. There must be an abettor,

 2. The abettor must abet, and
3. The abetment must be an offence or an act that would be an
offence, if committed by a person capable in law of committing
the offence with the same intention or knowledge as that of the
abettor.

Abetment under Section 107 IPC

In a comprehensive way under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, abetment
can be defined as an act committed when a person becomes liable as an
abettor if he/she 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/she intentionally aids another in
order to facilitate the commission of a crime. 

Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines the abetment of a
thing. In the case of Malan v. State of Maharashtra (1956), the
ingredients of the offence of abetment were laid down as follows, which
are essential for completing abetment as a crime: 

1. The person persuades/instigates someone else to do a particular

thing, or
2. The person participates in any conspiracy to do such item with
one or more other individuals, or
3. The individual intentionally facilitates the doing of such activity
through an illegal act or omission.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860, contains a broad definition of abetment. It
does not constitute the aiding and abetting of an offence, but rather of a
thing that may or may not be an offence. In some circumstances, this
makes the abettor solely accountable, even if the individual aided is
completely innocent. Section 108 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, defines
aiding and abetting as an offence. Thus, abetment entails a degree of
involvement on the part of the abettor.

The scheme of provisions related to abetment

under the Indian Penal Code, 1860
 1. Section 107 IPC: Defines abetment generally speaks of three
kinds of abetment, namely, abetment by instigation, abetment
by conspiracy, and abetment by aid.
2. Section 108 IPC: Explains when an abetment of an offence
takes place, and Section 108-A provides for the case of
abetments-in India of an offence committed in a foreign country.
3. Section 109 IPC: Prescribes the punishment for the offence of
abetment when the offence abetted is committed, while Section
110 prescribes the punishment for abetment where the person
abetted commits the act with a different intention or knowledge
from that of the abettor.
4. Section 111 IPC: Provides for cases of abetment resulting in a
different offence but which is a probable consequence thereof.
5. Section 112 IPC: Provides for cumulative punishment in cases
covered by Section 111.
6. Section 113 IPC: Supplementary to Section 111 and provides
for punishment in cases where the act abetted causes a different
effect from that intended by the abettor.
7. Section 114 IPC: 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.
8. Sections 115 IPC and 116 IPC: Prescribe the punishment in
cases where the offence abetted is not committed.
9. Section 117 IPC: Deals with abetment of offences by the public
generally or a large group of persons.
10. Section 118 IPC: Prescribes the penalty for concealing the
existence of a design in another to commit a grave offence.
11. Sections 119 IPC and 120 IPC: 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 Section 118.

Mens rea is the essence of abetment

Abetment is defined as a person’s active and intentional support of a
criminal culprit. It relies on the intention of the person who abets as well
as the conduct committed by the person who abets. The requirement of
mens rea as a precondition for liability is thus critical to remember when
analysing the law relating to abetment. Instigation, and engaging in a
conspiracy to do something or purposefully helping another are all
activities in which the person abetting knowingly promotes or supports
another person in the commission of the offence, as can be deduced from
a simple reading of Section 107. 

As a result, knowledge of the act and its consequences is implicit in the

construction of the provision itself. As has been observed in Shrilal v. the
State of Madhya Pradesh (1952), in order to convict a person of abetting
the commission of a crime, it is not only essential to prove that he/she
participated in the innocent parts of the transaction, but it is also
necessary to connect them with the criminal steps of the transaction in
some way. Similarly, it cannot be stated that a person who offers his
support willfully aids or facilitates the commission of a crime and that he
is an abettor if he does not know or has no cause to believe that the act
he is assisting or supporting is in itself a criminal act.

In Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor (1925), the Privy Council

declared that a person’s presence at the scene of an incident constitutes
abetment if it is meant to facilitate the commission of the crime. It is
insufficient to show that the offence charged could not have been
committed without the putative abettor’s help. 
When mens rea is not required in case of abetment? 
The situation is different, however, in cases when the statute expressly
states that no mens rea is required to make a person responsible for the
offence of abetment. Mens rea is not required to prove abetment in cases
where the conduct itself is an offence, such as the sale of obscene books
or other things under Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, or
where strict liability exists in public welfare or social law.

In the case of Kartar Singh v. the State of Punjab (1994), the Supreme

Court of India had concurred with a Bombay High Court judgment in the
case of State of Maharashtra v. Abdul Aziz (1962), stating that, ‘when no
mens rea is essential in the substantive offences, the same is also not
necessary in the abetment thereof’. The Apex Court was considering the
validity of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention Act), 1987 in
the present case. 

Abetment by instigation
A person is said to instigate another when he/she actively suggests or
stimulates him/her to do an act by any means, or language, direct or
indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation or hints,
insinuation or encouragement, or willful misrepresentation or wilful
concealment of a material fact. It is not required to use exact words to
convey what the individual to whom the instructions are provided should
perform. While reasonable confidence about the meaning of the words
used is required in order to determine if there was incitement, it is not
required in law. 

Only when advice is intended to actively suggest or stimulate the

commission of an offence, it is considered to be instigation. Mere
acquiescence does not amount to incitement. As a result, the word
‘instigation’ means exhortation or urging to do something drastic or
unwise, as well as, to stimulate or urge. The presence of mens rea is
therefore a required corollary of instigation. In the case of Swamy
Prahaladdas v. the State of M.P. and another (1995), it was observed
that comments spoken in a disagreement or on the spur of the moment
do not have the mens rea necessary to constitute incitement because
they are spoken in a fit of rage and emotional state.
The decision made by the Supreme Court of India in the 1967 case
of Jamuna Singh v. the State of Bihar was that the offence of abetment is
complete when the alleged abettor has influenced another or engaged in
a plot to perpetrate the offence. The act assisted does not have to be
performed to commit the offence of abetment. Only in the situation of a
person abetting an offence by willfully assisting another to commit the
same, would the accusation of abetment against him be expected to fail if
the person accused of committing the offence is acquitted.

A person who stands by silently and does not actively participate in the
committing of the crime is not an abettor. It’s a matter of fact if there
was any instigation. There cannot be a one-size-fits-all criterion for
determining whether or not there was incitement. In the absence of
direct proof of instigation, a conclusion about whether or not there was
instigation must be drawn from the circumstances of the case at hand. 

In the 2004 case of Ranganayaki v. State by Inspector of Police, the

Supreme Court of India held that the prosecution does not have to prove
that the actual operative cause in the mind of the person abetting was
instigation and nothing else, as long as there was instigation and the
offence was committed or would have been committed if the person
committing the act had the same knowledge and intention as the abettor.
The instigation must be made in relation to the act that was performed,
not to the act that is likely to be performed by the person who is
instigated. It is only if this condition is fulfilled that a person can be guilty
of abetment by instigation.

Instigation in dowry death cases 

In situations involving the death of young brides or women within seven
years of marriage as a result of dowry harassment, instigation as a kind
of abetment has traditionally been one of the most important issues. 

1. In Protima Dutta v. the State of West Bengal (1977), the

deceased’s mother-in-law and her husband were charged with
abetment of suicide by encouraging and inciting her to commit
herself under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read
with Section 24 of the Code. Despite the fact that there was no
explicit request, their callous treatment of the deceased over the
months made her go through mental suffering. As a result, it was
 determined that a sequence of actions amounting to deliberately
advising and encouraging the deceased to commit suicide
amounted to incitement.
2. The Supreme Court has ruled in Wazir Chand v. the State of
Haryana (1989) that it must be proven that the death in question
was a suicidal death before someone can be charged with
abetment of suicide.
3. Section 306, which allows for the abetment of suicide, is
frequently invoked in the context of bride-burning and dowry-
related deaths. Abetment is also defined as supporting, inciting,
and thereby inducing suicides. There are numerous examples of
this. It will be enough to quote the State of Punjab v. Iqbal
Singh (1991), in which it was determined that the husband’s and
his relatives’ actions in creating a horrible situation in which the
deceased has no other option but to commit suicide amounted to
abetment through inducement.

Abetment by conspiracy 
The abetment through engaging with one or more persons in a plot to do
something is the second leg of the definition of abetment. Conspiracy
abetment necessitates the verification of three essential factors, namely:

1. The abettor is involved in a plot with one or more people.

2. The conspiracy was aided in the doing of the thing.
3. In furtherance of the plot and in order to carry out the act, an
act or criminal omission has occurred.
If someone enters into an agreement with one or more individuals to
carry out a legal act by illegal means, or to commit an illegal act, and
some act is done in furtherance of that agreement, he/she is said to abet
the commission of an offence by conspiracy. A conspiracy to do
something involves a group of two or more people who have agreed to
accomplish something together. It has been decided that where a
criminal conspiracy amounts to abetment under Section 107, invoking the
provisions of Sections 120-A and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,
is superfluous because the Code has created a specific provision for the
punishment of such an offence.
To prove abetment through conspiracy, the prosecution must show that
the abettor inspired the doing of a particular action, engaged in a
conspiracy with one or more other individuals to accomplish that thing, or
willfully helped the doing of that thing through an act or illegal omission.
The amplitude of criminal conspiracy is slightly more than that of
abetment by conspiracy. The Supreme Court of India’s decision in the
2001 case of Saju v. the State of Kerala has had a similar line of
reasoning, to the one discussed above. 

Difference between abetment and conspiracy

1. Abetment is the act of one or more individuals engaging or
employing others to commit an offence. The former, that is the
person who aids and abets, is referred to as the ‘abettor’,
whereas the latter, that is, the person who executes the crime
with his/her own hands, is referred to as the ‘primary offender’.
Conspiracy, on the other hand, is a procedure in which two or
more people agree to commit an illegal act or to do/commit a
lawful/legal act using illegal methods. Conspirators are the
parties to the arrangement.
2. A simple combination of parties or agreement between them is
not enough to constitute abetment. Some act or illegal omission
must occur in furtherance of the conspiracy and in order to carry
out the object conspired for.
3. In the case of abetment, the sanction of relevant authorities is
not required to pursue the abettors who only assisted in the
commission of a crime. While in a conspiracy, responsible
authorities’ approval is required to continue against conspirators
who have only agreed to conduct a crime.
4. One or more people can commit abetment, whereas two or more
people can commit conspiracy. 
5. While abetment is the genus, conspiracy is the species.
6. Abetment per se is not a substantive offence whereas criminal
conspiracy is substantive. 
7. Abetment can be committed in a variety of ways, including
instigation, conspiracy, purposeful aid, and so on, but conspiracy
is a kind of abetment.
 8. Sections 107 to 120 of the law define the offence of abetment,
whereas Sections 120-A and 120-B of the 1860 Code explain the
offence of conspiracy.
9. Section 109 of the code is concerned only with the punishment of
abetment for which no express provision is made under the Penal
Code. A charge under Section 109 should, therefore, be alone
with some other substantive offence committed in consequence
of abetment. The offence of criminal conspiracy, on the other
hand, is a stand-alone offence. It is penalized under Section 120
B of the Code, which makes a charge under Section 109 of the
Code redundant and ineffective.

Abetment by aid
If a person willfully assists or lends aid in the conduct of an offence by
doing or failing to do something, he/she is said to abet the commission of
the crime. It is insufficient to have the intention to offer assistance.
Instead, the abettor must engage in some active behaviour and the act
must be carried out as a result of that conduct. The phrase ‘intentional
aid’ in Section 107 implies active participation in the commission of a
crime. If an individual has no knowledge of the offence being committed
or anticipated, merely providing assistance does not constitute abetment
by aid. The essence of the abetment by aid offence is the intent to assist
in the commission of the crime. As a result, a person who assists in the
commission of an offence under duress or fear is not covered by this
provision. This view was made by the Apex Court in 1969 while deciding
on the case of Dalpal Singh v. the State of Rajasthan. 

A person abets the doing of a thing who actively assists the doing of that
thing, according to Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Intentional assistance can include any of the following elements:

1. Committing an act that directly aids in the commission of a

crime.
2. Illegally failing to accomplish anything that one is obligated to
do.
3. Acting in a way that makes it easier for someone else to commit
the crime.
A careful examination of Section 107’s third clause, as well as explanation
2, indicates that an act that merely aids the commission of an offence
does not constitute abetting an offence unless it was done with the aim to
facilitate the conduct of the ‘thing.’ If a person invites someone casually
or for a friendly purpose and that invitation aids the murder of the
invitee, the former is not considered an abettor unless the invitation was
issued with the objective to facilitate the murder. It is insufficient that the
alleged abettor’s act facilitates the commission of the crime.

In the case of Faguna Kama Nath v. the State of Assam (1959) the Apex
Court had observed that aid can be given through both voluntary and
involuntary acts of commission and omission. For example, if a police
officer knows that specific individuals are likely to be tortured in order to
coerce confessions, he is liable for abetment to the offence of extortion
by an act of omission. 

It is evident from Explanation 2 that in order to be subject to Section 107

(thirdly), the act must have been performed, as one cannot be held liable
for assisting in the performance of a task that has not been completed.
For example, if a servant keeps his master’s house’s gate open in order
to assist the admission of thieves, he cannot be charged with likely theft
which has been carried out by others. However, if the servant lets the
thieves into the house after opening the door, he is guilty of abetment in
the sense that his actions encouraged them to steal.

Abetment by illegal omission 

When a person is legally obligated to do something but chooses to do
nothing, that person is liable for abetment by illegal omission. In the case
of Raj Kumar v. the State of Punjab (1983), the accused, a husband,
could not be found guilty of ‘illegal omission’ because he did not prevent
his wife from committing suicide when she threatened to do so and
instead committed suicide by lighting fire to her clothes. To convict
someone of abetment by ‘illegal omission,’ it must be proven that the
accused not only unintentionally helped the commission of the crime by
his non-interference, but also that his omission resulted in a legal
requirement being breached.
What’s important to remember is that the illegal omission must be an act
that the individual is legally obligated to perform. When the law imposes
an obligation to discharge, a person’s illegal failure to act makes him
criminally accountable. It was found in the case of Subhash Chandra
Bebarta v. the State of Orissa (1974), that a lorry driver who permitted a
youngster to drive while knowing the child did not know how to drive,
resulting in an accident, assisted the offence by illegal omission.
However, careless conduct, even though it violates the law, does not
constitute abetment by ‘illegal omission.’

Punishment for abetment

The idea of abetment being prosecuted as a separate crime and penalised
may seem strange to the general public because most people believe that
only the perpetrators will be punished. In its provision for abtement, the
Penal Code carefully lays out the offence of abetment, outlining in detail
the many types of sanctions that the abetment laws announce. Before
dealing with the provisions designed for punishment for abetment, it is
necessary for us to have an idea about the distinct conditions that may
result from the act of abetment which may involve the application of the
discussed provisions hereunder: 

1. It is possible that no infraction will be committed due to

abetment. In this case, the wrongdoer is liable under Sections
115 and 116 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for just assisting in
the commission of a crime.
2. The precise conduct that is being targeted for abetment may be
committed and will be punishable under Sections 109 and 110 of
the Code of 1860.
3. Some remarkable acts, however, may occur as a result of the
aided act, in which case the abettor shall be prosecuted
under Sections 111, 112, and 113 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860.

Section 109 IPC, 1860

Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with punishment of
abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence and when no
express provision is made for its punishment. The provision lays down
that If the act assisted is committed as a result of the abetment, and this
Code makes no express provision for the punishment of such abetment,
the person who abets the offence should be punished as provided for the
offence.  Instigating, urging, or promoting someone to commit a crime is
referred to as abetment. It can also refer to assisting the perpetrator in
the commission of a crime. When more than one person is involved in
committing a crime, the level of involvement of each individual may
differ.

For instance, as a reward for granting A some favour in the performance

of B’s official tasks, A presents a bribe to B, a public worker. The bribe is
accepted by B. A has aided and facilitated the violation of Section 161 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Another illustration that can be considered
in this regard is if we suppose that A and B work together to poison Z. In
order to carry out the plot, A obtains the poison and provides it to B, who
will administer it to Z. In order to carry out the plot, B administers the
poison to Z while A is away, resulting in Z’s death. In this case, B is the
murderer. A is convicted of aiding and abetting the crime through
conspiracy and faces death penalty therefore.

Regardless of whether the abettor is present at the time the offence is

committed or not, Section 109 of the Penal Code applies because he/she
has instigated the commission of the offence or has connected with at
least one or more different people in a conspiracy to commit an offence,
and in accordance with that conspiracy, some unlawful act or unlawful
exclusion occurs, or has purposefully assisted the commission of an
offence by an act or illicit oversight. This Section specifies that if the
Penal Code has not separately accommodated abetment as a
punishment, it is prosecuted with the same discipline as the initial
offence. Instigation is not expected to be in a precise structure or to be
expressed solely in words, according to the law. The instigation could
come in the form of behaviour or conduct. Whether there was instigation
or not is a question that must be answered based on the facts of each
instance.
Section 110 IPC, 1860
Even if the individual assisting, commits the offence with a different
motive than the principal perpetrator of the crime, the abettor will be
prosecuted with the sentence imposed for the offence aided, according to
Section 110 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This provision has no
bearing on the aided individual’s responsibility.

Section 111 IPC, 1860

The development of abetment legislation around the phrase “each
individual is presumed to intend the corollary results of his act” continues
in Section 111 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. If one man instigates
another to commit specific wrongdoing, and the latter, in response to
such instigation, commits not only that wrongdoing but also another
wrongdoing in furtherance of it, the former is criminally liable as an
abettor in regard to the latter, if it is one that a reasonable person with
the intelligence of a reasonable man would have known to be committed
at the time of inducement.

Section 112 IPC, 1860

The criteria outlined in the previous section are expanded in Section 112
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It holds the abettor responsible for both
the abetted and the committed offence. A close examination of Sections
111, 112, and 133 reveals that if an individual aids and abets another in
the commission of an offence, and the chief goes on to do something else
that has a different outcome than the abettor intended, thereby
aggravating the offence, the abettor is liable for the consequences of his
principal’s actions. The essential question in such an investigation is
whether the abettor, if he had been a reasonable man at the time he was
being provoked or if he had been actively aiding the principal criminal,
could have forecast the likely outcomes of his abetment.

Section 113 IPC, 1860

Sections 113 and 111 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 should be read
together. Section 111 deals with the doing of an actus reus that isn’t the
same as the one abetted, while it also deals with the circumstance when
the actus reus is comparable to the abetted guilty conduct but has a
different impact.

Section 114 IPC, 1860

Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is likely to be activated only
once conditions indicating abetment of a specific crime have been
established, and then the presence of the accused at the commission of
that wrongdoing has been established. Section 114 deals with the
situation in which there has not only been wrongdoing in form of
abetment, but also an actual commission of the wrongdoing abetted and
the abettor is present. Clearly, the section is not punitive. 

Section 114 does not apply in every case when the abettor is present
during the commission of the aided offence. While Section 109 refers to
abetment, Section 114 refers to circumstances in which the abettor was
not only present at the moment of the crime’s conduct but also abetment
was carried out prior to his presence.  There is a very delicate line
existing between Section 34 and Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860. According to Section 34, if a criminal act is committed by a group
of people for the common good, each of them is liable as if it were
committed by himself alone. Thus, if two or more people are present,
helping and abetting in the commission of the murder, each will be tried
as the main perpetrator of the crime, though it is unlikely that it will be
clear which of them actually committed the crime.

Section 114 refers to a circumstance in which an individual, by abetment,

renders himself liable as an abettor prior to the commission of the
wrongful act, is there when the actus reus occurs, but does not actively
participate in its execution. A combined act under Section 34, on the
other hand, does not include a simple order from one person to another
and the execution of that order by the other, which may only be the
latter’s act.

Section 115 IPC, 1860

The abetment of particular offences that are either not committed at all,
not committed in the course of abetment, or only partially committed is
punishable under Section 115 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The detention stated in this section is for a period of up to seven years,

and you will also be required to pay a fine. Furthermore, if the abettor
commits any act for which the abettor is liable as a result of the
abetment and which causes harm to any person, the abettor is subject to
imprisonment of either sort for a duration up to fourteen years, as well as
a fine.

Section 116 IPC, 1860

The abetment of an offence punishable by detention is covered by Section
116 of the Indian Penal Code. It is necessary to note that there is no part
of the Code that deals with the abetment of an offence punishable only by
a fine. However, abetment is at the heart of Section 306 of the 1860
Code’s violation. To put it another way, if there is no abetment, an
offence under Section 306 which is dealing with ‘abetment of suicide’ will
undoubtedly become a vital factor. Having an abetment is not
anticipated. As a result, there can’t be a violation of Section 116 when
read with Section 306.
Common questions related to the offence of
abetment
As we gradually progress to the end of this article, it is evident for the
readers to ask certain general questions related to the offence of
abetment. The same has been addressed by means of three common
questions that if answered, clear every kind of confusion associated with
abetment. The same has been provided hereunder. 

What happens to other offenders when the

principal offender gets acquitted in a case
involving a charge of abetment by aiding
When the principal offender is acquitted, all other convicts are discharged
from their role of being a part of the offence of abetment.

The Supreme Court of India was reviewing the case of Trilok Chand Jain
v. the State of Delhi (1977), in which a person was accused of assisting
the major criminal, a Delhi Energy Supply Undertaking inspector, in
receiving a bribe for supplying an electricity connection to the
complainant. When the chief offender was cleared and exonerated of the
offending act by the trial court, nothing remained of the case because
there was no evidence that the appellant, a lower cadre employee, had
sought the money. The prosecution’s case was unique in that the
inspector was the one who demanded money. 

As a result, the prosecution’s claim that the money was demanded by the
appellant labourer for himself (despite the fact that the major perpetrator
had been acquitted) was found to be undiscovered, and the individual
was therefore acquitted. When the main perpetrator was acquitted, it was
decided that the individual accused of assisting and abetting could not be
convicted.
What is the effect of acquittal of a person
committing the offence on an abettor
In Jamuna Singh v. the State of Bihar (1967), the Supreme Court of India
declared that it cannot be established in law that a person cannot be
convicted of abetting a crime where the person alleged to have
committed the crime as a result of the abetment has been acquitted. The
nature of the act abetted and the method in which the abetment was
made determine the abettors’ guilt. When the alleged abettor has
inspired or engaged in a conspiracy to perpetrate the offence, the charge
of abetment is complete. The act assisted does not have to be committed
to committing the charge of abetment. Only in the situation of a person
abetting a crime by willfully assisting another to commit that offence
would the accusation of abetment against him be expected to fail if the
person accused of committing the offence is acquitted.

Is giving advice a kind of instigation

Advice by itself does not always imply incitement. Advice-based
instigation, on the other hand, is harder to substantiate. What must be
demonstrated is that the advice was intended to actively propose or
stimulate the commission of an offence. Otherwise, the general advice is
just too ambiguous a term to be used to substantiate an allegation.

The explanation of the term ‘abettor’ as provided in Section 108 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860, states that an abettor is a person who aids in
the commission of a crime, or the performance of an act that would be an
offence if undertaken by a person capable of committing an offence with
the same intent or knowledge as the abettor. Take for instance, B is
provoked to murder D by A.  B stabs D in retaliation for the instigation. D
heals from the injuries. Here, A is responsible for inciting B to kill D. It is
not necessary for the person assisted to be legally capable of committing
an offence, to have the same guilty intention or knowledge as the
abettor, or to have any guilty intention or knowledge at all. 

Let us consider another example where A instigates B to set fire to a

dwelling-house. B, as a result of his insanity, is unable to comprehend the
nature of the act, or that he is doing something criminal or against the
law, and as a result of A’s instigation, sets fire to the house. B has
committed no crime, but A is guilty of aiding and abetting the crime of
lighting fire to a dwelling-house and is subject to the penalty for that
crime. Thus, giving advice will not be amounting to be a kind of
instigation if not the intention of the abettor is guilty or malicious. 

What happens when the substantive offence is

not established in abetment cases
When the substantive offence is not proven and the principal offender is
acquitted, the abettor is usually not held responsible. In other words, if
the substantive accusation is dismissed, the abetment charge is
dismissed as well. The Supreme Court had stated in Madan Raj Bhandari
v. the State of Rajasthan (1970), where the appellant was charged with
abetment with another in causing a woman’s miscarriage, even though
the woman was acquitted, that “an abetment charge ordinarily fails when
the substantive offence is not established against the principal offender”.

Conclusion
To conclude, it can be said that a person is charged with abetment of a
crime if he/she assists or supplies an item to another person who is
committing a crime. The offence of abetment cannot be confined to the
scope of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 only as the entire
Chapter XVI is dedicated towards the same. For the purpose of this
article, the importance of Section 107 has been reflected and how it
contributes to creating the environment for the offence of abetment to
spread, has been highlighted. Section 107 introduces the offence of
abetment to its readers and lays down the path for the following
provisions to take over the responsibility of discussing the offence.
Keeping this in mind, it can be said that Section 107 holds immense
relevance in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as it facilitates interpretation of
the complex offence of abutment. 

References 
1. PSA Pillai, Criminal law (13th Edition), LexisNexis.
2. http://www.legalpediajournal.com/wp-content/uploads/
2018/10/journal-content-6.pdf.