OF ABETMENT

Chapter v of Penal Code 1860 deals with the law of accessories as it is known as English Law.

Accessories are the persons concerned in crime otherwise than as principals.

They are of 3 kinds:

a. Accessory before the fact,

b. Accessory at the fact;

c. Accessory after the fact.

This chapter deals only with such offenders who are accessories before or at the fact.

This chapter contains 15 sections {107-120}. The main principles may be summarized as

follows:

Section 107

(Abetment of a thing)

According to this section, A person abets the doing of a thing who –

Firstly, 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 that doing of that thing.

Thirdly, intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Definition of abetment: The definition of abetment in this chapter is general in nature. It

does not make the abetment of an ‘offence’ but of a ‘thing’, which may or may not be an

offence. It depends upon the intention of the person who abets and upon the act which is done

by the person who has abetted.

1. Abetment by Instigation

Definition of Instigate – A person, who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment

of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes, or procures, or attempts to

cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that

thing.

CASES- Direct instigation- where of several persons constituting an unlawful assembly, some

only were armed with sticks, and A, one of them, was not picked up a stick and used it B(master

of A, who gave a general order to beat, was held guilty of abetting the assault made by them.

[ Rasookoollah(1869) 12 WR(cr)51]

Instigation by letter-Where one person instigates another to the commission of an offence by

means of a letter sent through the post, the offence of abetment by instigation is completed as

soon as the contents of such letter become known to the addressee. It the letter never reaches

him the act is only an attempt to abet.

[Ransford(1874) 13 Cox 9]

2. Abetment by Conspiracy – conspiracy consists in the agreement of two or more persons

to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means. So long as such a design rests in

intention only, it is indictable.

“Where parties concert together, and have a common object, the act of one of the parties,

done in furtherance of the common object and in pursuance of the concerted plan, is the act of

all” [ Ameer Khan (1871)17 WR(cr)15]

3. Abetment by Aid – A person abets by aiding, when by act done either prior to, or at that

time of the commission of an act, he intends to facilitate, and does in fact facilitate, the

commission thereof. The abettor must be shown to have intentionally aided the commission of

the crime.

It is not necessary that the abettor should be present at the place of crime. It is also not

necessary to show that the secondary party to a conspiracy to murder intended the victim to be

killed provided that it is proved he foresaw the event as a real or substantial risk.

[ R v Rook, (1993) 1 WLR 1005 (CA) ]

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 apprehended C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C.

SCOPE –

This chapter covers the different ways in which such assistance or abetment may be

provided such as to make them liable in criminal law for punishment.

A majority of crimes are committed by two or more persons.

These persons are said to facilitate the commission of the offence.

INSTIGATION IN DOWRY DEATH CASES.

Instigation as a form of abetment has generally been one of the essential considerations in cases

involving the death of young brides or women within seven years after marriage, as a

consequence of dowry harassment.

Protima Dutta v State of West Bengal (1977) CrLj 97 cal

Here a charge under s 306 read with s 34, PC, was laid against the mother-in-law of the deceased

and her husband of having abetted the commission of suicide by instigating and inciting her to

commit suicide.

The evidence revealed many circumstances which showed that the mother-in-law suggested to

the deceased by conduct, language and direct or indirect expressions to commit suicide.

Although it did not amount to express solicitation, her cruel conduct towards the deceased over

the months made the deceased suffer mentally. Therefore, the series of conduct amounting to

actively suggesting and stimulating the deceased to commit suicide, it was held, clearly

amounted to instigation.

Tej Singh v State of Rajasthan AIR 1958 Raj 169 pp. 171-172

While generally passive or unresponsive approval may not necessarily be considered to be

instigation, there are specific instances when approval has been held to be instigation, as for

example, in instances of committing Sati, when a widow immolates herself in the funeral pyre of

her husband.

When members of the funeral procession of her husband applauded her resolve by shouting Satti

Mata Ke Jay, they were held to have instigated her to commit Sati, as their approval of the

woman's act by participation in the procession gave her encouragement to commit suicide.

Brijlal v. Prem Chand, AIR 1989 SC 1661: (1989) Supp 2 SCC 680.

In this case, the husband persistently demanded more money from his wife, quarrelling with her

everyday. On the fateful day when she happened to say that death would have been better than all

this, she heard only this in reply that her husband would feel relieved if she ended her life.

Immediately thereafter she set herself on fire. The husband was held guilty of instigating her to

commit suicide.

Gurbuchan Singh v Satpal Singh (1990) ISSC 445: AIR 1990 SC 209: 1990 CrLJ 562

In this case a married girl committed suicide by burning herself in her in-law's house, her in-laws

were held guilty of abetment because they were persistently torturing her for inadequate dowry

and had gone to the extent of accusing her of illegitimate pregnancy. All these tortures and

taunts", RAY. J said, "caused depression in be mind and drove her to take the extreme step of

putting an end to her life by sprinkling kerosene oil on her person and setting it afire."

Kishangiri Mangalgiri Goswami V State of Gujarat

Here The accused married Kantaben in 1989. Soon after two years of his marriage, the accused

started inflicting mental and physical torture on her and she was

taunted by the accused for not bringing sufficient dowry in the marriage. The demand was

persistent. Even threats were administered to the deceased and her family members. Thus, the

accused inflicted mental and physical torture on the victim which prompted her to commit

suicide by burning herself on 23-03-1999 after pouring kerosene on her body. Thus, the court

found that the appellant has committed the offence punishable under Section 498A and 306 of

IPC

Section 108

(Abettor)

According to this section, A person abets an offence, who abets either 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.

Illustration –

i. A instigates B to murder c. b refuses to do so. A is guilty of abetting B to commit

murder.

ii. A instigates B to murder D. B in pursuance of the instigation stabs D. D recovers from

the wound. A is guilty of instigating B to commit murder.

“Abettor” under this section, means the person who abets the commission of an

offence,

Or, the commission of an act which would be an offence if committed by a person not

suffering from any physical or mental incapacity.

Abetment is substantive offence- the offence of abetment is a substantive

one and the conviction of an abettor is, therefore, in no way dependent on the

conviction of the principal.

[Maruti Dada (1875)1 Bom 15; Sahib Ditta (1885) PR no. 20 of 1885.

Principal cannot be abettor- A person who has been convicted of an offence as

principal cannot also be punished for abetting it.

[ Jeetoo Chowdhury, (1865) 4 WR(CR)23]

Section 108A

(Abetment in Bangladesh, of offences outside it)

According to this section, a person abets an offence within the meaning of this code who, in

Bangladesh abets the commission of any act without and beyond Bangladesh which would

constitute an offence committed in Bangladesh. Abetment in Bangladesh of offences outside it.

Illustration

A, in Bangladesh, instigates B, a foreigner in Goa, to commit a murder in Goa. A is guilty of

abetting murder.

Section Analysis

This section makes an abetment in Bangladesh by a citizen of Bangladesh of an act committed

in a foreign territory an offence punishable under the Penal Code if it would constitute an

offence if committed in Bangladesh.

Section 109

Punishment of abetment if the act is committed in consequence and where no express

provision is made for its punishmentWhoever 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 for the offence. Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in

consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment.

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.

Illustration: (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 accepts the bribe. A has abetted the offence defined in

section 161

(b) 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.

( c) A and B conspire to poison Z. A, in pursuance of the conspiracy, procedures the poison and

delivers it to B in order that he may administer it to Z. B, in pursuance of conspiracy, administers

the poison to Z in A’s absence and thereby causes Z’s death. Here, B is guilty for murder. A is

guilty of abetting that offence by conspiracy and is liable to the punishment of murder.

Analysis of Section 109

Section 109 deals with the matter where an offence has been the consequence of abetment and

there

is no specific provision is made for the punishment of such offence.

From section 107 we know that abetment includes-

● Instigation

● Engagement of one or more persons in conspiracy

● Intentional aid by any act or illegal omissions.

Now, if any offence takes place in a result of these above-mentioned three things, and if there

is no express provision for its punishment, then the person abetting be punished with

the punishment provided for that offence.

Here, another notable fact is that- section 109 has no application where the offence is never

committed. Again, questions may arise what actually is meant by the word ‘offence’ in this

section. In this section, ‘offence’ means any act which is said to be an offence either under

the Penal Code,1860 or under any special law.

Case Study Under Section 109

Where the abetment committed at the time, when offence has been committed, the

section applicable is section 109 and not section 114 (AIR 1948 All 168)

There is no difference between “principle in the first degree” and “principle in the second

degree”. Under section 111, the abettor is liable for a different act if that was a probable

consequence of the abetment. This is applicable to the accused guarantor.

(Islami Bank Bangladesh V Md Habib & Others (criminal), 55 DLR, AD 19)

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.

Analysis of Section 110

Section 110 deals with the punishment of an abettor, who does the act of abetting with a different

intention than that of the actual offence.

This section describes that if the abettor abets the commission of an offence with the knowledge

of something else, but the final result of the offence turns out not as per his intention, then he

would be punished in a way if the very act had been done with the knowledge of him.

Case Study Under Section 110

● Where the abettor intends that simple hurt to be caused to A, but the persons abetting

attacking A in such a way that their offence amount to culpable homicide. The abettor

will nevertheless be liable only for simple hurt under section 323/110 and not for

culpable homicide under section 304/110.

(AIR 1935 Oudh 473)

● Where the common intention of the members was to cause only grievous hurt, but one of

them committed murder, it was held that the members other than the member who

committed the murder shall be punished only under section 326 read with section 149,

and not under section 302 read with section 149.

(AIR 1936 Pat 481)

Section 111

Liability of abettor when one act abetted and different act done

Liability of abettor when one act abetted and different act done 111. 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:

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.

(c) A instigates B and C to break into an inhabited house at midnight for the purpose of robbery

and provides them with arms for that purpose. B and C break into the house, and being resisted

by Z, one of the inmates, murder Z. Here, if that murder was the probable consequence of the

abetment, A is liable to the punishment provided for murder.

Section Analysis

This section deals with the liability of an abettor where the person abetted does a different act

than the act abetted by the abettor. This section incorporates the principle that every person is

presumed to intend the natural consequences of his act.

Naturally, if the act done was not a probable consequence of the abetment, the abettor could to

be held guilty of its abetment. A probable consequence would mean that the act committed could

be held to be likely to be committed as a result of the abetment or it could reasonably be

expected to follow as a result of the abetment. In other words, an act which could reasonably be

expected to take place from the abetment would be held to be a probable consequence of the act

abetted. The three illustrations provided under this section amply clarify and illustrate this point.

Illustrative Cases

Definition of Abetment

The term abetment has been defined in section 107 of the code.It includes not merely instigation,

which is the normal form of abetment but also conspiracy and aiding and these three forms of

abetment are dealt with in the proviso to this section.

⸰ AIR 1940 Bom 126

Where the act is applicable

This section doesn’t apply where the act abetted is not a criminal act

⸰ AIR 1931 Pat 52(54)

The Act was a probable consequence

1. To make the accused liable in this section the prosecution must not show not only that the

assault on the complainant was a probable consequence of the conspiracy to assault the

complainant but also that it was done in pursuance of that conspiracy.

⸰ AIR 1925 PC 305

2. Where an act is abetted and the abetment takes the form of instigation of an act and a different

act is done, that different act must be a probable consequence and committed under the influence

of the instigation and where the abetment takes the from of aiding or conspiracy the different act

must be a probable consequence and also must be done with the aid or in pursuance of the

conspiracy.

⸰ (1912)13 CriLI 305

Abetment of an act only refers to a criminal act:

This section does no more than declare the law according to the common law of England under

which the abetment of an act refers to the abetment of a criminal act.The moment the persons

overstep the line between that which is lawful and that which is an unlawful action becomes a

criminal offence

⸰ AIR 1931 Pat 52

SECTION 112

Abettor when liable to cumulative punishment for act abetted and for the 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.

Illustration

A instigates B to resist by force a distress made by a public servant. B, in consequence, resists

that distress. In offering resistance, B voluntarily causes grievous hurt to the officer executing

the distress. As B has committed both the offence of resisting the distress, and the offence of

voluntarily causing grievous hurt, B is liable to punishment for both these offences; and, if A

knew that B was likely voluntarily to cause grievous hurt in resisting the distress, A will also be

liable to punishment for each of the offences.

Illustrative Cases

Liability of punishment:

This section presupposes that the person abetted commits two acts namely

1. The act abetted

2. Also, a different one constitutes a distinct offence.

In such cases, if the abettor can be held liable for the latter act under section 111 then he is liable

to punishment for each of the offences under this section.

⸰ AIR 1957 Andh Pro 231

Relation with other section:

1, This section should be read in conjunction with section 111

2. where the act of the person abetted is not the probable consequence of the act abetted or the

abettor has not the knowledge that his act was likely to cause the effect caused he will not be

liable for the effect caused by the act of the person, abetted

⸰ 1892 AHWN 233 (DB)

Section 113

Section 113 deals with the liability of the abettor for effect caused by the act abetted different

from that intended by the abettor.

According to this section, when an act is abetted with the intention on the part of the abettor

causing a particular effect, and an act for which the abettor is liable in consequence of the

abetment causes 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

same intention of causing that effect, provided he knew that the act abetted was likely to cause

that effect.

This section denotes that if the abettor intended to cause a specific consequence, he should only

be liable for that. He should not be responsible for any further consequences that took place after

the offence was committed. However, if it is foreseen that the person abetted is likely to cause

more harm to the victim beyond the intention of the abettor. Still, if the abettor had abetted him

in doing the act, the abettor would be liable for the extended consequence of the committed

offence.

For example, 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.

Scope:

(1) This section should be read in conjunction with section 111.

(2) Where the act of the person abetted is not the probable consequence of the act abetted or

the abettor has not the knowledge that his act was likely to cause the effect caused, he

will not be liable for the impact caused by the act of the person, abetted.

(1892 AHWN 233 (DB))

Section 114

Section 114 deals with the situation in which the abettor is present when the offence is

committed.

According to this section, whenever any person who, if absent, would be liable to be punished

as an abettor, is present when the act of 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.

This section is only applicable where the act at which the abettor is present would itself amount

to an offence. The meaning of this section is that if the nature of the act done continues abetment,

then, if present, the abettor is to be deemed to have committed the offence, though, in point of

fact, another actually committed it.

Scope:

(1) This section applies to cases where a person abets the commission of the offence sometime

before, at a different place and remains present when the offence is committed.

● Nanboo Kedar, AIR 1962 MP 91

(2) Section 114 does not apply to a case where the abetment is made at the time when the offence

takes place, and the abettor helps in its commission.

(3) Active abetment at the time of committing the offence falls under section 109. While section

109 is a section generally dealing with abetment, section 114 applies to those cases only in which

not only the abettor present at the commission of the offence but abetment has been committees

before and independently of his presence. (Kulwant Sing v State of Bihar, (2007) 15 SCC 670).

(4) The real test to see whether or not section 111 applies lies in the words of the section ‘who is

absent would liable to be punished as an abettor. ( AIR 1955 Trav-Co 266)

(5) In the absence of proof of any one of the two ingredients, namely,-

● abetment prior to the commission of the offence; and

● the abettor's presence at such commission,

This section will not be applicable. (AIR 1974 SC 45)

Act abetted different from the act committed- Abettor present.

Where A abets B to do the act which is a particular offence, and B does another act which

amounts to a different offence and which is not a probable consequence of the abetment, A

would not, if absent at the commission of the offence by B, be liable for the crime committed by

B. His presence at B's commission of an offence would not make any difference and would not

render him liable under this section for the offence committed by B.

● (1912) 13 CriLI 715

Section 115

Abetment of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life; If offence not

committedWhoever abets the commission of an offence punishable with death or 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 to 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.

Illustration:

A instigates B to murder Z. The offence is not committed, if B had murdered Z, he would have

been subject to the punishment of death or imprisonment for life. Therefore, A is liable to

imprisonment up to 7 years and also a fine and if hurt be caused to Z in consequence of the

abetment he will be liable to imprisonment up to 14 years and also a fine.

Illustrative cases:

In determining factors of offence, the essential ingredients under Section 115 are as follows:

(1) The accused must have abetted the commission of the offence;

(2) The offence abetted is not committed;

(3) The offence abetted was not committed or no hurt was caused to any person in consequence

of such abetment.

Here, the second and third class of cases falls under the first and second paragraph of this

section. The first one falls under sections 109 and 110, not under this section.

Section 116

Abetment of an offence punishable with imprisonment; if the offence be not committed:

This section obliges the abetment of an offence culpable with confinement. There is no relating

segment in the Code relating to abetment of an offence culpable with fine as it were. The section

is supplementary to section 115.

According to the first part of this section, whenever an abettor abets such an offence for which

the punishment provided is imprisonment if the offence abetted is not committed in consequence

of the abetment and there is no express provision in the Indian Penal Code to punish such

abetment, the abettor shall be punished with imprisonment of any description 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.

The second part of the section says that whenever an abettor abets an offence punishable with

imprisonment and if the abettor himself or the person abetted is a public servant whose duty is to

prevent the commission of such an 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 the offence, or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both.

It is clear from the above that the law views an act to be more serious where either the abettor or

the person abetted is a public servant who is under a duty to prevent the commission of an

offence and, therefore, higher punishment has been provided in such cases.

Illustration:

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, a police officer, whose duty it is to prevent robbery, abets the commission of the 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 a fine.

c) 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 that offence of robbery and also to a fine.

Illustrative cases:

In the case of Parvati Charan Chatterji [(1895) 22IA 193: 17 All 498 PC], a Vakil of the HCD

signed and sent a letter to another Vakil of that court who practised in District Courts subordinate

thereto. The purport of this letter, which was one of several printed forms prepared for

circulation to Vakils practising in districts, was to the effect that the Vakil, to whom it was

addressed, "could easily send his clients" cases' both civil and criminal," to the writer, who

would conduct them in that court. And 'as a remuneration' the fees paid by the clients' would be

shared between the writer and the Vakil who had sent the cases. It was held that that was

incitement within the meaning of this section.

Section 117

Abetting commission of the offence by the public, or by more than ten person

Section 117 of the Penal Code states that, " Whoever abets the commission of an

offence by the public generally or by any number or class of persons exceeding ten,

shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend

to three years, or with fine, or with both."

Illustrations

A affixes in a public place a placard instigating a sect consisting of more than ten

members to meet at a certain time and place, for the purpose of attacking the members

of an adverse sect, while engaged in a procession. A has committed the offence defined

in this section.

Section Exploration

Offence: Abetting the commission of an offence by the public, or by more than ten

persons.

Punishment: Imprisonment for 3 years or fine or both.

Cognizable/ Non-cognizable: Same as offence.

Bailable/ Non-bailable: Same as the offence.

Trial Court: Court by which offence abetted is triable.

Section 118

Concealing design to commit an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life

Section 118 provides that, " Whoever intends to facilitate or knows it to be likely that

he will thereby facilitate the commission of an offence punishable with death or

imprisonment for life, voluntarily conceals, by any act or illegal omission, the existence

of a design to commit such offence or makes any representation which he knows to be

false respecting the such design,

if offence be committed:

shall, if that offence be committed, be punished with imprisonment of either description

for a term which may extend to seven years, or,

if offence be not committed:

if the offence is not committed, with imprisonment of either description for a term which

may extend to three years;

and in either case shall also be liable to fine.

Illustrations

A, knowing that dacoity is about to be committed at B, falsely informs the Magistrate

that a dacoity is about to be committed at C, a place in an opposite direction, and

thereby misleads the Magistrate with intent to facilitate the commission of the offence.

The dacoity is committed at B in pursuance of the design. A is punishable under this

section.

Section Exploration

if the offence committed

Offence: Concealing a design to commit an offence punishable with death or

imprisonment for life, if the offence be committed.

Punishment: 7 years of imprisonment and fine.

Cognizable/Non-cognizable: Same as offence.

Bailable/Non-bailable: Non-bailable.

Trial Court: Court by which offence abetted is triable.

if the offence be not committed

Offence: Concealing a design to commit an offence punishable with death or

imprisonment for life, if the offence be not committed.

Punishment: 3 years of imprisonment and fine.

Cognizable/Non-cognizable: Same as offence.

Bailable/Non-bailable: Bailable.

Trial Court: Court by which offence abetted is triable.

Section 119

Public servant concealing design to commit an offence which it is his duty to

PreventWhoever, being a public servant intending to facilitate or knowing it to be likely that he will

thereby facilitate the commission of an offence which it is his duty as such public servant to

prevent, voluntarily conceals, by any act or illegal omission, the existence of a design to commit

such offence, or makes any representation which he knows to be false respecting such design,

if offence be committed;

shall, if the offence be committed, be punished with imprisonment of any description provided

for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the longest term of such

imprisonment, or with such fine as is provided for that offence, or with both;

if offence be punishable with death, etc;

or, if the offence be punishable with death or imprisonment for life, with imprisonment of

either description for a term which may extend to ten years;

if offence be not committed

or, if the offence be not committed, shall be punished with imprisonment of any description

provided for the offence for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of

such imprisonment or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both.

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.

Scope of this section

The facts necessary to establish an offence under this section:

1. That there is the existence of the design to commit an offence.

2. That the accused was a public servant.

3. That it was the duty of the accused, a such public servant, to prevent the

commission of that offence.

4. That the accused concealed the existence of such design

(a) By his act or illegal omission of that offence; or

(b) By his knowingly making false representation.

5. That the accused did so voluntarily.

6. That the accused thereby intended to facilitate or knew that he would thereby

facilitate the commission of such offence.

7. That the offence concealed has been committed (if the case falls under the first

clause.)

Section:120

Concealing design to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment

Whoever, intending to facilitate or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby facilitate the

commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment, voluntarily conceals, by any act or

illegal omission, the existence of a design to commit such offence, or makes any representation

which he knows to be false respecting such design

if the offence is committed; if the offence be not committed

shall, if the offence be committed, be punished with imprisonment of the description provided

for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth, and, if the offence be not

committed, to one-eighth, of the longest term of such imprisonment, or with such fine as is

provided for the offence, or with both.

Scope of this section:

The facts necessary to establish an offence under this section:

1. That there was a design to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment

2. That the accused is aware of the design.

3. That the accused voluntarily concealed the existence of the design by a positive act on

his part or an illegal omission.

4. That the accused knew that he was likely thereby to facilitate to the commission of the

offence concealed.

This section deals with abetment by concealment of an offence punishable with imprisonment

depending upon the fact whether the offence abetted is committed or not committed.

Group D

Faiqua Tahjiba - 1812116210

Jannatun Nayem Shuvra - 1812516145

Salma Sabiha - 1712116132

Md. Jubayer Rahman Akash - 1810816181

Adiba Anjum - 1812116196

Nazmul Abedin Abir - 1810116104

Mashrur Imtiaz - 1810916147

Sajedul Karim - 1810416166