AFFRAY

SECTION 159 OF IPC

• When 2 or more persons, ✓ by fighting in a public place, ✓ disturb
the public peace, they are said to “commit an affray”.
Affray versus Riot
• Section 159 defines Affray whereas Section 146 defines Rioting.
• Asper Section 160, affray is punishable with imprisonment up to 1
month, or with fine up to 100 rupees, or with both whereas asper
section 147, rioting is punishable with imprisonment up to 2 years,
or with fine, or with both
• Affray cannot be committed in a private place but a riot can be.
• An affray can be committed by two or more persons whereas a
riot by five or more persons.
• Affray does not require common object whereas a riot cannot be
constituted without such object
SECTION 160 OF IPC
• Punishment for committing affray— Imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to 1 month, or with fine
which may extend to 100 rupees, or with both
• S. 143, 144, 145, 147, 151, 153 • Cognizable, Bailable, Non-
para 1, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, compoundable, Triable by any
160 – Magistrate.

• S. 148, 152, 153 para 2 - • Cognizable, Bailable, Non-

compoundable, Triable by
Magistrate of 1st Class

• S. 149 -
• Offence which is committed in
prosecution of common object.
• Cognizable, Non-bailable, Non-
• S. 153A, 153 B - compoundable, Triable by
Magistrate of 1st Class
DOWRY DEATH & OTHER
RELATED PROVISIONS
 WHAT IS DOWRY?
• What is Dowry: Dowry is a payment of cash or gifts from the bride's family to the
groom's family upon marriage. It may include cash, jewellery, electrical
appliances, furniture, crockery, utensils, car and other household items that help
the newly married couple to start their life journey.
• In India, the dowry system puts a great financial burden on the bride's family.
The Dowry Prohibition Act, the first national legislation to deal with the social
evil of dowry, was passed in 1961.
• The object of this act is to prohibit giving and taking of dowry. Failure of dowry
legislation and increase in rate of dowry death led to the Criminal amendment in
the year 1986 and 1983 by adding section 304-B and 498-A.
• In 1986 a new offence known as dowry death was inserted in the IPC by the
Virtue of Section 304-B.
 SECTION 304 B – DOWRY DEATH – r/w
Section 113 B SHALL PERSUME
• "Dowry Death": death caused to woman by burns or bodily injury
or under unnatural circumstances within seven years of he
marriage ,where it is shown that soon before her death she wa
harassed or put to cruelty by husband or his relatives in relation
of dowry the punishable with a term of seven years to life
imprisonment.
• POLICY – To prevent menace of dowry & dowry torture.
• For the purpose of Section 304B, the word dowry has the same
meaning as Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, which defines the
word dowry as follows: “Dowry” means any property or valuable
security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly
• by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage, or
• by parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to
either party to the marriage or to any other person at, before or any
time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of said
parties.
• but does not include - A) Dower or mahr in case of Muslim person. B)
Reimbursement of marriage expenses.
• The act applies to all religion in India. The act does not have
retrospective effect.
 INGREDIENTS
• 1. Death was caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than
under ordinary circumstances.
• 2. Death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage.
• 3. Woman must have subjected to cruelty or harassment by husband
or his relatives.
• 4. Such cruelty or harassment should be in connection with demand
of dowry.
• 5. Such cruelty or harassment should have been subjected soon
before her death.
• Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.— A new
section "Section 113B" has also been added to
Indian evidence Act, 1872. and it is now provided
that when the question before the court is whether
a person has committed the dowry death of a
woman and it is shown that soon before her death,
such woman had been subjected by such person to
cruelty or harassment, for or in connection with any
demand for dowry, the court shall presume that
such person had caused the dowry death.
• SECTION 113 B IEA –
• It should be clear that cruelty was done to demand dowry
before the death of the deceased.
• Acc. to this section, the court shall presume that a person
has caused dowry death if evidence discloses that
immediately before her death she has been subjected to
cruelty or harassment or both for or in connection with the
dowry, then the court shall presume that the person in
question has caused the death. If there is proof that the
accused has intentionally caused the death then it will
attract section 302 of IPC.
• DD is an offence more of STRICT LIABILITY & unlike Murder &
CH it is not required for DD that Circumstantial evidence shall be
proved that the accused has actually caused the death. Rather,
even if the actual conduct of the accused which resulted into the
death or commission of suicide is not proved, it will amount to DD.
• THE FOLLOWING 3 ELEMENTS ARE PROVED:
• 1. The fact that the Accused had committed Dowry Death against
the Victim soon before the death.
• 2. The death was caused within 7 years of marriage
• 3. It was an unnatural death
• THE WORD “SOON BEFORE” IS NOT SEEN IN TERMS OF TIME
BUT, SEEN IN TERMS OF CAUSE & EFFECT.
 SOON BEFORE
• The word soon before means not immediately before. Rather at any point of
time in the past provided the last act of dowry cruelty & the point of time
when death was caused has a live link. Here live link means the state of mind
of the accused in the cases of homicidal death or state of mind of the victim
in cases of suicidal death. As manifest from the degree and depravity of
conduct of the accused at the last act of cruelty was such as reasonable
suggest that the effect upon the mind would have continued till the point of
time when the death was caused. Here, time gap may not be as important
but, if time gap is much then it may suggest that the effect may have faded
out.
• 7 years – Parliamentary wisdom – Dowry cruelty is mostly during the initial
years of marriage.
Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam & others, 2004

• The policy of DD is to prevent the menace.

• Applying this provision technically will defeat the purpose.
• Be it void or valid mrg DD will apply.
• Held: If it is applied only on the cases of lawful marriage then
it may amount to a defeat of that purpose particularly in the
case of void marriage.
Atleast marriage should be there.
Live in relationship

• Read Section 114 B IEA

• Presumption of marriage
• Long cohabitation + Living as H & W: PRESUMPTION OF
MARRIAGE DRAWN. That is Section 498 A.
• Miscarriage + DD = If W is pregnant at the time of DD then
refer Section 312; Section 313.
CHAPTER 20A – SECTION 498 A
• This Chapter in IPC and S. 113A in the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 were inserted by Act 46 of 1983.
• Objects: The object of this chapter is to punish the
husband and his relatives who tortures and
harasses women with a view to coerce her or any
person related to her to meet any unlawful
demands or drive the woman to commit suicide.
 Section 498A of IPC: Husband or relative of
husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.
• Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such
woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to
three years and shall also be liable to fine.
• Explanation.—For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means—
• a. any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to
commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether
mental or physical) of the woman; or
• b. harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or
any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable
security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such
demand.]
• Section 498-A and “Dowry Demand”: Dowry demand is
included in the “unlawful demand” as contemplated under
Explanation (b) of Section 498-A; however, it need not be
the only demand. The Supreme Court in Modinsab
Kasimsab Kanchagar v. State of Karnataka, (2013) 4 SCC
551, held that a demand of Rs 10,000 towards repayment
of a society loan, though not a dowry demand, was an
unlawful demand sufficient to attract Section 498-A.
 INGREDIENTS

• a) The woman must be married;

• b) She must be subjected to cruelty or harassment; and
• c) Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by husband of the
woman or by the relative of her husband
 Relative of husband — Who is?

• In order to be covered under Section 498-A IPC one has to

be a “relative” of the husband by blood, marriage or
adoption, Vijeta Gajra v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 11 SCC
618.
• A girlfriend or a concubine being not connected by blood or
marriage is not a “relative” of the husband as per Section
498-A, U. Suvetha v. State, (2009) 6 SCC 757.
 Woman — Second wife

• A Two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court has held

that even a second wife can file a complaint under
Section 498-A. - Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam, (2004) :
Legal and valid marriage is not necessarily essential to
attract Section 498A of IPC
SECTION 198 A CrPC

The Magistrate will take cognizance only upon COMPLAINT.

Wife, Father, Mother, Brother, Sister, Parent`s brother – sister: scope is widened but
limited only to complaint.
As per this section – the magistrate will take cognizance in cases of cruelty only if a
complaint has been filed & that to can be filed either by the Victim herself or by anu
relative of the victim.
SECTION 305 – Abetment to commit suicide of
child or insane person
• If any person under eighteen years of age, any
insane person, any delirious person, any idiot, or
any person in a state of intoxication commits
suicide, whoever abets the commission of such
suicide, shall be punished with death or
imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term
not exceeding ten years, and shall also be liable to
fine.
• Example: If 'A' persuades 'B' (who is
under 18 years of age or insane or idiot or
in a state of intoxication ) to kill himself
by taking poison and he takes it, here A
would be liable as an abettor under this
Section
 Section 306 - Abetment to commit Suicide

• If any person commits suicide, whoever abets

the commission of such suicide shall be
punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to
ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
•Example: If A persuades B to kill
himself by taking poison and he
takes it, here A would be liable as
an abettor under this Section.
• In the case of Madhya Pradesh v. Matadin, 1978, a man and a
woman lived together like husband and wife and quarreled
among themselves. One day the woman poured kerosene on
herself. Instead of stopping her, her husband gave her a
matchbox. The court held her husband guilty under this
section.
• What, if the abetted survives.— The Supreme Court in Satvir
Singh v State of Punjab, 2001, explained this particular
situation and held that a person can be convicted only when
the abetted person commits suicide. If it ends in an attempt,
the abettor cannot be convicted.
SECTION 113 A IEA SECTION 113 B IEA

• ONLY WHEN H abets W • SOON BEFORE – dowry cruelty

• Within 7 years suicide committed • The Court SHALL presume
• Subjected to cruelty
• Court MAY presume
• Charge is of Section 306 IPC & not of
Section 304 B
• SOON BEFORE is not written – Court
will examine F & C of the case
• Section 113 A of IEA simply raises a presumption in favour of the prosecution & since it
is a case of MAY PRESUME the Court is not bound to raise the presumption.
• The presumption will be discretionary for the court and it will be required for the
presumption that suicide should have been committed within 7 years of marriage & that
the victim has been subjected to cruelty by the accused.
• IT IS NOT REQUIRED TO PROVE SOON BEFORE AS IS REQUIRED UNDER
SECTION 113 B.
• However, since the Court has discretion to presume or not to presume, it may not
presume in the cases where the cruelty was too old in the point of time or has become
stale (to fade out).
• If the presumption of SECTION 113 A is not raised then the only difference would be
that the BOP still will be upon the prosecution.
JOINT & GROUP LIABILITY
- PRANJALI PANDYA
• LIABILITY
• JOINT LIABILITY – both together
• CONSTRUCTIVE LIABILITY - guard
• VICARIOUS LIABILITY – not in criminal law – master - servant
COMMONT INTENTION & COMMON OBJECT
• SECTION 34 – COMMON INTENTION – as the purpose is common, so
must be the responsibility.
• When a number of persons engaged in a criminal act with a common
intention, each person is made liable as if he alone did the act
• SECTION 149 – COMMON OBJECT
• Every member of an unlawful assembly is held liable for any criminal
act done in furtherance of a common object.
S. 34 incorporates the common sense principle of joint liability
laid down in the case of REG v. CRUSE, 1838

• A police constable along with his assistants went to A`s house in

order to arrest him. On seeing the Police Constable – B, C, D
came out of the house, gave him a blow & drove off the constable
& his assistants.
• Court – evolved the doctrine of Joint Liability.
• Held – each of the members of the group B,C , D were equally
responsible for the blow whether one actually struck it or not.
APPLICABILTY OF SECTION 34
• It is not necessary that the acts of several person charged with
commission of an offence jointly, must be same.
• The acts may be different in character, but must have been
actuated by one and the same common intention in order to attract
the provision.
Barendra Kumar Ghish v. King Emperor (Post
Master Case) AIR 1925 PC 1
• CI requires meeting of mind
• A,B,C,D – POST OFFICE (LOOT)
• B – GUARDED
• A,C,D, - MURDERED POST MASTER & RAN
• B – WAS CAUGHT & SEC. 302 OF IPC LIABLE
• CI
• B WAS HELD LIABLE
Harjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 2002
• In the absence of CI the criminal liability of the members of the group
might differ according to the degree & the mode of the individual`s
participation in the act.
• X Y & Z with the intention of assaulting A give him a beating.
• During the course of which X, who had previous enmity with A stabs
him in the abdomen resulting in A`s death.
• The act of stabbing is not done in furtherance of CI of the group.
• The CI in this case was simply to inflict SIMPLE HURT.
• Hence Y & Z would be liable for causing Simple hurt – sec 323 of IPC
but X for causing murder of A u/s 302 of IPC.
INTENTION
• Highest degree of mens rea.
• Higher culpability than knowledge.
• Acts also includes OMISSION – SECTION 32.
• Acts & Omission also include series of acts or series of omission –
SECTION 33.
• COMMON INTENTION MEANS THAT THERE WAS A PRE – ARRANGED
PLAN, & ALL OF THE INDIVIDUALS ARE ACTING IN FURTHERANCE OF
THAT PLAN.
ACT DONE IN FURTHERANCE OF COMMMON
INTENTION
• The liability would be there also for the act done in furtherance for
the decided act – Common Intention.
• Read – SHANKAR LAL v. STATE OF GUJARAT, 1965
• E.g. – killing the guard.
Act done in furtherance of CI – Barendra
Kumar Ghosh case
• Section 34 is intended to meet a case in which it may be difficult to
distinguish b/w criminal act of individual members of a party, who act in
furtherance of common intention of all, or to prove exactly what part was
taken by each of them.
• The reason why all are deemed guilty in such cases is that the presence of
an accomplice (or accomplices) gives – encouragement, support, protection,
& confidence to a person actually engaged in the commission of an illegal
act.
• Accordingly, every person engaged in the commission of crime is held
responsible by virtue of his/ her participation in the criminal act, even if the
particular act in question was not performed by the one or the other member
of the group.
ON SPOT MEETING OF MINDS
• The pre – arranged plan may develop on spot between people but
there should be clear & unimpeachable evidence for that inference.
• READ – KRISHNA GOVIND v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, 1963
• E.g. – saying
• READ THROUGHLY – KRIPAL SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB, 1954
POINTERS ABOUT COMMON INTENTION
• Premeditation of mind is necessary.
• The common intention may develop at the spur of the moment but
should be shared among each other.
• Common intention can only be proved by facts & circumstances of
the case.
• Benefit of doubt shall be given to accused. And if common intention is
not there Section 38 shall apply.
• Participation is a pre – requisite (again F & C)
COMMON OBJECT
• CHAPTER VIII of IPC – Offences against Public Tranquility.
• Section 141 – 160
• Section 141 defines UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY – 5 or more people plus
common object of :
READ BARE ACT.
INGREDIENTS OF UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY
• 1. Assembly of five or more persons
• 2.Common object for them (CAN FOR AT ANY STAGE)
• MOTI DAS v. BIHAR. 1954 – An assembly which was not unlawful
when it assembled may subsequently become unlawful, pre concert
of minds not required.
• 3. Common object must be out of the 5 mentioned u/s 141
If number of persons reduced to less than 5 in trial Section 141
becomes inapplicable.
But, if there is an indication that some unidentified persons were
involved in the crime then it can be applied.
- RAM BILAS SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR, 1964.
 COMMON INTENTION COMMON OBJECT
• Sec. 34 does not create offence in • Sec. 149 creates an offence in
itself, only lays down principle of itself that is being a member of
joint liability. the unlawful assembly which is
• Common intention u/s 34 not punishable u/s 143.
defined anywhere in IPC. • CO must be one of the 5
• Prior meeting of minds necessary for ingredients defined u/s 141
CI. • CO may be formed w/o prior
• Applicable when 2 or more persons meeting of mind.
are involved. • Applicable when 5 or more
• Participation is a crucial aspect. persons are involved.
• OVERT ACT • No need for active participation
in section 149 –
• MEMBERSHIP - ENOUGH.
CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY
• When two or more person agree to do, or cause to be done –
• (a) an illegal act or
• (b) an act which is not illegal by illegal means,
• Such an agreement is designated a Criminal Conspiracy.
• Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an
offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides
the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in
pursuance thereof.
• Explanation: It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate
object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object.
Meaning of CONSPIRACY
• A criminal conspiracy under English Law and also under Indian Law is
the agreement of two or more persons to do an illegal act, to do a
legal act by illegal means.
• In other words a joint evil intent is necessary to constitute crimes.
• No physical action need to take place.
• Law Commission 42nd Report – that no consummation of the crime
need be achieved or even attempted.
• Essentials of the crime – person, mens rea, actus reus, injury.
• Criminal Conspiracy is a crime even when it is not fulfilling all the
requirements thus being an inchoate crime.
AIM – expansion of the domain
• To include cases of agreement to do an act prohibited by law or civil
wrong.
• Which was not falling under abetment to conspiracy
KNOWLEDGE OF THE OBJECTIVE IS
NECESSARY
• State of M.H. & Ors v. Som Nath Thapa & Ors, 1996
• For a person to conspire with another, he must have knowledge of
what the co – conspirators were wanting to achieve and thereafter
having the intent to further the illegal act takes recourse to a course
of conduct to achieve the illegal end or facilitate its accomplishment.
CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY CAN BE CONSPIRACY
FOR CIVIL WRONG ALSO
• The definition of illegal u/s 43 includes offence, civil wrong & any
other kinds of wrong for which action may be taken in court of law.
CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY IS A CONTINUING
OFFENCE
• STAGE 1 – A, B
• STAGE 2 – A,B,C
• STAGE 3 – A,B,C
• STAGE 4 – A,B,C,D
• FINAL STAGE
General & Particular Conspiracy
• Whenever a General conspiracy happens it may involve several
person & it may involve several dimensions i.e., several acts to be
done by different - different person that is one general
conspiracy may involve several smaller conspiracies b/w different
individuals these smaller conspiracies will be called Particular
conspiracy & they all together will result into the attainment of
the object of the main conspiracy.
• The various persons involved in these conspiracies may not know
all other conspirators & may also not know the ultimate object of
the conspiracy, still they will all be party to the general
conspiracy & they will be liable for the main conspiracy.
• The mere fact that one of the parties to a particular conspiracy is not
aware of all other conspirator & the ultimate purpose will not excuse
him of the liability for CC.
• All will be liable as abettor for main offence.
WHY CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY IS PUNISHED?
• SC in the case of Devender Pal Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi
said:
• Law making conspiracy a crime is designed to curb immoderate
power to do mischief which is gained by the combination of
means. The encouragement & 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 & abettors with the
condign punishment.
• Individual mens rea cannot be controlled.
SECTION 120 B
• A + B conspire – offence: 2 + years = abetment
• A + B conspire – offence: 2 years less = imp not exceeding six months
or with fine or both
ABETMENT
• Definition – sec. 107 of IPC
• Explanation – sec. 108 of IPC
• Punishment – 109/ 115/ 116/ 114 of IPC
INSTIGATES
• BY WORDS (ORAL OR WRITTEN) – ANY MEANS – EVEN BY GESTURES.
• INSTIGATION - in itself means an active persuasion or incitement. In
order to amount to instigation there has to be an active suggestion to
the other to commit that act and a mere passive advice or remark
would not in itself amount to instigation. There has to be a test of a
reasonable person that is whether a reasonable person who was
desirous of making the other commit that act would have been
satisfied by doing only that much.
• Intention is not required.
• Mere remark, comment is not instigation.
• It is not important as to how the instigation was made rather it is
important that the words or the gesture amounted to an instigation.
• Communication of Instigation is important – whether the person got
instigated or not is not important.
• EG: X abets Y to murder C. Y did not get abetted. X shall be liable for
abetment. Even though abetted offence is not committed.
• For abetment by instigation, it is essential that the oral or written
words or the gestures where actually communicated to the abetted
person & not that the abetted offence should have been committed.
The offence of abetment is in itself an inchoate offence & particularly
in section 107 (a) r/w sec. 108 of IPC.
SECTION 107 (THIRDLY) OF IPC
• Does anything in order to facilitate + thereby facilitate
• INSTIGATING MEANS – u have initiated the process by provoking him.
• AIDING – he is already on the way to commit offence.
• A – B: take this knife & murder C

AIDING INSTIGATES
Difference b/w Intentional aid & Instigation
• The difference b/w aid and instigation lies in the fact that in the cases of
intentional aiding the abetted person is already in the process of
committing the offence, the Accused (abettor) has simply provided him the
means by doing an act or illegal omission to commit that offence.
• Whereas in the case of instigation the abettor by his act of instigation has
initiated the process or has tried to initiate the process of commission of
the offence.
• For abetment by instigation - the abetted offence need not be committed
but, for abetment by intentional aiding it is essential that the abetted
offence should have been committed with the help of means which were
provided by the abettor.
EXPLNATION 1
• REFER ILLUSTRATION ONLY
EXPLANATION 2
• W.R.T the 3rd clause Explanation 2 clearly provides that it will be a
case of intentional aiding if the abettor has done some act or illegal
omission in order to facilitate the commission of the offence & in fact
by that act has actually facilitated such commission.
• Here, the word FACILITATED or FACILITATES clearly suggests that the
actual offence was committed with the held of the AID.
• Therefore in the 3rd clause actual commission of offence is must.
POI
• CLAUSE SOME ACT IN PURSUANCE OFFENCE
• INSTIGATES NO NO
• CONSPIRACY YES NO
• INTENTIONALLY AIDS YES YES
SECTION 108
• Whenever a person abets another for the commission of an offence it
will be said that he has committed the OFFENCE OF ABETMENT

THAT ABETMENT WHICH IS PUNISHABLE BY IPC &

FALLS U/S 40 OF IPC
ABETTOR
• To constitute an offence of abetment as stated in section 107 of IPC, 3
things are essential, viz –
➢There must be an abettor
➢He must abet and
➢The abetment must be of an offence or an act which would be an
offence, if committed by a person capable in law of committing the
offence with the same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor.
• But, if the thing abetted is not an offence, the person abetting will not
be termed abettor within the meaning of section 108 of IPC.
• It is not necessary for the offence of abetment that the person
abetted should be capable in law of committing an offence, or that he
should have the same guilty intention as that of the abettor.
• For instance – one may employ a child below 7 years of age or a
lunatic to commit an offence. In such a case the child or lunatic is not
punishable (u/s 82 & 84 of IPC) & would be treated as an innocent
agent, whereas the person directing him to do an illegal act would be
liable as an abettor.
• SECTION 108 OF IPC – Defines the offence of ABETMENT OF AN
OFFENCE & declares it is a case where the accused has abetted
(I,C,I.A) some other person to commit an offence.
• POI –
• Liability of abettor will arise irrespective of whether the offence has
been committed.
• Liability of abettor does not depend upon liability of abetted person.
EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 108 OF IPC:
Abetment of Illegal Omission
• X - DROWNING
• B instigates A (Life saver) not to save X. Let him die. (This is abetment
of Illegal Omission).
• B – “Had I myself omitted to save X, I would not have been liable then
how come I can be liable for abetment of illegal omission”.
• A – Life saver is duty bound. Intentionally omitted – A shall be liable
for murder.
• Whether the act abetted is an offence with respect to abettor or an
abetted person is not material.
EXPLANATION 2 & 3 OF SECTION 108 OF IPC
• EXPLANATION 2 – Effect of abetment is immaterial
• EXPLANATION 3 - Person abetted need not be capable of
committing an offence
• READ FROM BARE ACT WITH ILLUSTRATION
• PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THE WORD “INSTIGATE”.
EXPLANATION 4 TO SECTION 108 OF IPC:
Abetment of Abetment is an Offence
•A B C D

A INSTIGATES B TO
INSTIGATE C TO MURDER D

A ALWAYS
WILL BE
LIABLE AS
ABETTOR
EXPLANATION 5 TO SECTION 108 OF IPC: Abettor
need not concert in abetment by conspiracy
• See illustration to Exp. 5
• It is not necessary in abetment by conspiracy that the abettor should
plan the offence with the person abetted.
SECTION 108 A OF IPC – ADDED IN 1898
• Another explanation of what constitutes an abetment.
• Read illustration.
• That the person would be guilty of an abetment, if he abets the
commission of an act outside India, which if done in India, would
constitute an offence.
 ABETTED OFFENCE – NOT
SECTION 109 – NOT PRESENT COMMITTED
SECTION 114 - PRESENT SECTION 115 + SECTION
116

FOR EX: A ABETED B TO MURDER

A ABETS B TO MURDER C.
C
NO ACT DONE FROM B`s SIDE
ABETTED + ACT ABETTED
SEC 115 – DEATH/ LI
COMMITTED IN CONSEQUENCE
SEC. 116 - IMP
OF ABETMENT
SECTION 109 OF IPC
• Offence abetted committed
• In consequence of abetment
• Same punishment as is provided for murder borrowed from the offence
abetted.
• A instigates B, B killed C in consequence.
• Charge: section 109 of IPC
• Section 302 – punishment – individual offence
• u/s 109 + 302: not a proper way
• u/s 109 the liability is in Section 109 itself & therefore the charge also will
be framed u/s 109 itself & the punishment will be derived from the main
section wherein the offence committed is punishable.
SECTION 114 of IPC
• Present on the spot when offence committed
• Abettor present on spot when abetted person is committing the
offence- liable as if he has committed such act or offence.
• Charge frame: Section 302 + 114
• Rule of constructive liability
• EXAMPLE – A abets B to commit an offence. If A is present it is
deemed that he has committed the offence himself.
• LEGAL FICTION: That the abettor has committed the offence itself.
• HERE A HAS BEEN PUNISHED U/S 114 (refer the concept of Previously
convicted)
IMPORTANT
•A B

ABETS THEFT COMMITS THEFT

LIABLE U/S 109 LIABLE U/S 378

IN FUTURE: A COMMITS THEFT HIMSELF

CHARGE: U/S 379
QUESTION: WHETHER A HAS EARLIER COMMITTED THE OFFENE OF THEFT?
• READ SECTION 75 – ENHANCED PUNISHMENT
• SECTION 75 WILL NOT APPLY BECAUSE EARLIER HE WAS NOT
CHARGED FOR THEFT.
SECTION 114 OF IPC: Rule of Constructive
Liability
•A B
ABETS THEFT COMMITED THEFT: B
LIABLE U/S 378

• A is Present on the spot; it is deemed that A has committed the

offence himself: if need arises I will help in commission of offence.

CHARGE U/S 114 + 379

NO COMMON INTENTION & ACTIVE PARTICIPATION REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 114 OF IPC
• IF COMMON INTENTION & ACTIVE PARTICIPATION IS THERE THEN: CHARGE
U/S 34 + 379
• TIME GAP/ SEPARATION: SECTION 114: Those cases where abettor & abetted
person had time gap & later on abettor was present to make sure that
offence was committed. To ensure if need arises I will help.
• S. 114 of IPC creates a rule of constructive liability & in itself does not create
an offence. It is rather to be read with the main section. The policy behind
Section 114 is the legal thought as to why was the accused present on the
spot after having separated from the abetted person. The purpose would
have been that if the need arises he would participate in action to commit
the offence. For sec. 114 unlike section 34 no proof of CI or the proof of any
active participation is required. It is only required that the accused should
have abetted earlier & subsequently he was present on the spot
• Section 114 of IPC will not apply in those cases 1) where the abettor
was absent when the offence was committed or 2) where the abettor
was present but the offence was committed by the abetted person on
the spot in continuity with the act of abetment & there was no
separation b/w the abettor & the abetted person after the abetment
SECTION 115 OF IPC – READ ILLUSTRATION
EXAMPLE
A ABETS B (FOR AN OFFENCE WHICH IS PUNISHABLE WITH DEATH/ LI)
B DID NOT COMMIT THAT OFFENCE; A SHALL BE LIABLE FOR 7 YEARS +
FINE.
IF MAIN OFFENCE IS NOT COMMITTED BUT HURT HAS BEEN CAUSED
THEN A SHALL BE LIABLE FOR 14 YEARS + FINE.
SECTION 116
• READ ON OWN
 OFFENCE NOT COMMITTED IN CONSEQUENCE

DEATH; LI OTHER OFFENCES IMPRISONMENT

SECTION 115 SECTION 116

HURT PUBLIC
HURT NOT CAUSED – NORMAL – SERVANT –
CAUSED- 7 14 YRS + 1/4th OR FINE 1/2th OR
YRS + FINE FINE OR BOTH FINE OR
BOTH
SECTION 110 OF IPC – INTENTION DIFF.
• A (abettor) abets B (abetted person)
• A gives poison to put in food says B it is salt. B is not liable as he had
different intention/ knowledge from that of A.
• A is liable for the abetment of the same offence
Section 111 of IPC
• PROBABLE CONSEQUENCE
• Known to be likely to be committed. – is not written
• Probable consequence – test of reasonable consequences – it does
not require knowledge to be proved.
• For ex. : when someone cause robbery – there is a reasonable
consequence that hurt, death may occur.
• Section 111 of IPC deals with the situations wherein the abettor has
abetted the doing of a particular act & irrespective of whether that
particular act was done or not, a different act has been done. The
question is whether the abettor will be liable for the doing of the
abetted act only or he will be liable also for the abetment of the other
act done. In this respect the proviso requires that if the other act
done was a probable consequence of the abetment then abettor will
be liable for the abetment also. Here the requirement is not to prove
the knowledge of the abettor regarding the other act rather it is only
to prove independently & objectively that in normal circumstances it
would be the probable consequence. The BOP on the prosecution is
not to prove the specific knowledge of the abettor
PROBABLE CONSEQUENCE – Reasonably
forseen
• Act which is likely or which can reasonably be expected to follow from
another act.
• No man can be allowed to say that he did not authorise an act of
which he would have foreseen that consequence.
Section 112 – when the abetted did extra offence
in addition to the offence which was abetted
• Policeman tries to arrest X. Y instigates X to resist his arrest. X resists
the arrest & also causes GH to policeman while resisting. B is liable for
abetment of both the offences here.
• Sec. 112 extends the doctrine of constructive criminality & makes
provisions for cumulative punishment in cases covered u/s 111.
• The section states that the abettor would be liable to punishment
both for the offence abetted as well as for the offence that was the
probable consequence of the abetment, provided cumulative
sentence could be passed in that particular case.
SECTION 113 OF IPC – KNOWLEDGE REQD.
when different effect from the intended effect
occurs, but reasonably foreseeable.
• Section 113 is complementary to Section 111 of IPC.
• Sec. 113 extends the liability if an abettor to a situation wherein the
act done causes a different effect from that intended by the abettor.
In such a case the abettor would be liable for the effect caused, in the
same manner & to the same extent, as if he had abetted the act with
the intention of causing that effect, provided he knew that the act
was likely to cause that effect.
• READ ILLUSTRATION
SECTION 117
• ABETTING OFFENCE BY THE PUBLIC – more than 10 people
• If 10 + people are abetted to commit murder, would the abettor be
punishable u/s 115 or 117?
• Cause Section 117 has – upto 3 years of imp or fine or both.
• Whereas, u/s 115 of IPC – upto 14 years of punishment.
• We will apply doctrine of harmonious construction & the abettor
would be liable u/s 115 of ipc.
SECTION 118, 119, 120
• CONCEALING DESIGN
• CONCEALMENT – Sec. 118 – 120 deal with concealment prior to the
commission of the offence, whereas section 202 & 203 of IPC deal
with subsequent concealment.
• There must be an obligation on the part of the person concealing the
offence to disclose it. Ref. sec. 39 & sec. 40 of Crpc.
SECTION 118, 119, 120
• CONCEALING DESIGN TO COMMIT OFFENCE
• Concealment should be intentional and with knowledge that it will
facilitate the commission
• SECTION 119 – PUBLIC SERVANT
• Crime is punishable with Death or LI – OFFENCE COMMITTED then –
upto 10 years.
• Crime is punishable with anything other than Death or LI – OFFENCE
COMMITTED – ½ of the longest term of imprisonment + fine or both
• OFFENCE NOT COMMITTED – ¼ of longest term of imp + fine or both
SECTION 118
• OTHER THAN PUB. SERVANT
• Crime is punishable with Death or LI
• Offence committed – upto 7 years
• Offence not committed – upto 3 years
SECTION 120
• CRIME IS PUNISHABLE WITH IMPRISONMENT
• Offence committed - ¼ of the max term of crime.
• Offence not committed – 1/8th of the max term of crime.
SECTION 306 OF IPC
• ACTUAL COMMISSION OF SUICIDE – Actus Reus
• ABETMENT TO SUICIDE – Conduct of accused

SECTION 107

ABETMENT + SUICIDE COMMITTED IN CONSEQUENCE OF ABETMENT = SECTION 306 OF IPC

WHY ARE WE HAVING SECTION 306
SEPARATELY; CAN IT FALL U/S 109?
• A abets B. B does not commit suicide. What is the liability of A.
• SUICIDE: is not per se an offence, so not punishable. It does not fall
u/s 40 of IPC.
• Technically, suicide does not fall under definition of offence.
• Hence, separate section for suicide abetment.
• In this case, A will be liable for criminal attempt to the commission
of section 306. Section 306 r/w Section 511.
•A abetted B to commit suicide.
AR HERE IS – COMMISSION OF SUICIDE
• In any case offender does his act but actus reus not caused. It is a
case of criminal attempt.
• When A abets B to commit suicide & B as a consequence of that
abetment does not commit suicide then it will be said that A has
committed his conduct & has failed in the conduct because of some
independent reasons & since the matter will not fall u/s 115 & 116 it
will be a case of Criminal attempt to commit abetment of suicide.
NETAI DUTTA v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL, 2005
• SUICIDE COMMITTED “IN CONSEQUENCE” OF ABETMENT.
• YOU CANNOT ATTRIBUTE UPON ACCUSED.
• PROVE SUICIDE BECAUSE OF ABETMENT BY THAT PERSON
• FACTS: Victim (C) was working in office. A & B – Superior on record. A
& B have tortured C. Mental condition – bad. C applied for transfer &
was transferred, but he did not join. After 2 years, his dead body was
found on railway track. Suicide note in pocket, how A & B tortured
him was written.
• SECTION 306 OF IPC
• SUICIDE ABETTED
• COMMITTED IN CONSEQUENCE OF ABETMENT – BOP upon
Prosecution.
• - 2 years – cooling period that is cooling of mind.
• - no evidence that b/w 2 years period something happened.
• - no evidence of intervening period.
• The guilt of A & B is not proved beyond reasonable doubt, therefore
sec. 306 will not apply.
• Here the prosecution has the burden of proving the fact that the
suicide was committed in consequence of abetment. Whereas in the
present case the prosecution has not proved any such evidence
excepting the torture caused 2 years before.
• 2 years is sufficient enough a cooling period for the victim & in the
absence of any evidence of continuance of torture the accused
cannot be held liable for the offence of section 306 of ipc.
DOWRY DEATH
• REFER NEXT SLIDE.
 Diff. b/w Similar Intention & Common Intention
• SI means the same intention to produce the same consequence. 2 or more
persons may have the same intention & in order to effectuate their same
intention they may also act simultaneously but per se that does not amount to
common intention. Section 34 requires there has be a prior agreement or concert
or an agreement on the spot by complementary action.
• THUS, BOP lies upon the prosecution w.r.t Sec. 34 to prove by distinct evidences
that the similar intention of the parties had actually converted into CI & for that
the prosecution shall prove –
• (1) A prior agreement coupled with a subsequent complementary conduct or
• (2) an agreement on the spot by some complementary conduct of the parties
• READ – Mambub Shah v. King Emperor, 1945.
COMMON INTENTION & COMMON OBJECT
• CI means a desire to produce a particular consequence where as
object is simply the end product of one`s intention. This CI means the
common desire to produce a particular consequence by doing
complementary action whereas CO is also an agreement to attain
object but since the element of intention is missing the element of
active participation or complementary action is missing.
• Thus, in the cases of CI the agreement is not only to attain a particular
object rather it is to attain it by means of complementary action
whereas in common object the agreement is to attain that object but
it is not to attain it by complementary action rather somehow to
attain it.
UNLAWFUL
ASSEMBLY
UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY – UNDER CHAP 8
OFFENCES AGAINST THE PUBLIC TRANQUILITY
• UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY –
• Article 19 (1) (b) of the Constitution confers the fundamental right
to assemble peacefully and without arms. However, section 141
of the IPC aims to criminalize unlawful assembly
READ BARE ACT
• An assembly which was not unlawful when it assembled, may
subsequently become an unlawful assembly.
 1. Five or More Persons:
• As section 141 there has to be at least 5 members and should have any one or
more than one common object as mentioned above, to constitute an unlawful
assembly.
• Ranvir v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2018: Supreme Court held that No Conviction
u/Sec 148/149 of IPC in Absence of at least 5 Accused.
• Dev Karan @ Lambu v. State of Haryana, 2019: Supreme Court observed that as
long as the ingredients of unlawful assembly are met, trial of offence u/s 149 of IPC,
would not be illegal merely because Section 141 IPC was not invoked.
• Mangal Singh v State of MP, 1996: In a free fight there cannot be said to be any
formation of an unlawful assembly and common intention. Each accused will be
responsible for his individual act.
• If in an unlawful assembly 3 persons are acquitted and the rest could not be
identified or are unnamed but the court is certain about the presence of other
people in the group making the number to 5 or more than that, then, in that case,
the section of the unlawful assembly would be applied.
• When an offence is compoundable under section 320 of Cr PC, 1973, and where
the accused is liable under section 34 or 149 of IPC (45 of 1860) it may be
compounded in like manne
2. They must have Common Object
• The members of an unlawful assembly must have a common
object to commit a particular offence. Unlike common intention
here prior meeting of minds is not important, the common object
could be constructed on the spot.
• The members of an unlawful assembly must have a common
object to commit a particular offence. Unlike common intention
here prior meeting of minds is not important, the common object
could be constructed on the spot.
SECTION 149 DEALS WITH COMMON
OBJECT
• Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed
in prosecution of common object: If an offence is committed by
any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the
common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that
assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that
object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that
offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that
offence
INGREDIENTS U/S 149
• The section has the following essentials –
• 1. There must be an unlawful assembly.
• 2. Commission of an offence by any member of an unlawful
assembly.
• 3. Such offence must have been committed in prosecution of the
common object of the assembly; or must be such as the
members of the assembly knew to be likely to be committed.
• If these three elements are satisfied, then only a conviction
u/s 149, IPC, 1860, may be substantiated, and not otherwise.
• Section 149 shall not apply to a person who is merely present in
any unlawful assembly, unless he actively participates in offence
or does some overt act with the necessary criminal intention or
shares the common object of the unlawful assembly
SEC. 34 v. SEC. 149 OF IPC
• : (In the cases of Virendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh,
Nanak Chandra v. State of Punjab 1955 of and in other cases also,
the Supreme Court has clarified the difference between Section
34 and Section 149
• S. 34 deals with Common Intention whereas S. 149 deals with
Common Object.
• S. 34 mentions a rule of evidence and does not create any specific
offence. S. 149 creates a specific offence along with the rule of
evidence.
• The Common Intention under Section 34 can be of any kind, whereas
the Common object under Section 149 must be one of the objects
mentioned in Section 141.
• S. 34 requires the prior meeting of minds between all the members
prior to the offence, whereas S. 149 does not require prior meeting of
the minds, membership of the unlawful assembly is sufficient only.
• It is mandatory for S. 34 to have at least two persons whereas S. 149
require to have at least five persons.
• S. 34 deals with public general, whereas S. 149 is related to public
tranquility.
SECTION 143 OF IPC
• S. 143 of IPC: Punishment of Unlawful assembly: Whoever is a
member of an unlawful assembly, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
six months, or with fine, or with both
SECTION 142 – BEING A MEMBER OF AN
UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY
• S. 142 of IPC: Being Member of an Unlawful Assembly: “Whoever,
being aware of facts which render any assembly an unlawful
assembly, intentionally • joins that assembly, or • continues in it,
is said to be a member of an unlawful assembly