Abetment And Conspiracy Doctrinal Study
🔹 DOCTRINAL STUDY OF ABETMENT & CONSPIRACY
PART I: ABETMENT (SECTIONS 107 TO 120 IPC)
🔸 Definition (Section 107 IPC):
Abetment includes:
Instigation to do a thing;
Engaging in a conspiracy to do a thing;
Intentionally aiding (by act or illegal omission) the doing of a thing.
Abettor is defined under Section 108 IPC.
🔸 Key Elements:
To prove abetment, the following are essential:
Presence of mens rea (intention)
Active participation or instigation
Causal connection between the abetment and the act committed
🔸 Forms of Abetment:
By Instigation – Directly or indirectly urging another to commit an offence.
By Conspiracy – Where two or more persons conspire to commit an act.
By Aiding – Providing support to facilitate the commission of the act.
CASE LAWS ON ABETMENT:
⚖️ 1. R. v. Mohit (1869) 14 WR Cr 5
Facts: A person instigated another to commit suicide, who later killed himself.
Held: Instigation may be inferred from conduct, provocation, or continuous harassment. Direct proof is not always necessary.
Significance: Court established that instigation need not be express; even indirect conduct can amount to abetment.
⚖️ 2. Sanju v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2002) 5 SCC 371
Facts: The accused told the deceased to "go and die" two days before the person committed suicide.
Issue: Whether such a statement amounted to abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC.
Held: Mere use of abusive language or a vague comment like “go and die” is not sufficient for abetment. No mens rea or direct instigation was established.
Significance: The Supreme Court emphasized the need for proximate cause and intention to instigate the suicide.
⚖️ 3. S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010) 12 SCC 190
Facts: An officer committed suicide due to mental harassment allegedly by a senior.
Held: To constitute abetment, there must be intentional aiding or instigation. Mere harassment without intent or instigation to commit suicide does not attract Section 306.
Significance: Reinforced that mere cruelty or harassment, unless directly connected to the suicide, is not enough.
⚖️ 4. Kishori Lal v. State of M.P. (2007) 10 SCC 797
Facts: An accused was charged under Section 109 (abetment) read with 302 (murder).
Held: The prosecution must prove that the abettor was involved with a criminal intention and his act facilitated the main offence.
Significance: Established that mere presence or passive knowledge is not enough for abetment—active participation is required.
⚖️ 5. State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh (1977) 4 SCC 39
Facts: The accused was not the main perpetrator but was alleged to have helped plan the murder.
Held: The court held that even if the main offence is not completed, abetment may still be punishable if the abettor has intentionally instigated or conspired.
Significance: Abetment is complete when the abettor does his part—actual commission is not necessary.
PART II: CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY (SECTION 120A & 120B IPC)
🔸 Definition (Section 120A IPC):
"When two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done—
An illegal act, or
A legal act by illegal means,
such agreement is called criminal conspiracy."
🔸 Key Elements of Criminal Conspiracy:
Two or more persons
Agreement to commit an offence
Overt act required only if conspiracy is for non-cognizable offence
Intention/common object is crucial
🔸 Types of Conspiracy:
Wider conspiracy – Long-term plan involving many acts (e.g., terror operations)
Specific conspiracy – Targeted towards a single offence (e.g., murder plot)
CASE LAWS ON CONSPIRACY:
⚖️ 6. Kehar Singh v. State (1988) 3 SCC 609
Facts: Kehar Singh was charged for conspiracy in the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.
Held: Conspiracy is generally hatched in secrecy, hence direct evidence is rare. Circumstantial evidence and conduct of the accused can prove the conspiracy.
Significance: Supreme Court clarified that conspiracy can be inferred from chain of circumstances, and not always by direct evidence.
⚖️ 7. State v. Nalini (Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case) (1999) 5 SCC 253
Facts: Multiple accused were involved in a conspiracy that led to the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi.
Held: Even if the accused did not participate in the final execution, being part of the plan with knowledge makes them liable.
Significance: Clarified joint liability in conspiracy, and that mere withdrawal from a conspiracy does not absolve responsibility unless it is communicated clearly.
⚖️ 8. Yash Pal Mittal v. State of Punjab (1977) 4 SCC 540
Facts: The accused was part of a conspiracy to defraud a company.
Held: Agreement between parties is the foundation of conspiracy. The act of one conspirator is admissible against the others under Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Significance: The court emphasized that even a single overt act by one member can be sufficient to establish the conspiracy involving others.
⚖️ 9. Ram Narayan Popli v. CBI (2003) 3 SCC 641
Facts: Bank officials were involved in granting loans by violating norms, in criminal conspiracy with private parties.
Held: For conviction under conspiracy, motive and opportunity, though not sufficient alone, support the existence of an agreement to commit the illegal act.
Significance: Demonstrated how white-collar conspiracies can be established through circumstantial and documentary evidence.
⚖️ 10. State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa (1996) 4 SCC 659
Facts: The accused were involved in a terrorist organization plotting violent acts.
Held: A prima facie case of conspiracy can be made even without direct proof of meeting or communication.
Significance: The court ruled that intention + preparatory acts and common design can lead to inference of conspiracy.
🔸 Difference Between Abetment & Conspiracy
| Aspect | Abetment | Conspiracy |
|---|---|---|
| Nature | Involves instigation or aiding | Involves agreement to commit offence |
| Requirement | Act or omission to aid crime | Agreement itself is offence |
| Number of persons | One person can abet | Minimum two persons |
| Timing | Before or during the offence | Begins with agreement, even before the act |
| Punishment | Depends on act abetted | Punishable under Section 120B |
🔸 Conclusion
Abetment and conspiracy are inchoate offences—meaning they focus on preparation and planning, not necessarily the final act. Indian courts have interpreted these sections broadly but cautiously, ensuring that mere association is not enough, and that there must be intent, agreement, and conduct aligning with criminal design.
RELATED Blog
0 comments