ABETMENT

A person who does not himself

commmit a crime may however
command,urge,encourage,induce
,reques-t or help a third person
to bring it .
That person is guilty of offence
of abetment.
 Abet means---
To aid
To assist
To give aid
To command
To councel
To encourage
To induce
 English law-----------
In English law persons who
themselves are not the main
offenders but who assist or aid
them are known as accessories.
English law recognises three type
of accessories:
1. Accessories before the fact
2. Accessories at the fact
3. Accessories after the fact
 Indian law relating to
abetment----
The law relating to abetmentis
contained in ss 107-120IPC.
SECTION 107-Abetment of a
thing
Abetment may commited in any
pf the following three ways----
 By instigating the commission of
an offence;or
By engaging in a conspiracy to
comit an offence;or
By intentionally aiding the
commission of an offence.
Abetment by instigation-
Example-A says B ,I am going to
stab C.B replies ,you may do
what you wish and take the
consequences.A goes and stab
C.
B will liable or not?
 Instigating-Means the act of inciting
another to do a wrongful act. One
may abet the commission of an
offence by counseling, suggestions,
encouraging, pouring or commanding
another to do an act.In order to
constitute abatement by instigation
some active proceeding towards the
preparation of the crime is necessary.
 Mere acquiescence, silent assent
or verbal permission would not
constitute instigation.
A tells B that he intends to
murder C,B saysdo as you like, A
kills C, here B cannot be said to
have instigated.
 The persons who are nearby a
woman preparing herself for sati
to the pyre,and chanted Rama
Rama,were guilty of abetment or
not?
Abetment by conspiracy-
Example-A,a servant enters into
an agreement with thieves to
keep the doors of his masterss
house open in the night so that
they might commit theft.A,
according to agreed plan,keep
the doors open and the thieves
take away his masters
property.A guilty or not?
 Abetment by
conspiracy:abatement of
conspiracy consist when two or
more person engage in a
conspiracy for doing a thing
which is illegal thing or act or
illegal omission.
 Thus in order to constituted
abatement by conspiracy
following conditions must be
there:
A conspiracy between two or
more person.
An act or illegal omission may
take place of that conspiracy.
 Abetment by aid-
Example-A incites B to kill C by
uttering the words maro
maro..and D puts a knief in Bs
hand.A and D will liable or not?
 A person abets the doing of a
thing who intentionally aids, by
any act or illegal omission, the
doing of that thing.
Mere intention to facilitate, is not
sufficient to constitute
abatement, unless the act which
it is intended to facilitate actually
take place.
 Mere giving of aid-A mere giving of
help is not amount of abatement,
until the person who provides the
aid does not know that an offence
was being committed or constituted.
Illustration-A wanted to kill B, he perused C to
call B, C calls B and B is murdered, here C
provide the aid, but he did not know that A
wanted to kill B. So he would not be held liable
for abatement.
 Mere presence at the commission
of an office done not amount to
intentional aid, unless it was
intended to have that effect., and
the present aware that an offence
is about to be committed an office,
or he actively support or present
hold some position, authority, or
rank in committing the offence.
 Object of the provision of
abetment-
A majority of crime commited by
two or more persons.in most such
crimes,there sometimes exist
persons who by theselves may
not participate in the crime,but
through other means,as through
instigation,or aid or extending
help or cooperation,enable the
others to commit the crime.
 The Indian penal code has
accordingly made provision for
the punishment of persons
involved in such preparatory
acts in order to prevent crime
from the being commited.
 Cases-Eshan Meah,18
52774 ,12WR
One man named Bedoo, was a
supervisor of some labourer.
He had got into a quarrel.
He shouted in the hit of the moment
that he wished he had a fatal
weapon to teach a labourer a lesson.
One man named Eshan Meah was
standing nearby. Cont.
 That Eshan handed over Bedoo a
weapon,with which Bedoo
severly injured the coolie.
Eshan will be guily or not?
 Ram kumar v State of
Himachal pradesh.AIR
1995SC1965
A constable drag a newly married 19
years old girl and her husband.
In the police station,the head
constable took the girl to a
room,repeatedly beat her and
sexually abused her.
Another constable kept watch outside
holding the helpless husband.
The second constable will be held
guilty or not?
 SIA RAM VS. STATE OF U.P

In., the Supreme Court held that

in order to constitute abetment,
the abettor must be shown to
have intentionally aided the
commission of the crime.
V. Shankaraiah vs State Of
A.P. on 11 February, 2002
The case of the prosecution is that
Kalyani (the deceased) felt
humiliated and committed suicide
because her marriage with A1 was
cancelled after its settlement.
so A-1 and his father A2 and paternal
uncle (A-3, the petitioner) are liable
for punishment under Section 306
IPC., for the suicide of the deceased.
 The contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that
since there is nothing on record to
show that petitioner is responsible
for the death of Kalyani (the
deceased) or that petitioner had a
role to play in the settlement of
marriage between A.1 and Kalyani,
the question of petitioner abetting
the suicide of Kalyani does not arise.
 'Abetment' in Section 306 IPC
has to be understood with
reference to its definition given
in Section 107 I.P.C. While
considering the scope of Section
107 IPC the Supreme Court in
C.B.I. K VS. V.C.SHUKLA1,
observed, in Para 50 at Page
1423 as follows:
 .a person abets the doing of a thing
when he does any of the acts
mentioned in the following three
clauses.
(i) instigates that person to do that
thing.
(ii) engages with one or more other
person or persons in any conspiracy for
the doing of that things.
(iii) Intentionally aids, by any act or
illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
 So far as the first two clauses
are concerned it is not necessary
that the offence instigated
should have been committed. For
understanding the word 'aid' in
the third clause it would be
advantageous to see Explanation
2 in Section 107 IPC, which reads
thus:
 "Whoever, either prior to or at the
time of the commission of the act,
does anything in order to facilitate
the commission thereof, is said to
aid the doing of that act. It is thus
clear that under the third clause
when a person abets by aiding, the
act so aided should have been
committed in order to make such
aiding an offence....."
 Aiding suicide by a person can only
be by positive acts of assisting in
procuring the material required for
suicide, like a person supplying rope
or other material for hanging, when
a person expresses his desires to
commit suicide by hanging, or
supplying weapon or material like
drugs, poison, etc..
CONT.
when the person intending to
commit suicide asks such aid, or
if a person suggest the modes in
which suicide can be committed
like jumping into a river, lake or
well, etc., to a person who
intends to commit suicide.
 V. Shankaraiah vs State
Of A.P. on 11 February,
2002
The case of the prosecution is that
Kalyani (the deceased) felt
humiliated and committed suicide
because her marriage with A1 was
cancelled after its settlement.
A-1 and his father A2 and paternal
uncle (A-3, the petitioner) are liable
for punishment under Section 306
IPC., for the suicide of the deceased.
 The contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that
since there is nothing on record to
show that petitioner is responsible
for the death of Kalyani (the
deceased) or that petitioner had a
role to play in the settlement of
marriage between A.1 and Kalyani,
the question of petitioner abetting
the suicide of Kalyani does not arise.
 'Abetment' in Section 306 IPC
has to be understood with
reference to its definition given
in Section 107 I.P.C. While
considering the scope of Section
107 IPC the Supreme Court in
C.B.I. K VS. V.C.SHUKLA1,
observed, in Para 50 at Page
1423 as follows:
 "...a person abets the doing of a thing
when he does any of the acts
mentioned in the following three
clauses.
(i) instigates that person to do that
thing.
(ii) engages with one or more other
person or persons in any conspiracy for
the doing of that things.
(iii) Intentionally aids, by any act or
illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
 So far as the first two clauses
are concerned it is not necessary
that the offence instigated
should have been committed. For
understanding the word 'aid' in
the third clause it would be
advantageous to see Explanation
2 in Section 107 IPC, which reads
thus:
 "Whoever, either prior to or at the
time of the commission of the act,
does anything in order to facilitate
the commission thereof, is said to aid
the doing of that act"
It is thus clear that under the third
clause when a person abets by aiding,
the act so aided should have been
committed in order to make such
aiding an offence....."
 Thanu Ram vs State Of
M.P. on 5 October, 2010
The Petitioner herein, Thanu
Ram, was married to Hirabai
(deceased) in 1984. On 24th
March, 1988, Hirabai committed
suicide in her matrimonial home
by sprinkling kerosene upon
herself and setting herself on
fire.
 She died in the hospital on 25th March,
1988, having suffered 90-95% burn
injuries. Prior to her death, she made a
dying declaration to the Naib Tahsildar,
J.R. Lahre, who was examined by the
prosecution as P.W.9. Dr. K. Vinay Kumar,
in whose presence the declaration was
made, was examined by the prosecution
as P.W.11 to testify that Hirabai was in a
fit mental condition to make the dying
declaration before P.W.9.
 Dr. Rajesh Pandey, learned Advocate
for the Petitioner, raised two basic
issues in the course of his submissions,
namely, (i) whether the offences
complained of under Sections 306 and
498-A IPC were at all sustainable, and
(ii) whether the dying declaration, said
to have been made by Hirabai on which
the decision of the Courts below was
based, could have been relied upon
without proper corroboration.
 Dr. Pandey urged that the Trial Court as
well as the High Court had failed to notice
the main ingredient of an offence under
Section 306 IPC, namely, the question of
abetment in the commission of such suicide
which has been spelt out in Section 107 IPC.
Learned counsel pointed out that in order to
abet the doing of a thing, the abettor must
be found to have instigated any person to
do such thing or engage with one or more
person or persons in any conspiracy for the
doing of that thing
 SECTIONS RELATING TO
ABETMENT UNDER IPC
sec108-Abetor-
Sec 109,115,116 state the
quantum of penalty to be
accorded in different cases of
abetment.
Sec 118-120 prove for penalty in
cases of of abetment by
concealment.