Criminal Liability For Accomplices And Accessories
I. Introduction to Accomplices and Accessories
In criminal law, accomplices and accessories are persons who assist, encourage, or facilitate the commission of a crime, even if they do not commit the principal offense themselves.
Key Terms:
Principal Offender: Person who actually commits the crime.
Accomplice: Person who actively participates, abets, or aids in the commission of a crime.
Accessory: Person who helps the principal offender before or after the crime, but may not participate in the main act.
II. Legal Provisions in Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Abetment (Section 107 IPC)
Abetment is defined as:
Instigating another person to commit an offense.
Engaging in a conspiracy to commit the offense.
Intentionally aiding the commission of an offense.
Sections 108–120 IPC deal with liability of abettors.
Criminal Conspiracy (Section 120A & 120B IPC)
When two or more persons agree to commit a criminal act, all are liable, whether or not the crime is completed.
Common Intention (Section 34 IPC)
When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention, each is liable as if they did it alone.
Accessory after the Fact (Section 182–186 IPC)
Provides punishment for harboring, concealing, or assisting a criminal after the offense has been committed.
III. Distinction Between Principal, Accomplice, and Accessory
| Role | Definition | Liability |
|---|---|---|
| Principal | Commits the main act | Fully liable |
| Accomplice | Aids, abets, or encourages crime | Liable under abetment sections |
| Accessory | Assists before or after crime | Liable under Sections 182–186 IPC, lesser than principal |
IV. Leading Case Laws
1. K.K. Verma v. State of U.P. (1963) 3 SCR 398
Facts: Multiple accused conspired to commit murder.
Judgment: Court held that all members of a conspiracy are liable for the acts committed in pursuance of the common object.
Principle: Establishes liability of accomplices under Section 120B IPC.
2. State of Maharashtra v. Dinesh & Ors. (2005) 2 SCC 106
Facts: Abetment in a series of thefts.
Judgment: Court observed that abetment requires intentional aid or instigation, not mere presence at the scene.
Principle: Distinguishes active abetment vs passive association.
3. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116
Facts: Involved joint criminal activity leading to fraud.
Judgment: Supreme Court applied Section 34 IPC – acts done in common intention make all participants liable.
Principle: Emphasizes common intention over mere association.
4. Lallu Yeshwant Singh v. State of U.P. (1970) 2 SCC 90
Facts: Accessory after murder helped principal offender escape.
Judgment: Court held that accessory can be punished for harboring and concealing criminal even if not involved in original act.
Principle: Section 182 IPC extends liability to post-offense assistance.
5. Sohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan (1977) 3 SCC 381
Facts: Accused planned robbery, but one person did not commit the theft physically.
Judgment: Court held that abetment by instigation or aiding is sufficient to hold liability under Sections 107 & 109 IPC.
Principle: Participation in planning can establish criminal liability.
6. Surendra Singh v. State of Haryana (1980) 2 SCC 122
Facts: Group assault leading to homicide.
Judgment: Court applied Section 149 IPC (unlawful assembly) along with common intention, holding all participants liable.
Principle: Extends liability of accomplices in group crimes.
7. Ram Lal v. State of Haryana (1988) 4 SCC 72
Facts: Accused provided weapon used in crime.
Judgment: Supreme Court held that supplying weapons or materials knowing their use in a crime amounts to abetment.
Principle: Physical aid or facilitation constitutes accomplice liability.
V. Principles Extracted from Case Law
| Principle | Case Law | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Liability of conspirators | K.K. Verma v. U.P. | All members of conspiracy liable for acts in pursuit of common object |
| Abetment requires intent | Dinesh & Ors. | Mere presence is insufficient; intentional aid needed |
| Common intention | Sharad Birdhichand Sarda | All participants liable when crime done in common intention |
| Accessory after offense | Lallu Yeshwant Singh | Helping principal after crime makes one liable under Sections 182–186 IPC |
| Aiding in planning sufficient | Sohan Lal | Planning or instigating constitutes criminal liability |
| Group crimes liability | Surendra Singh | Participants in group assaults liable under Section 149 IPC |
| Providing tools or weapons | Ram Lal | Supplying instruments for crime = abetment |
VI. Practical Applications
Abetment Cases: Investigators must prove instigation, aid, or conspiracy.
Group Crimes: Liability may extend under common intention or unlawful assembly.
Accessory After the Fact: Punishable even if not present during crime.
Weapons and Tools: Facilitating crime materially is considered accomplice liability.
Intent is Key: Mere presence does not constitute criminal liability unless intentional aid or participation is established.
VII. Summary
Accomplices: Aid or abet crime; liable like principal.
Accessories: Help before or after crime; liable but usually lesser penalty.
Sections Applied: 107–120 (Abetment), 34, 149 (Common Intention), 182–186 (Accessory after fact).
Judicial Approach: Courts emphasize intent, active participation, and planning.
Case Laws provide clarity on: conspiracy, common intention, aiding tools, and post-crime assistance.
RELATED Blog
0 comments