Abetment

What is Abetment?

In common parlance, the word 'abet' means assistance, cooperation and encouragement and includes wrongful purpose. The lexicon meaning of the word 'abet' is given in Collins English Dictionary as "to assist or encourage, esp. in crime or wrong doing."

According to Black’s Law Dictionary; to 'abet' is "to encourage and assist someone, especially in the commission of a crime, or to support a crime by active assistance”. Abetment is a preparatory act and connotes active complicity on the part of the abettor at a point of time prior to the actual commission of the offence.

The term 'abetment' as defined by the Cambridge Dictionary is the 'act of helping or encouraging someone to do something illegal or wrong.'

In Corpus Juris Secundum, 'to abet has been defined as meaning to aid; to assist or to give aid; to command, to procure, or to counsel; to countenance; to encourage, counsel, induce, or assist; to encourage or to set another on to commit.'

Official Definition of 'Abetment’

Abetment as Defined in Legislation(s)

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 vis-à-vis Indian Penal Code [Repealed]

What is Abetment?

The definition of abetment is similar in both Section 45 of BNS and Section 107 of IPC. In the respective Acts, 'Abetment of a thing' is defined as:

A person abets the doing of a thing, who—

• (a) Instigates any person to do that thing; or
• (b) Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or
• (c) Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Who is called an Abettor?

An abettor is a person who instigates, aids, or encourages another person to commit a crime. The abettor is held criminally liable even if they did not directly commit the offense. Section 108 of IPC and Section 46 of and BNS states that, a person abets an offence, who abets either the commission of an offence, or the commission of an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence with the same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor.

General Clauses Act, 1897

Section 3(1) of General Clauses Act gives the meaning of the word 'abet' as 'abet, with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, shall have the same meaning as in the Indian Penal Code.'

POCSO Act, 2012

As per Section 16 of the Act, a person abets an offence, who—

• First, Instigates any person to do that offence; or
• Secondly, Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that offence, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that offence; or
• Thirdly, Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that offence

Terrorist And Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 [Repealed]

The definition of the word 'abet' as defined under Section 2(1)(a) of the Act is as follows:

In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, 'abet' with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, includes-

(i) the communication or association with any person or class of persons who is engaged in assisting in any manner terrorists or disruptionists;

(ii) the passing on, or publication of, without any lawful authority, any information likely to assist the terrorists or disruptionists and the passing on, or publication of, or distribution of, any document or matter obtained from terrorists or disruptionists;

(iii) the rendering of any assistance, whether financial or otherwise, to terrorists or disruptionists

Abetment as Defined in Case Law(s)

The Supreme Court, in Prakash & Others v. The State of Maharashtra & Another [2024], examined the concept of abetment under Section 306 of IPC in a case where the appellants were accused of abetting a woman's suicide due to alleged harassment and dowry demands. The Court emphasized that for abetment to be established under Section 107 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid leading directly to the suicide. Mere marital disputes or harassment, without a direct link to the act of suicide, do not constitute abetment. Since the prosecution failed to prove a proximate connection between the accused's actions and the deceased's decision to take her life, the Court discharged the appellants. This ruling reinforces that general allegations of harassment are insufficient to sustain charges of abetment of suicide.

In R. v. Mohit Pande, NWPR 316 (also see Fuguna Kant v. State of Assam [1959]), the court held that silent approval, if it produces an effect of incitement, constitutes abetment by instigation. In this case, a woman had prepared herself for Sati (self-immolation). A group of individuals followed her to the cremation ground and stood by her funeral pyre. While doing so, they repeatedly chanted "Ram, Ram," and the accused also encouraged the woman to say "Ram, Ram." The court found that their actions amounted to active participation and connivance in the act, leading to the conclusion that they were guilty of abetment, as they effectively encouraged the woman to take her own life by jumping into the fire.

Legal Provision(s) Relating to Abetment

Section 45 - 57 of BNS

Section 107-117 of IPC

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

Abetment Across Borders (Sections 47 & 48)

If someone in India encourages or helps commit a crime in another country, and that act would be illegal if done in India, they are still guilty of abetment. Similarly, if a person outside India encourages or assists in committing a crime in India, they will also be considered guilty of abetment.

Abetment in India of offences outside India: Section 108A of IPC puts abetment of offences to be committed outside India on the same footing as the abetment of offences to be committed in India. Under this section, although the offence abetted may be committed outside India, the abetment itself must be committed in India. IPC Only talks about abetment done in India for a crime that happens outside India. Condition that the act must be a crime both under Indian law and in the country where it’s committed. Whereas, BNS goes a step further and clearly covers both scenarios:

1. Section 47: If someone in India helps a crime outside India, they are punishable.
2. Section 48: If someone outside India helps a crime that happens in India, they are also punishable. So, under BNS, no matter where you are, if you abet a crime connected to India, you’re liable.

Punishment When the Act is Done Differently (Section 50)

If a person helps or encourages someone to commit a crime, but the actual crime happens with a different motive than intended, the abettor will still be punished based on what would have happened if their original intent had been carried out.

When a Different Crime Happens Instead (Section 51)

If a person encourages one crime, but a related crime occurs instead, they can still be held responsible—as long as the crime that actually happened was a likely outcome of their instigation or support.

Multiple Crimes and Abetment (Section 52)

If the person committing the crime does both the crime they were abetted to do and another crime, the abettor will be punished for both offenses.

Abetting Serious Crimes (Section 55)

If someone helps or encourages a crime that is punishable by death or life imprisonment, but the crime does not actually take place, they can still be punished with up to seven years in prison and a fine. If the abetted act causes injury, they can face up to fourteen years in prison and a fine.

Abetment of Suicide (Section 306)

If someone encourages or helps another person commit suicide, they can be punished with up to ten years in prison and a fine. In the case of Sanadi v. State of Karnataka, the accused, Servai, was convicted for abetting the suicide of a woman. The facts showed that the conduct of the accused was consistent with continuous harassment, threats, and mental cruelty, which eventually led the woman to take her own life. The prosecution proved that the accused’s actions were of such a nature that they intentionally provoked or instigated the deceased into ending her life.

BNSS

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Section 12 - Punishment for Helping in Corruption If someone helps, supports, or encourages another person in committing corruption (like taking or giving bribes), they can be punished even if the corruption doesn’t actually happen. The punishment is at least three years of jail time, which can go up to seven years, along with a fine.

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Section - 29 Punishment for Helping in Drug Crimes If a person helps, plans, or conspires with others to commit a drug-related crime (such as smuggling, selling, or producing illegal drugs), they will face the same punishment as the main criminal, even if the crime doesn’t actually happen. This applies even if the planning happens in India for a drug crime to be committed in another country, as long as that act is illegal in both places.

Sections 3 & 8A

Punishment for Giving or Taking Dowry If anyone gives, takes, or helps in giving or taking dowry, they can face at least five years in jail and a fine of at least ₹15,000 or the total dowry amount (whichever is higher). If someone is accused of taking or demanding dowry, they must prove their innocence in court (instead of the court having to prove their guilt).

Types of Abetment

Abetment of a thing:

Abetment of a thing refers to intentionally encouraging, assisting, or facilitating the commission of an offense or act. This can include actions like instigating someone to commit a crime, providing help or resources, or even failing to act when there is a legal duty to prevent the crime.

Abetment by instigation:

In common language, it means to goad or urge forward or to provoke, incite or encourage in doing something. Section 107 of the Code explains the term instigation. According to it, “If a person legally bound to disclose a material fact, willfully or by willful misrepresentation conceals it and voluntarily causes or procures or attempts to cause or procure a thing to be done, he will be said to instigate the doing of that thing"

Abetment by conspiracy:

This involves an agreement between two or more people to commit an offense. The conspiracy itself does not need to result in the offense immediately; however, an act or illegal omission that furthers the commission of the offense must follow in pursuance of the conspiracy.

Abetment by intentional aiding:

This occurs when a person intentionally provides assistance, resources, or support to someone committing an offense. Simply providing aid, without the intention to facilitate the offense, does not amount to abetment. Intent is key.

Abetment by Illegal Omission:

The act of abetment, including both active and passive omissions, where a person intentionally fails to act in situations where they have a legal or moral obligation to do so, thereby facilitating the commission of an offense.

Abetment Related Case Law(s)

In the case of Pawan Kumar v. State of H.P. in reference to the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), the Supreme Court analyzed the concept of "abetment" under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court highlighted three ways in which a person can be said to have abetted the commission of an offense. First, instigation, where a person encourages or provokes another to commit the offense. This could be through direct or indirect means, such as verbal suggestions or implied conduct. The word "instigate" was elaborated to mean urging, provoking, or encouraging someone to act.

Second, abetment by conspiracy, where two or more individuals engage in a conspiracy to commit an offense. If an act or illegal omission takes place in furtherance of that conspiracy, it amounts to abetment. Third, abetment by intentional aiding, where a person intentionally aids or assists in the commission of an offense, either through acts or omissions.

The court further clarified that wilful misrepresentation or concealment of material facts, which a person is legally bound to disclose, can also constitute abetment. In cases involving suicide, the court emphasized that direct involvement of the accused in the act of suicide is required to establish abetment under Section 306 IPC.

Appearance of ‘Abetment’ in Database

The act of assisting suicide is a serious offense in India and can result in severe punishment. The provision is in place to discourage the act of taking one’s life and to hold those who assist in such acts accountable for their actions. The Supreme Court, in the case of Brij Lal vs. Prem Chand & Anr, held that an act of abetment cannot be viewed or tested in isolation. The instigative words should be judged based on the distraught condition to which the accused had driven the victim.

Abetment of suicide charges should not be ‘mechanically’ invoked: What SC said, why

To charge someone with abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC, the key ingredients that must be proven include the intentional incitement or aiding of the suicide. The accused must have either directly or indirectly encouraged the deceased to take their own life. Routine actions, such as demanding repayment of a loan or other common interactions, do not automatically qualify as incitement. There must be clear evidence showing that the accused's actions created a situation where the deceased felt there was no other option but to commit suicide.

The Supreme Court has set a high bar for prosecuting abetment to suicide cases. The Court emphasized that charges should not be filed just to satisfy grieving families or without substantial evidence. It criticized the tendency of trial courts to frame charges without proper scrutiny, urging them to avoid a "play safe" approach. The Court clarified that there must be clear and specific evidence of incitement by the accused, and the prosecution must establish a direct link between the accused’s actions and the suicide. Only in genuine cases, where the legal threshold is met, should charges be pursued.

Don't invoke abetment of suicide mechanically, need to sensitise police: SC

The Supreme Court has held that Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide) should not be invoked casually or mechanically just to satisfy grieving families. The Court emphasized that only in genuine cases where the legal threshold is met should prosecution proceed. It criticized police and trial courts for frequently misusing this provision and urged them to act with sensitivity and caution, avoiding a “play-it-safe” approach.

The case involved a man, Mahendra Awase, accused of abetment after a suicide note mentioned he was harassing the deceased over a loan. However, the Court found no instigation or active role on Awase's part. Demanding loan repayment as part of one’s job cannot amount to abetment, it said. The Court stressed that mere allegations or emotional reactions should not lead to prosecution unless there is clear evidence of intent and direct involvement in provoking the suicide.

RESEARCH

The Innocent Abettor - A Comprehensive Study of Section 111 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - By SANJANA NAYAK

The article delves into Section 111 of the IPC that establishes that an abettor can be held liable for an act that differs from the one they initially abetted, provided the act committed was a probable consequence of the abetment and was carried out under its influence. This principle is grounded in the ‘rule of agency,’ where the person who commits the act (the principal) is considered to be acting on behalf of the abettor (the agent).

Under this rule, the abettor is deemed responsible for the actions of the principal, even if those actions extend beyond the original plan, as long as they are a natural and probable outcome of the abetment. The law presumes that individuals intend the foreseeable consequences of their actions. Therefore, if the principal's act is a likely result of the abettor’s instigation, the abettor bears liability for that act.

This approach ensures that abettors cannot evade responsibility simply because the final act committed was not exactly what they had intended. The focus is on the foreseeability of the outcome and the influence of the abetment, reinforcing the accountability of those who encourage or assist in criminal activities.