Note on abetment

Explain the ingredients of abetment? What is the consequence when one offence is committed and another offence is abetted?

Write short note on abetment

What is abetment? What are different modes of abetment? Is silence equivalent to abetment? Illustrate with example.

When several persons take part in the commission of an offence, each one of them may contribute in a manner and degree different from the others to the commission of it. The offence may be committed by the hands of one person at the instigation of another person, while some others may only be present for offering help at the time of commission of it, and still others may help the principle culprit in procuring the tools.

It is necessary, therefore, to mark the nature and degree of participation of each of the persons to determine their degree of culpability. However, several gradations of action do not necessarily imply different measures of guilt with a view to distinctions in punishment.

Abetment is the act of instigating, inciting and encouraging of an offence. A person abets the doing of a thing, who instigates any person to do that thing or engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy and in order to the doing of that thing or intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

The Indian Penal Code makes a broad distinction between principals and abettors but does not recognize the accessory after the fact except that harboring of offenders has been made substantive offence in some cases.

Under the IPC abetment constituted in the following ways:

(i) By instigating a person to commit an offence; or

(ii) By engaging in a conspiracy to commit an offence;

(iii) By intentionally aiding a person to commit an offence.

Abetment is an offence only if the act abetted would itself be an offence punishable under the IPC or under any other law for the time being in force.

1. Instigation:

Instigation means the act of inciting another to do a wrongful act. One may abet the commission of an offence by counseling, suggesting, encouraging, procuring or commanding another to do an act.

To instigate means to actively suggest or stimulate by any means or language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation or of hints, insulation or encouragement. In order to constitute abetment by instigation some active proceeding towards the preparation of the crime is necessary.

2. Abetment by Conspiracy:

Abetment of conspiracy is committed when two or more persons encourage in conspiracy for the doing of a thing. And an act or illegal omission takes place in the presence of the conspiracy and in order to the doing of that thing. Thus in order that abetment by conspiracy maybe constituted, three things are necessary:

(i) A conspiracy between two or more persons

(ii) An act or illegal omission must take place in the presence of that conspiracy

(iii) Such an act or illegal omission must also take place in order to the doing of the thing conspired.

3. Abetment by Aid:

A person abets the doing of a thing who intentionally aids, by doing any act or illegal omission, by doing of that thing. Clause 3 of section 107 must be with explanation two of the section and if read together, it becomes clear that person cannot be held guilty of aiding the doing of an act when the act has been done at all.

In Emperor v. Faiyaz Hussain, a zamindar lent a house to a police officer who was investigating a case knowing that house would be used for torturing a suspected thief. He was guilty of abetment.

Section 108 of IPC defines the term abettor. A person abets an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence with the same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor.

In Faguna Kantwath v. State of Assam, 1959 SCR Supl. (2)1 the Supreme Court held that the offence of abetment may be committed by instigating commission of an offence or by engaging in a conspiracy to commit an offence or by intentionally aiding the commission of an offence.

In Queen v. Mohit it was held that the persons who followed a women preparing herself for sati to the pier and cried “Ram Ram” were guilty of abetment by instigation to lead that women to commit suicide

When one offence is committed and another offence is abetted, in this condition the abettor shall be liable for the abetment of the offence:

(a) The act done was a probable consequence of the abetment and

(b) The act was committed under the influence of the instigation or with the aid or in pursuance of the conspiracy which constituted the abetment.

In this regard, section 111 of the IPC provides that-

When an Act is abetted and a different act is done, the abettor is liable for the act done, in the same manner and to the same extent as if he had directly abetted it:

Provided the act done was a probable consequence of the abetment, and was committed under the influence of the instigation, or with the aid or in pursuance of the conspiracy which constituted the abetment.

For example – If A instigates B to burn Z’s house. B sets fire to the house and at the same time commits theft of property there. A, though guilty of abetting the burning of the house, is not guilty of abetting the theft; for the theft was a distinct act, and not a probable consequence of the burning.