Abetment And Conspiracy Under Modern Ipc
🔹 1. Abetment – Sections 107 to 120 IPC
Definition:
Abetment involves instigating, engaging in a conspiracy, or intentionally aiding someone in the commission of a crime.
🔸 Section 107 IPC – Abetment Defined
A person abets the commission of an offence when:
Instigation: They instigate someone to do an illegal act.
Conspiracy: They engage in a conspiracy to commit a crime (but mere conspiracy is not enough; some act or illegal omission must take place).
Aiding: They intentionally aid the commission of an offence by an act or illegal omission.
🔹 Instigation can be verbal, written, or implied through conduct.
🔹 Abetment can occur even if the act is not committed.
🔹 2. Criminal Conspiracy – Sections 120A and 120B IPC
Section 120A IPC:
Defines criminal conspiracy as an agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means.
Section 120B IPC:
Prescribes punishment for criminal conspiracy.
🔹 Unlike abetment, mere agreement is punishable under conspiracy if the object is an illegal act.
🔹 If the object is a legal act by illegal means, some overt act must be proven.
📚 Important Case Laws on Abetment and Conspiracy (Detailed)
1. Sanjay Dutt v. State (1994) 5 SCC 410
Facts:
The case arose from the 1993 Bombay blasts. Sanjay Dutt was accused of criminal conspiracy for illegal possession of arms.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that conspiracy is a distinct offence, and mere knowledge of the conspiracy or being present at a meeting is not sufficient. There must be evidence of active participation or agreement.
Significance:
Emphasized that conspiracy can be established through circumstantial evidence, as direct evidence is rare.
2. State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini (Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case), (1999) 5 SCC 253
Facts:
Related to the assassination of former PM Rajiv Gandhi. Several accused were charged under criminal conspiracy.
Held:
The court ruled that conspiracy is complete when the agreement is made, regardless of whether the act is carried out. It also clarified that every conspirator is not liable for every act unless it was done in furtherance of the conspiracy.
Significance:
Explained the scope and limits of vicarious liability in conspiracy cases.
3. Kehar Singh v. State (1988) 3 SCC 609 (Indira Gandhi Assassination Case)
Facts:
Kehar Singh was charged for conspiracy in the assassination of PM Indira Gandhi along with the assassins.
Held:
The court upheld the death sentence and stated that conspiracy is generally proved by circumstantial evidence. Here, evidence showed that the accused knew of the plot and contributed to it.
Significance:
Cemented the principle that mental meeting of minds and communication between conspirators are enough to prove conspiracy.
4. Shri Ram v. State of U.P., AIR 1975 SC 175
Facts:
The accused was charged with abetting the suicide of a woman due to persistent cruelty.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that to prove abetment of suicide, there must be direct or indirect incitement to commit suicide. Merely causing harassment is not sufficient unless it leads to such mental distress.
Significance:
This case laid down the threshold for abetment in suicide cases under Section 306 IPC.
5. State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa, (1996) 4 SCC 659
Facts:
Concerned with a criminal conspiracy related to anti-national activities.
Held:
The court ruled that an initial prima facie agreement to commit an offence is sufficient to frame charges for conspiracy. The prosecution need not prove the actual act at this stage.
Significance:
Important for understanding how courts interpret conspiracy during framing of charges – not full proof required at that stage.
6. Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996) 2 SCC 648
Facts:
Accused assisted his wife in committing suicide.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that abetment of suicide is punishable, and right to die is not a fundamental right. Therefore, assisting or instigating suicide cannot be legalized.
Significance:
Strengthened the moral and legal argument against abetment of suicide.
7. Queen Empress v. Bisan (1896) ILR 18 All 458
Facts:
A woman committed suicide after constant ill-treatment by her husband.
Held:
The court observed that mere cruelty is not enough to convict someone for abetment of suicide. There must be proof that the accused intended or knew that their actions would lead to suicide.
Significance:
One of the earliest Indian cases to define the scope of mental intent (mens rea) in abetment.
8. Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat, (2013) 1 SCC 613
Facts:
Politician accused of abetting murder in a political rivalry.
Held:
The court emphasized that for abetment, there must be active support, encouragement, or instigation. Vague allegations or political rivalry are insufficient.
Significance:
Reaffirmed the need for direct or proximate link between abettor and the principal offence.
⚖️ Summary Table of Key Differences Between Abetment and Conspiracy
| Feature | Abetment (Sec 107-120 IPC) | Conspiracy (Sec 120A-B IPC) |
|---|---|---|
| Nature | Involves aiding, instigating, or engaging in a conspiracy with an act | Involves an agreement to do an illegal act |
| Completion | Abetment is complete even if the main act is not committed | Agreement alone is punishable if the object is illegal |
| Mens Rea (Intention) | Required | Required |
| Requirement of Act | Required in case of aiding and conspiracy | Not required if the object is an illegal act |
| Proof | Can be direct or circumstantial | Mostly circumstantial due to secretive nature |
🧠 Final Remarks
Abetment and criminal conspiracy are crucial components in establishing secondary liability in criminal law.
Indian courts have consistently held that intent, participation, and communication are essential elements.
Courts rely heavily on circumstantial evidence due to the secret nature of conspiracies and indirect abetment.
RELATED Blog
0 comments