Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence.
Explanation: An act or offence is said to be committed in consequence of abetment, when it is committed in consequence of the instigation, or in pursuance of the conspiracy, or with the aid which constitutes the abetment.
Illustrations
- A offers a bribe to B, a public servant, as a reward for showing A some favour in the exercise of B’s official functions. B accepts the bribe. A has abetted the offence defined in section 161.
- A instigates B to give false evidence. B, in consequence of the instigation, commits that offence. A is guilty of abetting that offence, and is liable to the same punishment as B.
- A and B conspire to poison Z. A, in pursuance of the conspiracy, procures the poison and delivers it to B in order that he may administer it to Z. B, in pursuance of the conspiracy, administers the poison to Z in A’s absence and thereby causes Z’s death. Here B is guilty of murder. A is guilty of abetting that offence by conspiracy, and is liable to the punishment for murder.
Understanding the Section
According to Section 109 IPC, if a person abets an offence, and that offence occurs due to such abetment, while there is no specific punishment for the abetment elsewhere, the abettor shall be punished with the same punishment as provided for the offence.
The explanation of this section states that an offence is said to have been committed because of abetment in three circumstances.
- The offence was committed based on instigation,
- The offence was committed to carry out conspiracy, or
- There was help from the abettor that assisted in the commission.
Therefore, the term abetment can take three forms, instigation, conspiracy, and assistance.
Essential Ingredients of Section 109 IPC
- There must be abetment: The accused must have abetted through instigation, conspiracy, or assistance to commit the offence.
- The offence abetted must be committed: The offence must actually be committed due to that abetment.
- There is no different punishment: Section 109 only applies when the IPC does not include another separate provision to punish the offence of abetment.
- Mens Rea: The abettor must have the purpose or knowledge that his abetting is likely to induce the commitment of the offence.
Illustrations:
- Bribery (Instigation): A offers B, a public servant, a bribe as a means of obtaining favorable consideration. B accepts the bribe. A has instigated the offence of bribery and is punishable with the same punishment as B.
- False Evidence (Instigation): A instigates B to give false evidence. B has committed the offence of false evidence. A will be found guilty of abetting and is punishable with the same punishment as B.
- Murder by Conspiracy: A and B conspire to kill Z. A buys poison and gives it to B, who administers it to Z and Z dies. B is guilty of murder. A is guilty of abetting murder by conspiracy and is punishable with the same punishment as B for murder.
These illustrations show that the abettor is punishable equally with the actual offender even if he is not principal to the offence.
Punishment
- The abettor will be punishable with the same punishment as for the principal offence.
- If there is a principal offence punishable with imprisonment, then the abettor will suffer the same.
- If there is a principal offence that is punishable for life, the abettor will receive the same.
- If there is also a fine for the offence committed under the circumstances, the abettor is equally liable.
Case Laws under Section 109 IPC
- Kehar Singh v. State (1988): The Supreme Court stated that, in conspiracy abetment, it is not necessary for each conspirator to be part of an overt act. If the act is done in pursuance of a conspiracy, then all conspirators will be guilty of abetment, and liable under Section 109 IPC.
- Amir Khan v. State (1952): The Court stated that for conviction under Section 109, the relationship between the abetment, and the actual occurrence of the offence, must be both immediate and sufficiently clear. Simply suggesting or suggestive behaviour was not be sufficient.
- State of Maharashtra v. Nandlal (1994): The Court published that abetment by instigation does require some action related to active involvement: some words, gestures, or actions that amount to encouragement. Passive knowledge, and not speaking out, will not amount to abetment.