Que 1:- What is abetment? Discuss.

Ans 1:- Sec 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:
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 disclase, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to
cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.

Illustration
A, a public officer, is authorized by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z
B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, wilfully represents to A that C is Z, and
thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of
C.
Explanation 2.-Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act,
does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the
commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.

Essentials and meaning of abetment-

Abetment means the instigation of a person to do an act in a certain way, or aid given by some
person to another either of his own accord or under instigation in doing an act which is an
offence. Thus, to constitute an offence of abetment there must be (1) an abettor, (2) he must abet,
and (3) the act abetted must be an offence. According to section 107,
IPC a person abets the doing of a thing when he:

1. Instigates a person to commit an offence; or

2. Engages with one or more persons in a conspiracy to commit an offence; or
3. Intentionally aids a person by any illegal act or omission to commit an offence or
illegally omit the doing of an act which would prevent the commission of an offence;

1. Abetment by instigation:- A person is said to be instigated by other when he incites urges,

encourages, goads, solicits, or provokes him to do an act prohibited by law.

For example, a court directs Amit, a police officer, to arrest Raj under an arrest warrant.
Brijesh informs Amit that Chandan is Raj despite knowing that he is not. Under this
misrepresentation, Amit ends up arresting Chandan instead of Raj. In this case, Brijesh is
guilty of abetting Amit in wrongfully apprehending Chandan.
 Sanju v. State of M.P One might argue that the actus reus and the mens reus do not
merge to a single person, therefore, abetment to do a thing should not be an offence. In
abetment by instigation, there has to be some active involvement of the abettor towards
the preparatory phase of the crime.

2. Abetment by conspiracy:- A person is said to abet the commission of an offence by

conspiracy, if he enters into an agreement with one or more persons to do a legal act by
illegal means, or to do an illegal act, and some act is done in pursuance thereof.

For example, in dowry death cases, the in-laws of the victim are often guilty of abetment
by conspiracy. They may do so by constantly taunting, torturing or instigating the victim.
Even suicides may take place in this manner through abetment by conspiracy.
The case of Noor Mohammad Momin v. State of Maharashtra shows the difference
between criminal conspiracy and abetment to conspiracy. Criminal conspiracy has a
wider jurisdiction than abetment by a conspiracy. An individual is guilty of conspiracy
with the mere agreement between a group of people to commit an offence.

3. Abetment by aid:- A person is said to abet the commission of an offence, if he

intentionally renders assistance or gives aid by doing an act or omitting to do an act.
Mere intention to render assistance is not sufficient. There must be some act participation
on the part of the abettor and the act must be accomplished with pursuance thereof.

For example, merely giving food or clothing to an alleged offender may not be punishable.
But giving him food, clothing and shelter to help him hide from the police or commit a
crime is punishable.

Que 2:- Who is an abettor? Elaborate with the relevant illustrations

and case laws.
Ans 2:-
 Que 3:- Examine the essentials of criminal conspiracy.
Ans 3:- The essentials of criminal conspiracy are:-

It is an established principle that conspiracy requires involvement of 2 persons and one alone
cannot commit the offence of conspiracy.

b. Who are in agreement with one another

c. This agreement relates to causing or getting done-

 an illegal act; or
 a legal act by illegal means.

This agreement would be designated as a conspiracy. ‘Agreement’ is thus the sine qua nonor the
bottom rock for constituting conspiracy. It reflects the unlawful combination which in turn
reflects the object and purpose of the conspiracy.

Section 120A was interpreted by the Court in Rajiv Kumar v. State of U.P.,  where it was
observed that–

“The essential ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are: (i) an agreement between
two or more persons; (ii) the agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either (a) an
illegal act; or (b) an act which is not illegal in itself but is done by illegal means. It is, therefore,
plain that meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing or causing to be done an illegal act
or an act by illegal means is sine qua non of criminal conspiracy.”

Merely discussing or having knowledge or having any ill intentions of committing a crime would
not constitute Criminal conspiracy. It is essential for the combination to commit the offence to be
framed. Any action taken in pursuance of this unlawful agreement becomes immaterial.
“Meeting of minds” between all the conspirators becomes an essential to commit such
conspiracy.

The proviso to the provision further makes it clear that a mere agreement between the parties to
commit an offence is clear and it shall not require commission of an overt act in furtherance of
this conspiracy.

However, when the act being done is legal but through illegal means, then it is essential for the
party to the agreement to do some overt act in pursuance of this agreement.

Therefore, the essence of the crime of conspiracy, as captured under Section 120A is that there is
a combination which is unlawful, i.e. to do an act which is unlawful or to do a lawful act via law
unlawful means, and the offence is complete when the combination is complete. Criminal
conspiracy is therefore called an inchoate offence because it does not require commission of any
act in furtherance of this intention. Therefore, conspiracy is punishable not for what the
conspirators do but what they agree to do. The essence of criminal conspiracy is what the parties
agree to do and not the commission of the substantive crime.

For example- Persons A, B, C and D conspire to rob the local bank for which they decide that A
and B would threaten the bank manager at the counter, C would take care of the situation at the
gate and D would keep the car ready for A, B, and C when they successfully rob the bank.

Here, there is a criminal conspiracy between A, B, C and D to rob the bank and they shall all be
liable for the act.

The objective behind making conspiracy a punishable offence is explained by the Supreme Court
in the case of Devender Pal Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi). The Court explained that the rationale
behind criminalizing conspiracy by stating that this agreement between the parties gives a
momentum to commission of the crime. The Apex Court thus made the following observations-
“Law making conspiracy a crime is designed to curb immoderate power to do mischief which is
gained by the combination of means. The encouragement and support which co-conspirators give
one another rendering enterprises possible, which if left to the hands of individual effort, would
have been impossible, furnish the ground of visiting conspirators and abettors with the condign
punishment.”

Que 4:- Discuss the offence against the state.

Ans 4:-

Que 5:- Critically examine the offence of sedition substantiate your answer
with relevant case laws.

Ans 5:- Recently, a Bihar court has directed the filing of an FIR against 49 eminent persons
who signed an open letter to the Prime Minister expressing concerns over mob lynching under
sedition law. 

The law of sedition was introduced in the IPC in 1870 to deal with "increasing anti-British
Wahabi activities Section 124A of the IPC defines sedition. It makes some kinds of speech or
expression a criminal offence punishable with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The
Sedition law can be applied if the speeches or expressions 

 bring or attempt to bring into hatred or contempt, or 

 excite or attempt to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in
India.

It is classified as “cognisable” — the investigation process (including the powers to arrest) can
be triggered merely by filing an FIR, without a judicial authority having to take cognisance — It
is also qualified as “non-bailable” — the accused cannot get bail as a matter of right, but is
subject to the discretion of the sessions judge.

Sedition in Independent India After independence, India retained Section 124A. Because the
newly-born government of free India was threatened by 

 right-wing extremism as well as by left-wing extremism

 scarcity of food
 the challenge of settling millions of Partition refugees
 the conflict with Pakistan over Kashmir.

The first recorded state trial for sedition is that of Queen Empress v. Jogendra Chunder
Bose(‘Jogendra Bose’). The Court, in its much debated judgment, laid down the distinction
between ‘disaffection’ and ‘disapprobation’. Disaffection was defined as the use of spoken or
written words to create a disposition in the minds of those to whom the words were addressed,
not to obey the lawful authority of the government, or to resist that authority. It was also
observed that:

“It is sufficient for the purposes of the section that the words used are calculated to excite
feelings of ill-will against the Government, and to hold it up to the hatred and contempt of the
people, and that they were used with an intention to create such feeling.”

Another significant case which had a direct bearing on the 1898 amendment was that of Queen
Empress v. Bal Gangadhar Tilak (‘Tilak’). Allegations of sedition against Bal Gangadhar Tilak
were first forwarded when the magazine Kesari published detailed reports of the proceedings that
had taken place at the Shivaji Coronation Festival, during the celebration of which several
patriotic lectures and speeches were delivered. It was alleged that these speeches made
references to Shivaji’s call for Swarajya (independence) and alluded to the trials of the people
under the British rule. Although the Coronation Ceremony in itself was peaceful, the weeks
following the publication of the report on June 15, 1897, saw the murder of two eminent British
officials.