The idea of abetment broadens the scope of criminal law to include these criminal intentions and punishes them even if the individual who bought the knife did not kill anyone but gave it to someone else to do so.
The word ‘abet’ needs be examined closely in order to explain the concept of abetment. It implies to help, advance, assist, help, and promote in general.
The honourable Supreme Court in Sanju v. State of Madhya Pradesh defined ‘abet’ as meaning to aid, assist, or give aid, to order, obtain, or counsel, to countenance, encourage, or encourage, or to set another one to commit.
The established term of ‘abet’ makes it apparent that abetment only occurs when at least two people are involved, which further points us to the act’s planning and execution.
To convict someone for abetting the doing of something under any of the conditions set out in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, it is necessary to show that the person who abetted has not only participated in the means of the transactions, but has also been associated with the criminal means of the transactions.
Under the Indian Penal Code, aiding and abetting is a crime.
Abetment is defined as:
- provoking someone to do a crime
- Participating in a plot to commit it
- Intentionally assisting someone in committing it
Prosecution must allege the component of mens rea in order to hold an individual accountable for Abetment and prosecute them for a criminal offence under Section 107.
According to the arrangement of penal laws, negligence or carelessness cannot be named as abetment in order to punish the liable.
To be found guilty of abetment, the abettor must have appeared to “deliberately” aid and abet the wrongdoing.
In such a case, proving that the alleged violation could not have occurred without the association and intervention of the alleged abettor is insufficient to meet Section 107 requirements.
- According to Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, an abettor receives the same sentence as the major perpetrator of the crime if the principal offender’s actus reus occurred as a result of the abettor’s encouragement.
If no other provision for the punishment of such abetment exists, Section 109 of the Penal Code applies.
This section specifies that if the Penal Code has not separately accommodated abetment as a punishment, it is prosecuted with the same discipline as the initial offence. Instigation is not expected to be in a precise structure or to be expressed solely in words, according to the law. The instigation could come in the form of behavior or conduct. Whether there was instigation or not is a question that must be answered based on the facts of each instance.
- Even if the individual abetted commits the offence with a different intention than the main perpetrator of the crime, the abettor will be charged with the punishment provided for the offence abetted, according to Section 110 of the Indian Penal Code.
This clause has no bearing on the aided individual’s responsibility.
- The development of abetment legislation around the phrase “each individual is presumed to intend the corollary results of his act” continues in Section 111 of the Indian Penal Code.
If one man instigates another to commit a specific wrongdoing, and the latter, in response to such instigation, commits not only that wrongdoing but also another wrongdoing in furtherance of it, the former is criminally liable as an abettor in regard to the latter, if it is one that a reasonable person with the intelligence of a reasonable man would have known to be committed at the time of inducement.
- The criteria outlined in the previous section are expanded in Section 112 of the Indian Penal Code. It holds the abettor responsible for both the abetted and the committed offence.
A close examination of Sections 111, 112, and 133 reveals that if an individual aids and abets another in the commission of an offence, and the chief goes on to do something else that has a different outcome than the abettor intended, thereby aggravating the offence, the abettor is liable for the consequences of his principal’s actions.
- Sections 113 and 111 of the Indian Penal Code should be read together. Section 111 deals with the doing of an actus reus that isn’t the same as the one abetted, though it also deals with the situation where the actus reus is equivalent to the abetted guilty act but has a different impact.
- Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code is likely to be activated only once conditions indicating abetment of a specific crime have been established, and then the presence of the accused at the commission of that wrongdoing has been established.
Section 114 deals with situations in which there has been abetment wrongdoing but also an actual commission of the wrongdoing abetted and the abettor is present, and it addresses such cases as follows.
Rather of the wrongdoing being assisted by aggravating circumstances, the transgression becomes the very wrongdoing abetted.
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