Abetment Expanded In Bns
Definition and Legal Framework
Abetment refers to the act of encouraging, instigating, or aiding the commission of a crime by another person. It is a form of secondary liability where a person who does not directly commit a crime can still be held responsible for causing or facilitating that crime.
In Indian law, abetment is mainly defined under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which states:
A person abets the doing of a thing if—
Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy; or
Intentionally aids by any act or illegal omission the doing of that thing.
Elements of Abetment
Instigation: Encouraging or provoking another to commit a crime.
Conspiracy: Agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime.
Active assistance: Helping or facilitating the commission of the crime by some act or omission.
Punishment
The punishment for abetment is usually the same as the punishment prescribed for the principal offense, as per the IPC.
Important Case Laws on Abetment
1. K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1961)
Facts: This is a famous criminal case involving the killing of the wife’s lover. Nanavati was charged with murder.
Issue: Whether abetment could be attributed in the case where there was a direct act of murder.
Decision: The court held that mere presence or knowledge does not amount to abetment unless there is instigation or intentional assistance.
Significance: Established that abetment requires active participation or encouragement, not just passive presence.
2. Bhagwan Singh v. State of Punjab (1967)
Facts: The accused was charged with abetting a crime where a public servant was killed.
Issue: Whether conspiracy and abetment were proved.
Decision: The court held that to convict for abetment by conspiracy, there must be clear proof of agreement and participation in the act.
Significance: Clarified that mere knowledge or presence is insufficient; there must be proof of a meeting of minds or conspiracy.
3. Ram Bhajan Singh v. State of Bihar (1957)
Facts: The accused were charged with abetment of murder.
Issue: Whether the accused abetted the crime.
Decision: The Supreme Court emphasized that the abettor’s act must be intentional and the abettor must have knowledge of the crime.
Significance: Intention and knowledge are essential ingredients of abetment.
4. R. v. F (1881) (English Case)
Facts: Though an English case, often cited for understanding abetment. The defendant was charged with abetting a felony.
Decision: The court held that words or gestures which encourage or incite a crime amount to abetment.
Significance: Established that verbal or symbolic encouragement can constitute abetment.
5. Ramesh Prasad v. State of Bihar (1973)
Facts: The accused was charged with abetment of crime related to a political assassination.
Issue: The court examined the relationship between conspiracy and abetment.
Decision: The court held that conspiracy itself may constitute abetment if an illegal act is committed in furtherance of that conspiracy.
Significance: Reinforced the link between conspiracy and abetment under Section 107(2) IPC.
6. Sardar Bhagat Singh v. State of Punjab (1965)
Facts: Accused involved in conspiracy and abetment in a politically motivated act.
Issue: Whether abetment was established on facts.
Decision: The court held that abetment can be inferred from circumstances and the nature of the act.
Significance: Abetment may be established by circumstantial evidence, not just direct proof.
7. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal’s Commentary on IPC (Legal Perspective)
While not a case, it’s important to note that this authoritative commentary explains that abetment is a "secondary liability" and the liability of the abettor is derivative of the principal offense.
Summary and Key Takeaways:
Abetment requires intention: Mere knowledge or passive presence is not enough.
Instigation, conspiracy, or aiding: One or more of these must be proven.
Evidence: Can be direct or circumstantial.
Punishment: Generally the same as the offense abetted.
Conspiracy and abetment: Closely related but distinct concepts; conspiracy involves an agreement, abetment involves instigation or assistance.
RELATED Blog
0 comments