Abetment (107-120)

Meaning Of Abetment

The term ‘abet’ means to assist, aid, encourage or provoke someone to commit an offence.
Abetment is not solely related to the actual offence but the abetment is a separate offence in
itself and the punishment has been provided for it. Abetment is an inchoate offence.
The word ‘abet‘ signifies help, co-activity and support and incorporates within its
ambit, illegitimate reason to commit the crime. So as to bring an individual abetting the
doing of a thing under any of the conditions specified under Section 107 of the Indian
Penal Code, it isn’t just important to demonstrate that the individual who has abetted
has participated in the means of the transactions yet additionally has been associated
with those means of the transaction which are criminal.

Abetment is constituted by:

1. Instigating a person to commit an offence; or

2. Engaging in a conspiracy to commit it; or
3. Intentionally aiding a person to commit it.

 The offense of abetment by instigation relies on the intention of the abettor and not
upon the act which is completed by the individual who has abetted.

The chapter V of the Indian penal code, 1860 deals with the provisions of Abetment and
provides for their liability with a suitable punishment.

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.

For instance, one person may obtain a gun and pass it over to another, who then uses it to
kill someone. The first is charged with abetment, while the other is charged with murder.
Interpretation:
This section DEFINES Abetment. 3 ingredients of abetment-
1. To Instigate any person to commit an offence
2. To engage with one or more people in entering a conspiracy for committing an
offence
3. To Intentionally assist any person by way of any act or illegal omission in
committing an offence
Major Element Of Abetment: Mens Rea
The core element for constituting the offence of Abetment is the “Mens Rea” of the person.
(guilty intention to do an act). Thus, it is essential that the person shall have deliberate
intention while instigating or supporting the main accused to do the act.
Abetment can be assessed from facts of the case and it is mainly ascertained by the
conduct of the person. It is essential to note that mere negligence or carelessness cannot
make a person guilty of abetment.
Further, the mere involvement of a person in the happening of an event doesn’t fulfil the
requirement of Abetment. The person shall necessarily have a guilty state of mind while
doing the entire scheme of things. Under the offence of Abetment, the mens rea is an
important element than actus reus (actual conduct) to accuse the guilty.
The explicit “mens rea” to do the offence is a sine qua non (the most essential thing) for
doing conviction under Section 107 of the IPC”.
Case law :Sanju vs the State of M.P –
In this case, there was a bitter quarrel between husband and wife. The husband in anger said
to her wife go and die. The wife committed suicide after 2 days. The court held that the
husband doesn’t have the required mens -rea for the offence. Thus, he is not liable for the
offence of abetment.
Types Of Abetment

1. Abetment By Instigation

Instigation means to incite, provoke or encourage someone in the commission of an

offence. This definition is quite subjective and the court needs to look at the facts of the
case to figure out the element of instigation.
An individual who willingly causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing by
deliberate misrepresentation or willful concealment of a material truth that he is obliged to
reveal, is said to “instigate” the doing of a thing. Abetment by instigation is the term for this.
In law, the prosecution would not have to show that the abettor’s true intention was
instigation and nothing more, as long as there was instigation, and the offence was
committed or may have been committed if the main offender had the same intention and
knowledge as the thing that was likely to be done by the abettor.
A person may only be found guilty of abetment by instigation if this condition is met.
Furthermore, the abetted actus reus must be performed as a result of the abetment
 The section’s explanation sheds some light on what instigation could imply in this context. It
states that instigation will occur in most cases by:
(a) willful misrepresentation; or
(b) withholding a material truth that an individual is required to reveal
Note: 1. The word said in a state of anger or during a heated conversation with no such
intention of the subsequent offence doesn’t fall within the scope of Instigation. It is very
essential that during instigation, the abettor must have full knowledge of the committed
offence.
1. If a person deliberately tries to conceal important information or by his fraudulent
conduct tries to gain a thing, then he is also liable for the offence of instigation. (120)
For example. There is a search warrant in the name of B. The police came there but C
deliberately presented himself as B. Then he is liable for the offence of instigation.
2. The silent approval of an offence also falls in the definition of abetment. A large
number of dowry death cases fall under this. For example. A wife goes for Sati. The
people surrounding her didn’t say a word and let the event occur. They were liable for
abetment to suicide.

2. Abetment By Conspiracy

Conspiracy is an agreement / plan between two or more persons to commit an offence sometime in
future.
For this context, simply planning to commit an offence is insufficient.
i. The conspirators must consciously consent and intend to commit the crime before it
can be called a conspiracy.
ii. The act that the conspirators intend to carry out must be unconstitutional or unlawful.
iii. An illegal act (or illegal omission) must take place in pursuance of that conspiracy;
In dowry death cases, for example, the victim’s in-laws are often found guilty of abetment
by conspiracy. They may do so by taunting, torturing, or inciting the victim on a regular
basis. Suicides can also be carried out in this way with the aid of a conspiracy.
For example, A, a servant, makes a conspiracy with some thieves to do the robbery. The
servant while facilitating the act needs to keep the doors of the master’s house open in the
night so that the thieves can commit the offence. A, as per the agreed plan keeps the doors
open and the thieves take away the master’s valuable property. Now, in this case, A is guilty
of abetment by conspiracy.

3. Abetment By Intentional Aiding

For constituting this offence, the person shall knowingly facilitate the commission of the
offence through his conduct or by providing necessary help in any other manner. This
usually occurs where the abettor encourages or assists in the commission of the crime. It is
important to include the goal of assisting the perpetrator.
The aid or facilitation can be given prior to or at the time of the commission of an act. It is
essential to highlight that the Aid may be given by an illegal act or by illegal omission.
Aid By Act
For example, A instigates B to commit suicide and C puts poison in the hand of B. Here A
and C both are abettors. A is liable to abetment by instigation and C by intentional aiding.
Aid By Illegal Omission
For example, a policeman has a legal duty to interfere if an offence is being committed in
front of him. If he remains a silent spectator on this, then he will be liable as himself to
encourage the commission of the offence.

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 the abettor.
Interpretation: Abettor is a person who actively encourages or assists someone to commit
an offence and as a result he is equally guilty in the crime of another person by knowingly
and voluntarily aiding the criminal in the commission of the offence.

Five proposition as to Abetment , contained in section 108 of IPC, which are as follows:
Explanation 1: The abetment of the illegal omission of an act may amount to an offence
even if the abettor may not be bound to do that act.
Interpretation: While the abettor may not be obligated to perform the act himself, abetment
of the unlawful omission of an act may constitute an offence.
For example- If a public servant is guilty of an illegal omission of duty made punishable by
the code, and a private person instigates him to omit performing the duty he abets the
offence of which public servant is guilty, although the abettor, being a private person,
could not himself have been guilty of the offence but he will be guilty of abetment of
offence.

Explanation 2: The effect of Abetment is immaterial.

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 be caused.
Interpretation: It is not mandatory for the act abetted to be committed in order to
constitute the crime of abetment. The motive of the person who abets, rather than the
real act performed by the person abetted, determines the crime of abetment.

3. Illustration: A instigates B to murder C. B injures C but the wounds are minor. A is

guilty of abetting B to commit murder.
Explanation 3: A person abetted need not necessarily be capable of committing the
offence. 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.

Interpretation: Abetment is a substantive offence irrespective of the criminal intention or

knowledge to be the same as that of abettor, mere instigation to commit a criminal offence is
necessary.It is not mandatory for the person abetted to be legally capable of committing
an offence, or to have the same guilty motive or experience as the abettor to commit the
offence of abetment. Abetment is a factual crime regardless of the abetted person’s criminal
intent or knowledge; only the instigation to commit a criminal offence is required, and it
does not include the abetted person.
Illustration: A with a guilty intention, abets a child or a lunatic person 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 weather the act be committed or not, is
guilty of abetting an offence.

Explanation 4: Abetment of Abetment is an offence

since The abetment of an offence is an offence, the abetment of such an abetment is also
an offence.

Illustration: A instigates B to instigate C to murder Z. B accordingly instigates C to murder

Z and commits that offence in consequence of Bs abetment. B is liable to be punished for the
offence with the punishment for murder and as a instigates B to commit the offence, A is
also liable for the same punishment.

Explanation 5: Engagement in the conspiracy on account of which the offence is

committed is enough to make him liable as an abettor.

It is not necessary to the commission of the offence of abetment by conspiracy that the
abettor should conspire with the person who commits it. It is sufficient if he engages in
the conspiracy in pursuance of which the offence is committed.

Interpretation: It is not mandatory for the abettor to conspire with the perpetrator in order
to execute the crime of abetment through conspiracy. It is sufficient that he participates in
the conspiracy that leads to the crime being committed. It is sufficient if he engages in the
conspiracy in pursuance of which the offence is committed will be liable.

Punishment for Abetment (109-120)

The extent of liability of an abettor is mainly dependent on the following four factors:

 which act he had abetted

 With what intention he abetted
 which act was committed
 With what intention the act was committed

Section 109:

 If a person abets an offence,

 and the act abetted is committed in consequences of the abetment
 where no expressed provision is made in IPC for the punishment of such abetment
 Such person shall be punished with the punishment provided for the offence which
is abetted and committed.
Interpretation
 If there is no separate punishment of abetment provided in IPC as such, then this
offence is punishable with the same punishment as provided for the original
offence.

 The abettor in such situation receives the same penalty as the person who
committed the offence since the principal offender’s actus reus happened as a
consequence of the abettor’s inducement. If no other provision for the penalty of
such abetment exists, Section 109 of the Penal Code applies.

 If the abettor has instigated the commission of the offence or has connected with
at least one or more different people in a conspiracy to commit an offence, and
any unlawful act occurs as a result of the conspiracy, Section 109 of the Penal Code
becomes relevant regardless of whether the abettor is present when the offence
abetted is committed.

 This section explains that since the Penal Code has not separately accommodated
abetment as a crime, it is punished in the same manner as the initial offence.

1. In some case of abetment the express provision is made for the punishment in IPC.
2. An act or offence is said to be committed “in the consequences of abetment,” when it is
committed in consequences of instigation, or in pursuance of conspiracy, or with aiding,
which constitute the abetment.
3. Offence abetted can be cognizable or non- cognizable, bailable or non- bailable,
triable by court and non -compoundable.
Section 110 - Punishment of abetment if person abetted does act with different intention
from that of abettor.—Whoever abets the commission of an offence shall, if the person
abetted does the act with a different intention or knowledge from that of the abettor, be
punished with the punishment provided for the offence which would have been committed if
the act had been done with the intention or knowledge of the abettor and with no other.

If the person abetted does the act with a different intention or knowledge from that of the
abettor, the abettor will be punished as if the offence had been done with his (i.e., the
abettor’s) intention or knowledge (Section 110). The liability of the person abetted is not
affected by this section.
For example, A instigated B to cause grievous injury to M for preventing him from taking
part in a racing competition. Now, B filled with deep anger tries to kill him. Now A will be
liable for abetment to the attempt to murder.

Section 111: Liability of abettor when one act abetted and different act done.—When an act
is abetted and a different act is done, the abettor is liable for the act done, in the same
manner and to the same extent as if he had directly abetted it:
(Proviso) —Provided the act done was a probable consequence of the abetment, and was
committed under the influence of the instigation, or with the aid or in pursuance of the
conspiracy which constituted the abetment. Illustrations
(a) A instigates a child to put poison into the food of Z, and gives him poison for that
purpose. The child, in consequence of the instigation, by mistake puts the poison into the
food of Y, which is by the side of that of Z. Here, if the child was acting under the influence
of A’s instigation, and the act done was under the circumstances a probable consequence of
the abetment. A is liable in the same manner and to the same extent as if he had instigated
the child to put the poison into the food of Y.
(b) A instigates B to burn Z’s house. B sets fire to the house and at the same time commits
theft of property there. A, though guilty of abetting the burning of the house, is not guilty of
abetting the theft; for the theft was a distinct act, and not a probable consequence of the
burning.

Interpretation: The construction of abetment laws around the term “every man is deemed to
mean the corollary outcomes of his act” continues in Section 111 of the Indian Penal
Code. If one man instigates another to commit a certain wrongdoing, and the other, in
response to that instigation, commits not only the wrongdoing but also another
wrongdoing in furtherance of it, the abettor is criminally liable in regard to the other act, if
it is one that, as a reasonable person with the intelligence of a reasonable man, at the time of
the instigation, might have committed.
  if the act committed is different from the act abetted
 but it is a probable consequence of abetment and
 is done under the influence of instigation or aid or pursuance of an abettor,
 the abettor is liable or guilty to be punished in the same manner as the act done.

Principle of Probable Consequence

Section 111 of the Indian Penal Code deals with the Principle of Probable Consequence.
According to this principle, if there is a difference between the intended act of the
abettor and the actual act done, then the abettor will be liable for the actual one in the
same manner and to the same extent as if he had directly abetted it. The main
precondition is that the actual act is a probable consequence of the Abetment.
For example. The Abetment was done for thrashing a person but the act committed was
stabbing. Now the abettor will be liable for the stabbing if the latter act is done in the
influence of instigation or Abetment. The only condition required here is the probable
consequence of the abetment.
A probable consequence is one which is likely or reasonably expected to follow from such
an act. The concept of probable consequence arises when the act abetted is different from the
actus reus. In this case, the abettor will not be liable for the act he abetted but shall be liable
for the act which has been committed by the principal offender knowing that the act
committed was a probable consequence of his abetment.

Section 112: Abettor when liable to cumulative punishment for act abetted and for act
done.—If the act for which the abettor is liable under the last preceding section is
committed in addition to the act abetted, and constitutes a distinct offence, the abettor
is liable to punishment for each of the offences.

Interpretation: The extension of section 111 is mentioned in section 112 of the IPC. As per
this section, if the person committed more than one act in the influence of instigation, then
the abettor will be liable for each and every offence. This means if the act abetted is done
along with another act which is the probable consequence of abetment, then the abettor is
liable to be punished for each of the offences. The word cumulative used here in this section
states that the act abetted and act done in pursuance of abetment exceeds in nature and
thereby causing additional act resulting in additional offence of that abetted. Abettor is liable
for the additional offence, if that offence is result of the probable consequence of abetment.

For example. X instigated Y to commit rape. Y in the influence, not only committed rape
but also killed her. Now X will be liable for the Abetment to rape as well as Abetment to
murder.
The principle underlying 111 and 112 is that every man is presumed to have the intention
of the natural consequences of his/her own act and hence should be punishable for the act.

Section 113 in The Indian Penal Code

113. Liability of abettor for an EFFECT caused by the act abetted different from that
intended by the abettor.—When an act is abetted with the intention on the part of the
abettor of causing a particular effect, and an act for which the abettor is liable in
consequence of the abetment, caused a different effect from that intended by the abettor, the
abettor is liable for the effect caused, in the same manner and to the same extent as if he had
abetted the act with the intention of causing that effect, provided he knew that the act
abetted was likely to cause that effect.
Illustration A instigates B to cause grievous hurt to Z. B, in consequence of the instigation,
causes grievous hurt to Z. Z dies in consequence. Here, if A knew that the grievous hurt
abetted was likely to cause death, A is liable to be punished with the punishment provided
for murder.
CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment—Same as for offence committed—
According as offence abetted is cognizable or non-cognizable—According as offence
abetted is bailable or non-bailable—Triable by court by which offence abetted is triable—
Non-compoundable.
Interpretation:If someone encourages (abets) an act with the intention of causing a specific
effect, but the act causes a different effect than what the abettor intended, thus aggravating
the offence,, they are still responsible for the outcome if the abettor knew the act could lead
to that effect. This section provides for the punishment wherein there is a difference between
the intended effect and the actual effect that occurred after the commission of the offence.
Section 111 deals with the doing of an actus reus that isn’t the same as the one abetted, but
113 also deals with the case where the actus reus is similar to the abetted guilty act but has a
different effect.

Section 114 : Abettor present when offence is committed.—Whenever any person, who
if absent would be liable to be punished as an abettor, is present when the act or
offence for which he would be punishable in consequence of the abetment is committed,
he shall be deemed to have committed such act or offence.
Interpretaton of Section 114:
actual presence of abettor +prior abetment by him = abettor liable for the act

Section 114 deals with those cases wherein the actual crime is committed in the presence of
an abettor. It is important to note that his mere presence will not make him liable for the
offence. He must be sufficiently near to give assistance or he must participate in the alleged
offence.
If someone who would be considered an abettor (encourager) of a crime is present when
the crime is committed, they will be treated as if they committed the crime themselves.

The section deals with the situation when the abettor is present while the act or the
offence abetted is being committed and in such a situation he shall be deemed to have
committed the act or the offence. The use of the expression ‘shall be deemed to have
committed’ in this section creates a legal fiction which means that even though the
abettor himself does not commit the act of the offence, the law shall presume that the
same has been done or committed by him.

For this section to apply it is necessary that the abettor’s liability as an abettor is first
established. If same is not the case, the section can have no application. The section
incorporates what in English law is known as ‘principal in the second degree’. The
principle underlying this section is that actual presence of the abettor plus prior abetment
on his part which makes him liable as an abettor, can mean nothing except his own
participation in the act or the offence.

The section is brought into operation when circumstances amounting to abetment of a

particular act or crime, for which he is liable as an abettor, have first been proved, and then
the presence of the abettor at the commission of the act or the offence is proved in addition.

Section 115 in The Indian Penal Code

115. Abetment of offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life—if offence not committed.—
Whoever abets the commission of an offence punishable with death or 1[imprisonment for life], shall, if
that offence be not committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this
Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; If act causing harm be done in
consequence.—and if any act for which the abettor is liable in consequence of the abetment, and which
causes hurt to any person, is done, the abettor shall be liable to imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to fourteen years, and shall also be liable to fine

Interpretation: It provides for the punishment of abetment of those offences

a. which attract the death sentence/ life imprisonment
b. No express provision is made in IPC for abetment of the offence
It comprises of two situations –
1). When the Offence was not committed in consequence of abetment then the punishment is
7 years and fine.
2). When the Offence was committed/ caused harm in the consequence of abetment then the
punishment will be 14 years as well as a fine.
Section 115: abetment of offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life- if offence
not committed:
If offence not committed in consequences of
7 years of imprisonment +Fine
abetment.
If act causing harm be done in consequences 14 years of imprisonment +Fine

Section 116 : Abetment of offence punishable with imprisonment—if offence be not committed.—
Whoever abets an offence punishable with imprisonment shall, if that offence be not committed in
consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of
such abetment, be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for that offence for a term
which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term provided for that offence; or with such fine
as is provided for that offence, or with both; If abettor or person abetted be a public servant whose
duty it is to prevent offence.—and if the abettor or the person abetted is a public servant, whose duty
it is to prevent the commission of such offence, the abettor shall be punished with imprisonment of
any description provided for that offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the longest term
provided for that offence, or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both. Illustrations
(a) 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 refuses to accept the bribe. A is punishable under this section.
(b) A instigates B to give false evidence. Here, if B does not give false evidence, A has nevertheless
committed the offence defined in this section, and is punishable accordingly.
(c) A, a police-officer, whose duty it is to prevent robbery, abets the commission of robbery. Here,
though the robbery be not committed, A is liable to one-half of the longest term of imprisonment
provided for that offence, and also to fine.
(d) B abets the commission of a robbery by A, a police-officer, whose duty it is to prevent that offence.
Here, though the robbery be not committed, B is liable to one-half of the longest term of
imprisonment provided for the offence of robbery, and also to fine.

Interpretation:
Section 116 deals with the punishment of abetment for those offences
a. which attract the punishment of imprisonment,
b. provided that no express punishment is made by IPC for abetment,
c. offence is not committed
It comprises of 2 situations:
1). When the offence is committed in consequence of abetment then the abettor is entitled to
the punishment of 1/4th of the offence or the fine or both
2). When the offence is abetted or committed by a public servant then the abettor is entitled
to punishment that is 1/2th of the actual offence and/or fine.
(note: public servant is supposed to prevent offences)
Section 116: abetment of offence punishable with imprisonment- if offence be not
committed:
Offence not committed in consequences of � of the longest term of punishment provided
abetment for the offence / fine /both.�
If abettor be a public servant whose duty id to � of the longest term of punishment provided
prevent offence. for the offence / fine /both.

Section 117: Abetting commission of offence by the public or by more than ten persons:
Any person who abets the commission of offence by the public generally or by any number
or class of person exceeding ten, shall be punished with imprisonment for the term which
may extent to three years, or fine or both. According as offence abetted is cognizable or non-
cognizable, bailable or non- bailable, triable by court and non- compoundable.
Section Offence Punishment

Abetment of any offence, if the act abetted is

109
committed in consequence, and where no Same as for offence abetted
IPC
express provision is made for its punishment.

Abetment of any offence, if the person

110
abetted does the act with a different Same as for offence abetted
IPC
intention from that of the abettor.

Abetment of any offence, when one act is

111 Same as for offence intended to
abetted and a different act is done; subject
IPC be abetted.
to the proviso.

Abetment of any offence, when an effect is

113
caused by the act abetted different from that Same as for offence committed
IPC
intended by the abettor.

114 Abetment of any offence, if abettor is present

Same as for offence committed
IPC when offence is committed.

Abetment of an offence, punishable with

115 death or imprisonment for life, if the Imprisonment for 7 years and
IPC offence be not committed in consequence of fine.
the abetment.

If an act which causes harm be done in Imprisonment for 14 years and

consequence of the abetment. fine.

Imprisonment extending to a
Abetment of an offence, punishable with
116 quarter part of the longest term
imprisonment, if the offence be not
IPC provided for the offence or fine,
committed in consequence of the abetment.
or both.
Interpretation:
Section 116 deals with the punishment of abetment for those offences
a. which attract the punishment of imprisonment,
b. provided that no express punishment is made by IPC for abetment,
c. offence is not committed
It comprises of 2 situations:
1). When the offence is committed in consequence of abetment then the abettor is entitled to
the punishment of 1/4th of the offence or the fine or both
2). When the offence is abetted or committed by a public servant then the abettor is entitled
to punishment that is 1/2th of the actual offence and/or fine.
(note: public servant is supposed to prevent offences)

Section 116: abetment of offence punishable with imprisonment- if offence be not

committed:
Offence not committed in consequences of � of the longest term of punishment provided
abetment for the offence / fine /both.�
If abettor be a public servant whose duty id to � of the longest term of punishment provided
prevent offence. for the offence / fine /both.

Section 117: Abetting commission of offence by the public or by more than ten persons:
Any person who abets the commission of offence by a large group of people exceeding 10,
shall be punished with imprisonment for the term which may extent to three years, or fine or
both.

Section 118: If someone intends to help commit a serious crime punishable by death or life
imprisonment and conceals the plan, they can be punished with up to seven years in prison if the
crime is committed, or up to three years in prison if the crime is not committed, and they may
also have to pay a fine.
Section 119 If a public servant knowingly hides/conceals or helps hide a plan to commit a
crime, and the crime is committed, they can be punished with imprisonment up to one-half of
the maximum term for that offense, or if the offense is not committed, they can be punished
with imprisonment up to one-fourth of the maximum term provided for that offence or a fine, or
both. If the offense is punishable with death or life imprisonment, the punishment can be
imprisonment up to ten years.
Illustration: A, an officer of police, being legally bound to give information of all designs to commit robbery
which may come to his knowledge, and knowing that B designs to commit robbery, omits to give such
information, with intent to facilitate the commission of that offence. Here A has by an illegal omission concealed
the existence of B’s design, and is liable to punishment according to the provision of this section.
Conclusion
Abetment is a substantive crime that is punishable in and of itself, regardless of whether the
act abetted is committed or not. When an act is committed as a result of instigation,
conspiracy, or assistance, the person who performs the act is held liable under the Indian
Penal Code, 1860, but the person who instigated the act will also be held liable for abetment
because that person instigated the act.
As a result, we believe that abetment as a crime is a just and equitable statute that furthers
the concept of natural justice in the judicial system. As previously said, there are four steps
of an offence, and abetment can occur at any point of the planning process and is punishable

1. Pandala Venkatasami 1881:

It was held that if a person prepares, in counjuction with others a copy of an intented
false document and buys a stamp paper for the purpose of writing such a false
document and also ask for information as to fact to be inserted in such false document,
he would be guilty for abetment of forgery because these are the acts done to
facilitate the commission of the offence..