B refuses to do so. In the case of Sanju v. The Supreme Court held him to be guilty of instigating her to commit suicide. In such cases since the element of intention remains lacking therefore it cannot be described as amounting to instigation. The present case is not where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. It cannot be held in law that a person cannot ever be convicted of abetting a certain offence when the person alleged to have committed that offence in consequence of the abetment has been acquitted. A is guilty of instigation B to commit murder.
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. They were married in court. But the diversion is purposeful, as I hope will become clear during the course of this post. In cases of student suicide, where on finding gutka packets from the deceased, the Principal scolded, hit and asked him to apologise before many people, the court held that it is unimaginable that the latter had not instigated the former to commit suicide as his actions were in consonance to maintaining discipline among the students. Presence of mens reus is a necessary concomitant of instigation. Satpal Singh, heavily lies on the prosecution.
Otherwise, No compromise is allowed between the accused and the victim except under certain situations, where the High Court or the Supreme Court have the authority for quashing a matter. How does it account for this possible variance? A is guilty of abetting that offence by conspiracy, and is liable to the punishment for murder. If an offence is cognizable, police has the authority to arrest the accused without a warrant and to start an investigation with or without the permission of a court. Here, though A and C have not conspired together, yet C has been engaged in the conspiracy in pursuance of which Z has been murdered. Here B is guilty of murder. The Learned counsel also placed reliance on another judgment of this court in Ramesh Kumar v.
State of Andhra Pradesh, it was submitted that the conviction of the appellant is totally unsustainable because no ingredients of offence under Section 306 of the Code can be made out in the facts and circumstances of this case. Illustration- A concerts with B a plan for poisoning Z. If a person knowing of a design to commit a crime and intending to facilitate the commission thereof voluntarily conceals such a design, he is liable to punishment. The concept of abetment widens the horizons of criminal law to incorporate these criminal intentions and penalize them even when the person who bought the knife did not actually kill anyone but handed it over to someone else to do it. Section 107 supports this conventional theory. This paper raises the question whether or not such traditional institutes of the general part, such as the principle of legality, omission, preparatory acts etc.
In addition, these words are common to all the sections right from Section 131 to 140. A conviction cannot be handed over under 306 unless clear mens rea is proved. 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. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of Section 107. Before a person be convicted of abetting the suicide of any other person, it must be established that such other person committed suicide. 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. Recall that an offence consists of conduct, consequence and circumstance requirements acting together.
If an offence is cognizable, police has the authority to arrest the accused without a warrant and to start an investigation with or without the permission of a court. This is a just and fair law enhancing the principles of natural justice in the judicial system. Here A, whether the act be committed or not is guilty of abetting an offence. Abettor when liable to cumulative punishment for act abetted and for act done. With regard to matters of instigation it has been reiterated in several Supreme Court judgements that there should be a live or proximate link between the act of abetment and actual commission of suicide. She set herself afire immediately thereafter. In order to combat this dangerous type of crime lawyers must be educated in the field of computer technology and the Internet.
Pedantically, then, I argue that A cannot instigate someone who is already doing that thing, when Section 107 requires the instigation must be to do that thing. If it appears to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and difference in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and difference were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. What is more important for the larger scheme of things on this blog currently is the relationship between abetment and conspiracy, which we touched on. Introduction Law keeps a check on human behaviour. In English Law, criminals are divided in four categories, but in India there is only one distinction between the doer and his helper who is known as abettor.
Another interesting facet of Section 107 is its recognition that abetment can occur at any stage of the doing of some thing. Circumstances are known: A proceeds to have sexual intercourse with C despite knowing there is no consent or is reckless as to existence of consent. The offence of abetment is complete when the alleged abettor has instigated another or engaged with another in a conspiracy to commit the offence. It is not only the judicial minds but also the legislature who has expressed its concern over this matter. The court held the husband guilty of abetment to suicide on the pretext that there was a close link between the act of instigation and commission of suicide.
An example to round things up. The Supreme Court held that the constable by his conduct had abetted rape and therefore, did not merit acquittal. On the fateful day she reacted by saying that death would be better than that state of her life. Illustrations- a A, with a guilty intention, abets a child or a lunatic 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. B refuses to accept the bribe.