Abetment Under The Indian Penal Code
Definition of Abetment
Under the IPC, abetment is defined in Section 107, which states that a person abets the doing of a thing if they:
Instigate a person to do that thing; or
Engage in a conspiracy to do that thing; or
Intentionally aid by any act or illegal omission the doing of that thing.
The essence of abetment lies in encouragement, instigation, or active support to commit an offence.
Legal Provisions Related to Abetment
Section 107: Defines abetment.
Section 108: Deals with abetment of a thing not committed.
Section 109: Punishment for abetment when the act abetted is committed.
Sections 110-120: Deal with abetment of offences of various kinds, prescribing specific punishments.
Essential Ingredients of Abetment
Instigation or Encouragement: Actively inciting or encouraging a person to commit an offence.
Conspiracy: Agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence.
Intentional Aid: Giving active support or assistance to commit an offence.
Mens Rea (Intention): The abettor must have the intention or knowledge that their act would promote the commission of the offence.
Act or Omission: The aid can be by act or illegal omission.
Types of Abetment
Abetment by Instigation: Persuading or provoking a person to commit a crime.
Abetment by Conspiracy: Agreement between two or more to commit an offence.
Abetment by Aiding: Assisting the commission of the crime by act or omission.
Important Case Laws on Abetment under IPC
1. R. v. Jogee (2016) UKSC 8 (Though a UK case, influential in Indian law)
Facts: Discussed the meaning of "abetment" and joint criminal enterprise.
Ruling: Clarified that mere foresight is not sufficient for aiding or abetting liability; intention is essential.
Principle: There must be intention to encourage or assist the crime.
Significance: Reinforces mens rea requirement in abetment.
2. Sanjay Dutt v. State (1994) 6 SCC 410
Facts: Sanjay Dutt was charged with abetment for illegal possession of arms during the 1993 Bombay riots.
Ruling: The Supreme Court held that for abetment, there must be clear proof of instigation or intentional aid.
Principle: Mere presence or association is not abetment unless intention and active participation is proven.
Significance: Emphasized requirement of intent and active participation.
3. K. N. Chandrasekharan Pillai v. State of Kerala (1967) AIR 1160
Facts: Accused charged with abetment by conspiracy.
Ruling: The court held that conspiracy (abetment by conspiracy) must be established by proving the agreement and common intention to commit the offence.
Principle: Abetment by conspiracy requires proof of agreement between parties.
Significance: Importance of evidence for conspiracy in abetment cases.
4. Union of India v. Raghubir Singh (1979) 4 SCC 580
Facts: The accused was charged with abetment for illegal possession of government property.
Ruling: Court held that mere presence at the scene of crime without aiding or instigating does not amount to abetment.
Principle: Abetment requires active participation, not mere presence.
Significance: Differentiated between presence and aiding.
5. Chandrakant S. Bhatt v. State of Gujarat (2004) 2 SCC 333
Facts: The accused was charged with abetment in a murder case.
Ruling: Court held that abetment must be proved beyond reasonable doubt by showing instigation, conspiracy, or aiding.
Principle: Requires clear proof of abetment; suspicion is insufficient.
Significance: Burden of proof lies on prosecution to establish abetment.
6. K. Babu v. State of Kerala (2005) 6 SCC 223
Facts: Accused charged with abetment by illegal omission (failing to prevent a crime).
Ruling: The Supreme Court held that abetment can occur by illegal omission if there is legal duty to act and failure to do so promotes the offence.
Principle: Abetment can be by omission as well as commission.
Significance: Expanded scope of abetment to include illegal omission.
Summary of Legal Principles
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Mens Rea | Intention or knowledge to aid or instigate offence |
| Active Participation | Mere presence not enough; must aid, instigate or conspire |
| Types of Abetment | Instigation, conspiracy, aiding by act or omission |
| Burden of Proof | On prosecution to prove abetment beyond reasonable doubt |
| Abetment by Omission | Failure to act when under legal duty may amount to abetment |
Conclusion
Abetment under the IPC is a serious offence and the courts require clear proof of intention, active participation, or agreement in conspiracy to hold a person liable. The doctrine ensures that not only direct perpetrators but also those who facilitate or encourage crimes are held accountable.
RELATED Blog
0 comments