Section 107. Abetment of a thing. —A person abets the doing of a thing, who—
First.—Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly.—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
Thirdly.—Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1.—A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of
a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts
to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing .
Abetment by instigation – According to the case Parveen Pradhan v. State of Uttaranchal,
AIR 2012 SC, it was held that offence of abetment by instigation depends upon the
intention of the person who abets and not upon the act which is done by the person who
has been abetted. Abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid as
provided under section 107 of the code. However, the words uttered in a fit of anger or
omission without any intention cannot be termed as instigation.
Abetment by conspiracy – second clause – conspiracy is an agreement of two or more
person to do an unlawful act.
Conspiracy is again an independent section and can also be done in order to abet a person
to commit a crime.
• Mere agreement to commit a crime is conspiracy. Abetment can be done by a
single person but conspiracy cannot.
• Abetment specifically means to encourage the person to commit a crime even
when he is not at the crime scene where as in conspiracy the parties conspiring can
carry out the offence themselves
Abetment by aid – third clause – it means providing necessary aid to carry out the
offence. Such as weapons and money. In the case of state of MP v. Mukesh, AIR 2006 Sc,
it was held that facilitating the commission or intending to facilitate also comes under
Section 108. Abettor.—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
Explanation 1.—The abetment of the illegal omission of an act may amount to an offence
although the abettor may not himself be bound to do that act. Suppose a private person
instigate a public servant to commit the offence the n the
Explanation 2.—To constitute the offence of abetment it is not necessary that the act
abetted should be committed, or that the effect requisite to constitute the offence should
(a) A instigates B to murder C. B refuses to do so. A is guilty of abetting B to commit
(b) A instigates B to murder D. B in pursuance of the instigation stabs D. D recovers
from the wound. A is guilty of instigating B to commit murder.
Explanation 3.—It is not necessary that the person abetted should be capable by law of
committing an offence, or that he should have the same guilty intention or knowledge as
that of the abettor, or any guilty intention or knowledge.
(a) A, with a guilty intention, abets a child or a lunatic to commit an act which would be
an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence, and having
the same intention as A. Here A, whether the act be committed or not, is guilty of abetting
(b) A, with the intention of murdering Z, instigates B, a child under seven years of age, to
do an act which causes Z’s death. B, in consequence of the abetment, does the act in the
absence of A and thereby causes Z’s death. Here, though B was not capable by law of
committing an offence, A is liable to be punished in the same manner as if B had been
capable by law of committing an offence, and had committed murder, and he is therefore
subject to the punishment of death.
(c) A instigates B to set fire to a dwelling-house. B, in consequence of the unsoundness of
his mind, being incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is
wrong or contrary to law, sets fire to the house in consequence of A’s instigation. B has
committed no offence, but A is guilty of abetting the offence of setting fire to a dwelling-
house, and is liable to the punishment provided for that offence.
(d) A, intending to cause a theft to be committed, instigates B to take property belonging
to Z out of Z’s possession. A induces B to believe that the property belongs to A. B takes
the property out of Z’s possession, in good faith, believing it to be A’s property. B, acting
under this misconception, does not take dishonestly, and therefore does not commit theft.
But A is guilty of abetting theft, and is liable to the same punishment as if B had
Explanation 4.—The abetment of an offence being an offence, the abetment of such an
abetment is also an offence.
I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.
If you are interested in participating in the same, do let me know.
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at email@example.com
We also have a Facebook Group Restarter Moms for Mothers or Women who would like to rejoin their careers post a career break or women who are enterpreneurs.
We are also running a series Inspirational Women from January 2021 to March 31,2021, featuring around 1000 stories about Indian Women, who changed the world. #choosetochallenge