Abetment Under the Indian Penal Code

Introduction 

Among the many offences which are delineated by the Code, there exists one which is known as abetment. Should an individual by means of provocation or encouragement incite another to commit an action, he is deemed to have abetted that action. Under the Code, the Sections 109 to 120 address the offence of abetment. These sections also prescribe the punishments that an offence of such nature may attract.

Under criminal law, the offence of abetment refers to the act of encouraging, provoking or assisting an individual to commit an offence. Therefore, it is important to note that the person indulging in the act of abetting, id est, the abettor, is different from the person who commits an offence as a result of such abetment. It occurs when one willingly assists another in the commitment of an offence.

Types of Abetment

The presence of the element of mens rea, which refers to the intent to commit a wrong is essential for an act to constitute abetment. Further, there are various means through which an act of abetment may be achieved:

a)     Abetment by instigation- An individual is said to have instigated another to commit an offence when such individual effectuates another to feel encouraged, motivated or intimidated to commit an offence and as a result, leads the other to commit an offence.

b)    Abetment by aiding- An individual is said to have aided another when he actively assists and partakes in the commission of an offence.

c)     Abetment by illegal omission- An individual is said to have committed an act of abetment through illegal omission when he forgoes the performance of an act, which he is bound by law to perform.

Abetment by conspiracy- An act of abetment by conspiracy occurs when two or more individuals collaborate and conspire to perform an illegal act. The act of conspiring ipso facto would amount to the offence of abetment by way of conspiracy, irrespective of whether such act is carried into effect.

The Code further states that the offence of abetment would occur irrespective of whether or not an offence is committed. For instance, if one were to instigate another to commit a crime, he would be held liable regardless of whether or not the other chooses to commit the said crime. That the person being abetted should possess the capability of committing a crime is not important and the mere engagement of the abettor is sufficient to warrant his prosecution.

 Punishment

The act of abetment would attract rigorous punishment which would depend upon various factors such as the nature of the act, its severity, the facts of each case, et cetera. If an individual were to abet another to perform an offence and if there were no prescribed punishment for such abetment, this act would attract the same penalty as would be imposed for the commission of the offence involved.

Further, if an individual abetted commits an act with a different intention as that of the abettor, the abettor would be awarded the punishment which would have been awarded had the abetted person performed the offence that the abettor had intended and no other. So also, if there exists a difference between the act abetted and the act which occurs, the abettor, in this case, would be held liable for the act which has resulted from his act of abetment. It is important to note that if the act performed is distinct from the act abetted, the abettor in this case would be held liable for all acts. The presence of the abettor at the scene where the crime takes place would warrant the presumption that the abettor was involved in the commission of the crime not only in the capacity of an abettor but also in the capacity of a participant. Such circumstances would attract an even harsher punishment which would also include the punishment which has been prescribed for the offence, along with the prescribed punishment of the abetment.

If an individual were to abet another to commit an offence which would otherwise be punished with death or life imprisonment, such abettor would be punished with an imprisonment term of up to seven years with a fine, if such offence does not happen directly as a result of such abetment. However, if such an offence were to occur directly as a result of the act of abetment, the abettor would be punished with an imprisonment term of fourteen years along with a fine.

In case of an offence which would ordinarily warrant imprisonment, if such offence occurs as a result arising directly from the act of abetment, the abettor would be punished for a term which would equal one half measure of the longest imprisonment term which such an offence would attract, with a fine, or both. However, if such an offence does not directly arise out of such act of abetment, the abettor would be made subject to an imprisonment term which would equal a one fourth measure of the longest imprisonment term which the commission of such an offence would normally attract, or with a fine, or both. An act of abetment which exercises an influence over a class of people comprising of more than ten individuals and results in an offence, such act of abetment would result in a punishment of three years of imprisonment or a fine or both.

If the abettor attempts to conceal a design for committing an offence which would attract an imprisonment term, he would be punished for a term equaling one fourth of the imprisonment term so prescribed for the offence done, if the offence is committed, or a term equaling one eighth of the longest imprisonment term if the offence is not committed. However, if an offence warranting the death penalty or an imprisonment term for life were concerned, such abettor would be punished for a term of seven years of imprisonment if the offence is committed, and in the case of the contrary, for a term of up to three years along with a fine in both cases.

Conclusion

One may note that the presence of the offence of abetment in this extensive framework dealing with criminal offences enables the apprehension of those individuals who may not be directly involved in the commission of the crime but whose actions may have been pivotal in the happening of such a crime, thereby ensuring that even those individuals whose contribution to the commission of a crime may be perceived to be insignificant are held accountable for their actions.

Author: Abdul Kalam Kabeer, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at  Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.