Understanding Abetment in Criminal Law

Abetment of a thing

(ii)Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illicit oversight happens in pursuance of that conspiracy and in order to the doing of that thing; or

Abetment

Abetment can be committed only when there is positive evidence of either instigation or conspiracy or intentional aid. If none of these three elements stated above is available then abetment does not stand proved. Therefore, mere presence at the scene of the offence would not be sufficient to make out a case of abetment. NLR 1991 Cr. 163(DB)

Instigation

‘Instigation’ shows some sort of advice for the commission of an act, which if done, would be an offence. It necessarily indicates some active suggestion or support or stimulation to the commission of the act itself which constitutes an offence. ‘Advice’ can become ‘instigation’ only if it is found that it was meant actively to suggest or stimulate the commission of an offence. Advice per se, or temptation to do a forbidden thing does not amount to instigation.

Conspiracy

The distinction between the offence of abetment by conspiracy and the offence of criminal conspiracy, so far as the consent to submit an offence is concerned lies in this. Unless “agreement” can be prima facie spelt out no Prima facie case under S.120-B can be said to be made out to invite the second part of S. 107. But for abetment by conspiracy mere agreement is insufficient. A demonstration or illicit exclusion must happen in pursuance of the conspiracy and in order to the doing of the thing conspired for.

Intentionally aids by act

If a person joins another in the commission of a crime by which he is to benefit and which it would not be possible to commit anyway for his support, he is liable for the commission of the crime. In order that there may be abetment by intentional aid, the commission of the crime must have been facilitated by either an act on the part of the abettor or by his illegal omission. The act may be one which directly assists the commission of the crime or one which merely affords facilities for its commission. In either case, the person who does such an act is an abettor.

Illegal omission

For proving abetment by illegal omission under section 107 the accused must be shown to have intentionally aided the commission of the offence by his non-interference. The prosecution must be able to establish that such illegal omission was likely to have lent support to or to have encouraged the principal offender to commit the offence in question.

Accessory after the fact

Abetment by aiding or instigating necessarily means some active suggestion or support or stimulation to the commission of the offence itself. If the offence had already been completed before anything was done by the alleged abettor, any subsequent action of his which might, in any way help the main offender, will not abetment within S.107, being an accessory after the fact which is no offence under Pakistan Law.

Charge of Abetment

It is open to the prosecution to bring a charge of abetment generally. The charge will amount to notice to the accused that they have to meet a case of abetment in one or more of the different ways indicated in S.107, Penal Code. But a specific charge must be framed for abetment of an offence under S.114, P.P.C. A general charge of instigating various persons to commit dacoities is bad. Separate acts of abetment must be distinctly specified.

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 submitted by a person able by law of committing an offence with the same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor. Section 108.

Conclusion

Abetment is rightly declared a substantive offence for the purpose very aptly defined by; Terremy Bentham as;“The discovery of such preparatory offence with the object of prohibiting them would reduce the level of the principal crimes committed in consequence to them.”