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 –

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

This section explains that if the Penal Code has not independently accommodated the punishment of abetment as such then it is punishable with the discipline accommodated for the original offense. Law does not expect instigation to be in a specific structure or that it should just be in words. The instigation might be by behaviour or conduct. Whether there was instigation or not, is an inquiry to be settled on the distinct facts of each case.

It isn’t essential in law for the prosecution to demonstrate that the real intention in the brain of the individual abetting was instigation and that was it, provided there was instigation and the offense has been committed or the offense would have been committed if the individual who was the main offender had the same intention and knowledge as the thing that was likely to have been done by the person who is instigated.

It is only if this condition is satisfied that an individual can be blameworthy of abetment by instigation. Further the actus reus abetted ought to be done as a consequence of the abetment or in pursuance as given in the Explanation to this Section. 

Section 110 of the Indian Penal Code gives that even if the individual abetted commits the offense with an intention different than the intention possessed by the main perpetrator of the crime, yet the abettor will be charged with the punishment provided for the offence abetted. The liability of the individual abetted isn’t influenced by this section.

Section 111 of the Indian Penal Code continues the development on abetment laws around the phrase “each man is deemed to intend the corollary outcomes of his act.” If one man actuates another to execute specific wrongdoing, and that other, in pursuance of such instigation, executes not just that wrongdoing but carries out another wrongdoing in the advancement of it, the former is criminally liable as an abettor in regard of such last-mentioned wrongdoing, in the event that it is one which, as a person with the intelligence of a reasonable man, at the time of inducement would have known to be committed in order to carry out the original crime.

Section 112 of the Indian Penal Code expands the guidelines articulated in the previous section. Under it, the abettor is held liable for the offense abetted and also the offense committed. Joint scrutiny of Sections 111, 112 and 133 make it richly evident that if an individual abets another in the commission of an offense and the chief goes further from there on and accomplishes something more which has an alternative outcome from that planned by the abettor and makes the offense an aggravated one, the abettor is liable for the consequences of the acts of his principal.

The essence of the issue is an enquiry of this sort is whether the abettor as a sensible man at the time that he is being instigated or has been purposefully supporting the main perpetrator would have predicted the likely results of his abetment.

Section 113 of the Indian Penal Code ought to be read together with Section 111. Section 111 accommodates the doing of the actus reus which is not the same as the one abetted, though this section manages the situation when the actus reus done is equivalent to the guilty act abetted however its impact is not the same.

Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code is possibly only brought into activity when 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.

 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ABETMENT AND COMMON INTENTION

ABETMENT	COMMON INTENTION
1. Abetment is a stand alone offence and can be punished all by itself.	1. Common intention is no offence on its own and has to be read with in consonance of other crimes.
2. The accused may not be present at the crime scene .	2. Common Intention, his presence is an indispensable element and participate whether actively or passively.
3. The crime need not be committed.	3. The crime must be committed.

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.