Abetment

Introduction
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. 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.

Definition of Abetment
Section 107-120 of Indian Penal Code 1860, talks about abetment. According to
section 107 which explains the meaning of abetment, in general to abets means to
instigate, to help, to encourage to put in execution his criminal intention. Abetment
consist of three act which is laid down in section 107

In the case of Sanju v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2002) 5 SCC 371. the honorable
Supreme court defined ‘abet’ as meaning to aid, to assist or to give aid, to command,
to procure, or to counsel, to countenance, to encourage, or encourage or to set
another one to commit.[2] The definition of ‘abet’ as laid down, makes it clear that
abetment only occurs when there are at least two person involved, which further
directs us towards the arrangement and operation of the act.

Types of Abetment:
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) willful 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. Even suicides 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.
Aid by Act
For example, A instigates B to commit suicide and C puts poison in the hand of B.
Here A and C both are abettors. A is liable by instigation and C by intentional aiding.

Aid by illegal omission

For example, a policeman has a legal duty to interfere if an offence is being
committed in front of him. If he remains a silent spectator on this, then he will be
liable as himself to encourage the commission of the offence.

Who is an Abettor ?
The definition of the term Abettor is mentioned in Section 108 of the Code. According
to this Section, an abettor is a person who abets the commission of such a wrongful
act that will be deemed as an offence in the eyes of law An abettor can be an
instigator, or a conspirator, or helper in the commission of a crime as defined in
section 107.

It is important that the Abetment shall necessarily be for the commission of a legal
offence. For example. A instigate B to run away all the street dogs from the city. B
did the same. This is not an offence of Abetment as running away the street dogs is
not a legal offence.

The exclusive scope and clear interpretation of the term Abettor is mentioned in 5
explanations of Section 108 which includes –

Abetment of illegal omission – This states that the person may be held liable for
abating a person for an act which he is legally required to do and the abettor is
legally exempted for it.
For example, a police constable will be guilty of an illegal omission of his duty by not
interfering in a fight whereas a private individual cannot be held guilty of such
offence.

The effect of Abetment is immaterial.

As per this explanation, it is not necessary that the act abetted must give the
intended effect or result. For example. An instigated B to kill M by way of stabbing. B
did so but M recovered as the wound was not sufficient to cause death. Now, A is
guilty to abet B for committing the murder.

A person abetted need not necessarily be capable of committing the offence.

It is not necessary that the person abetted must be capable in the eyes of the law to
commit offence. For example, a person can employ a child below the age of seven
years to commit the offence. In this case, the child is not punishable as he is
exempted under section 82 of IPC and would be treated as an innocent, where the
person that directs him to do the act would be liable as an abettor.
Abetment of Abetment is an offence.
Sometimes, there is a series of abetments that led to the commission of the offence.
In that case, all the people will be held equally liable for the same. For example, X
instigates Y to murder M. Y again instigated Z to kill M. In the influence of
Instigation, Z does so and M was murdered in the end. Now, X and Y are equally
liable for the offence of Abetment.

Engagement in the conspiracy on account of which the offence is committed is

enough to make him liable as an abettor.
For example. Ram makes a plan with Mohan to kill Raju. It was decided that Ram
will give the poison. Mohan explains the plan to Ravi who arranges the poison and
delivers it to Mohan. Ram gave the poison and Raju dies in consequence. Here,
Ravi has committed the offence although he did not conspire with Ram he engaged
himself in the conspiracy to kill Raju.

Abetment of offences outside India:

Section 108A was added in the Penal Code in 189846 with a view to overrule a
decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Queen Empress v. Ganapatrao
Ramachandra 47 (1984) ILR 19 Bom 105. in which it was held that the abetment in
India by an Indian citizen of an offence committed in a foreign country was not
punishable under the Code. The section states that a person would be guilty of n an
abetment, if he abets the commission of an act outside India, which if done in India,
would constitute an offence.

Gurcharan Singh vs. State of Punjab (2017) 1 SCC 433 – In this recent case, the
Apex Court observed that the basic ingredients of Section 306 of IPC are suicidal
death and the abetment thereof. To constitute abetment, the intention and
involvement of the accused to aid or instigate the commission of suicide is
imperative. Any severance or absence of any of these constituents would militate
against this indictment.

PUNISHMENT FOR ABETMENT

For the public at large, the very concept of Abetment being tried as a separate
offence and being punishable might sound really bizarre because it is so
imbibed in most people that only the perpetrators of the crime will be
punished. The Penal Code in its abetment laws clearly lays down the sections,
explaining extensively, the different walks of punishments that the abetment
laws notify. They are covered as follows:

In Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, the one who abets an offence is
given the same punishment as that of the principal perpetrator of the crime if
the actus reus of the principal offender has occurred as a result of the
inducement made by the abettor. Section 109 of the Penal Code is applicable
in case no separate provision is made for the punishment of such an
abetment.

Section 109 of the Penal Code ends up being relevant regardless of whether
the abettor is absent when the offense abetted is committed given that he has
instigated the commission of the offense or has connected with at least one or
more different people in a conspiracy to commit an offense and in accordance
with that conspiracy, some unlawful act or unlawful exclusion happens or has
purposefully helped the commission of an offense by an act or illicit oversight.
conditions adding up to abetment of specific wrongdoing have first been
proved, and after that, the presence of the accused at the commission for that
wrongdoing is demonstrated furthermore. Section 114 talks about the case,
where there has been the wrongdoing of abetment, however, were additionally
there has been real commission of the wrongdoing abetted and the abettor
has been present there, and the manner by which it manages such a case is
this. Rather than the wrongdoing being still abetment with circumstances of
aggravation, the wrongdoing turns into the very wrongdoing abetted. The
section is clearly not punitory.

Section 114 isn’t relevant for each situation in which the abettor is present at
the commission of the offense abetted. While Section 109 is a section which
talks about abetment, Section 114 applies to those cases in which not only is
the abettor present at the time of the commission of the offense but abetment
was done beforehand and done independently of his presence.

There is a very fine line between Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. As per Section 34, where a criminal act
is done by numerous people, in promotion of the basic aim of all, every one of
them is liable as though it were finished by himself alone; so that if at least 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, however, it
probably won’t be clear which of them really perpetrated the crime.

Section 114 alludes to the situation where an individual by abetment, prior to

the commission of the wrongful act, renders himself obligated as an abettor, is
present when the actus reus takes place, however, takes no active part in its
doing. A joint act falling under Section 34 however does not include a mere
order from one person to another and the carrying out of that order by the
other which may only be the instigation of the latter’s act.
Section 115 of the Indian Penal Code criminalizes the abetment of specific
offenses which are either not committed at all, or not committed in pursuance
of abetment or only in part committed.

The detainment discussed in this section is for a term which may stretch out to
seven years, and will likewise be obligated to fine. What’s more is that, 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
of either description for a term which may extend to fourteen years and shall
also be liable to fine.

Conclusion

The offence of abutment is based on the principle of natural justice which

provides for punishment for maintaining just and fair law. It is based on
jurisprudence that the accomplices in the crime shall also be punished with
the main offender. 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 so as to give a wider meaning to the act and
omission by the use of encryption or any electronic method.