Definition and meaning of Abetment for CLAT - Practice Questions & MCQ

Read the passage and answer the question that follow.
Abetment is a procedure in which there is a mental progression of instigating an individual or intentionally aiding a person in doing a particular act. The purpose of the legislature and the proportion of the cases decided by the Supreme Court is obvious that in order to charge a person under section 306 Indian Penal Code, 1860 there has to be a lucid mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires a dynamic act or direct act, which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no alternative and that act must have been intended to put the deceased into such a point that he had to commit suicide. In the case of suicide, an offence of abetment punishable under Section 306 is inherent. Therefore, even in the case of suicide, there is an obligation on the person, who knows or has reason to believe that such a suicidal death has occurred, to give information. In Kali- das Achamma v. The State of A.P., S.H.O. Karimnagar. I Town P.S., [1987] 2 ALT 937 it was observed as under: "In the case of every suicide, abetment is inherent. Whether ultimately it is proved or not, it is a different aspect. Abetment of suicide is an offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C. and therefore whenever a case of suicide is there, the body cannot be disposed of without informing the Police and further as provided under Section 174 Cr.P.C. The Police have to hold an inquest Since it is an unnatural death.' In the instant case A 1, who reached his house on 18.3.82 knowing fully well that the deceased had already died, informed P.W. 8 that the deceased was in a serious condition. Likewise, he informed P.W. 12 on the telephone without disclosing that the deceased was already dead. However, when P.W. 6, the brother of the deceased, came to the house where the dead body was lying, A 1 told him that the body would be cremated. To the same effect is the evidence of P.W. 13. P.W. 6, the brother of the deceased, on his own went and gave a report to the police. It can thus be seen that A 1 intentionally omitted to give the information in respect of the death of the deceased which he was legally bound to give.
Question
Y, a newly married woman, did not eat anything for three or four days before committing suicide her husband X and in-laws did not persuade her to eat. What is the liability of the husband and his family under Section 306 of IPC?

Read the passage and answer the question that follow.
Abetment is a procedure in which there is a mental progression of instigating an individual or intentionally aiding a person in doing a particular act. The purpose of the legislature and the proportion of the cases decided by the Supreme Court is obvious that in order to charge a person under section 306 Indian Penal Code, 1860 there has to be a lucid mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires a dynamic act or direct act, which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no alternative and that act must have been intended to put the deceased into such a point that he had to commit suicide. In the case of suicide, an offence of abetment punishable under Section 306 is inherent. Therefore, even in the case of suicide, there is an obligation on the person, who knows or has reason to believe that such a suicidal death has occurred, to give information. In Kali- das Achamma v. The State of A.P., S.H.O. Karimnagar. I Town P.S., [1987] 2 ALT 937 it was observed as under: "In the case of every suicide, abetment is inherent. Whether ultimately it is proved or not, it is a different aspect. Abetment of suicide is an offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C. and therefore whenever a case of suicide is there, the body cannot be disposed of without informing the Police and further as provided under Section 174 Cr.P.C. The Police have to hold an inquest Since it is an unnatural death.' In the instant case A 1, who reached his house on 18.3.82 knowing fully well that the deceased had already died, informed P.W. 8 that the deceased was in a serious condition. Likewise, he informed P.W. 12 on the telephone without disclosing that the deceased was already dead. However, when P.W. 6, the brother of the deceased, came to the house where the dead body was lying, A 1 told him that the body would be cremated. To the same effect is the evidence of P.W. 13. P.W. 6, the brother of the deceased, on his own went and gave a report to the police. It can thus be seen that A 1 intentionally omitted to give the information in respect of the death of the deceased which he was legally bound to give.
Question
X is married to Y. From the day after marriage, X’s family taunts Y for not providing a dowry. One fine day, X comes home drunk and says unacceptable things to Y so much so that it leads her to commit suicide. Determine the liability.

Read the passage and answer the question that follow.
Abetment is a procedure in which there is a mental progression of instigating an individual or intentionally aiding a person in doing a particular act. The purpose of the legislature and the proportion of the cases decided by the Supreme Court is obvious that in order to charge a person under section 306 Indian Penal Code, 1860 there has to be a lucid mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires a dynamic act or direct act, which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no alternative and that act must have been intended to put the deceased into such a point that he had to commit suicide. In the case of suicide, an offence of abetment punishable under Section 306 is inherent. Therefore, even in the case of suicide, there is an obligation on the person, who knows or has reason to believe that such a suicidal death has occurred, to give information. In Kali- das Achamma v. The State of A.P., S.H.O. Karimnagar. I Town P.S., [1987] 2 ALT 937 it was observed as under: "In the case of every suicide, abetment is inherent. Whether ultimately it is proved or not, it is a different aspect. Abetment of suicide is an offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C. and therefore whenever a case of suicide is there, the body cannot be disposed of without informing the Police and further as provided under Section 174 Cr.P.C. The Police have to hold an inquest Since it is an unnatural death.' In the instant case A 1, who reached his house on 18.3.82 knowing fully well that the deceased had already died, informed P.W. 8 that the deceased was in a serious condition. Likewise, he informed P.W. 12 on the telephone without disclosing that the deceased was already dead. However, when P.W. 6, the brother of the deceased, came to the house where the dead body was lying, A 1 told him that the body would be cremated. To the same effect is the evidence of P.W. 13. P.W. 6, the brother of the deceased, on his own went and gave a report to the police. It can thus be seen that A 1 intentionally omitted to give the information in respect of the death of the deceased which he was legally bound to give.
Question
X is an offender on the run. He rents a room in a motel, the manager of which is unaware of the offender that X is. In the motel, he is provided with food and all the essential services. X is, however, caught when the police are informed by a janitor of the motel, who was aware of X and his offence due to a Whatsapp forward. Determine the liability of the manager.

Read the passage given below and answer the question that follow.

Section 306 of the IPC deals with the offense of abetment to suicide. It states that if a person instigates, encourages, or aids another person in committing suicide, and if the suicide is actually committed as a result, then the person who abetted the act shall be held liable for the offense of abetment to suicide.

Definition of abetment: Abetment involves the mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding someone in the act of suicide. It can include actions or words that encourage, provoke, or provide assistance in the act of self-harm leading to suicide.

Punishment: According to Section 306, the punishment for abetment to suicide is imprisonment for a term that may extend up to ten years and may also include a fine. It is important to note that each case is unique, and the severity of punishment can vary based on the circumstances and evidence presented in court.

Legal interpretation: In a 2011 judgment in the case of M Mohan, the Supreme Court of India analyzed the requirements for abetment to suicide. The court emphasized that for a conviction of abetment to be sustained, there must be a clear mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding the act of suicide. Mere absence of a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide may weaken the grounds for conviction.

Question :- Rahul, a close friend of Priya, was aware of her ongoing struggles with depression. One day, Rahul noticed that Priya had been behaving unusually and seemed withdrawn. Worried about her well-being, Rahul decided to spend some time with her to offer support and comfort. However, during their conversation, Rahul made derogatory remarks about Priya's condition and indirectly suggested that life wasn't worth living. Disturbed by his words, Priya took her own life shortly after. In this situation, can Rahul be held liable under Section 306 of the IPC for abetment to suicide?

Read the passage given below and answer the question that follow.

Section 306 of the IPC deals with the offense of abetment to suicide. It states that if a person instigates, encourages, or aids another person in committing suicide, and if the suicide is actually committed as a result, then the person who abetted the act shall be held liable for the offense of abetment to suicide.

Definition of abetment: Abetment involves the mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding someone in the act of suicide. It can include actions or words that encourage, provoke, or provide assistance in the act of self-harm leading to suicide.

Punishment: According to Section 306, the punishment for abetment to suicide is imprisonment for a term that may extend up to ten years and may also include a fine. It is important to note that each case is unique, and the severity of punishment can vary based on the circumstances and evidence presented in court.

Legal interpretation: In a 2011 judgment in the case of M Mohan, the Supreme Court of India analyzed the requirements for abetment to suicide. The court emphasized that for a conviction of abetment to be sustained, there must be a clear mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding the act of suicide. Mere absence of a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide may weaken the grounds for conviction.

Question :- In a small town. Varun, a partner in a real estate venture, was found dead with a gunshot wound to his head. The police discovered a suicide letter left by Varun, indicating that his suicide was a result of the problems caused by three individuals involved in the real estate industry Rahul, Farhan and Vikram According to the letter, these three individuals had engaged in certain financial transactions that had severely impacted Varun. Varun claimed that their actions had pushed him to take his own life, making Rahul, Farhan, and Vikram complicit in his suicide in the given scenario, can Rahul Farhan and Vikram be held liable under the criminal law for abetment to suicide (if proven)? 

Read the passage given below and answer the question that follow.

Section 306 of the IPC deals with the offense of abetment to suicide. It states that if a person instigates, encourages, or aids another person in committing suicide, and if the suicide is actually committed as a result, then the person who abetted the act shall be held liable for the offense of abetment to suicide.

Definition of abetment: Abetment involves the mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding someone in the act of suicide. It can include actions or words that encourage, provoke, or provide assistance in the act of self-harm leading to suicide.

Punishment: According to Section 306, the punishment for abetment to suicide is imprisonment for a term that may extend up to ten years and may also include a fine. It is important to note that each case is unique, and the severity of punishment can vary based on the circumstances and evidence presented in court.

Legal interpretation: In a 2011 judgment in the case of M Mohan, the Supreme Court of India analyzed the requirements for abetment to suicide. The court emphasized that for a conviction of abetment to be sustained, there must be a clear mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding the act of suicide. Mere absence of a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide may weaken the grounds for conviction.

Question :-  In the workplace, Rajesh, a senior manager, constantly subjected his subordinate Neha, to verbal abuse, humiliation, and excessive workload. Neha's mental health deteriorated significantly due to the ongoing harassment. One day, unable to bear the stress and emotional torment any longer, Neha tragically took her own life. Considering the scenario described, can Rajesh be held liable under Section 306 of the IPC for abetment to suicide?

Read the passage and answer the question that follow.

In common parlance, the word ‘abet‘ signifiessignifyie help, co-activity and support and incorporates within its ambit, an 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 offence of abetment by instigation relies on the intention of the individual who abets and not upon the act which is finished by the individual who has abetted. The abetment might be by instigation, connivance or purposeful aid as given under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the words articulated in an angry state or omission without any intention cannot be termed as instigation.

For an individual to be called liable for Abetment, and so as to proceed against an individual for a criminal offense under Section 107, the prosecution must claim the component of mens rea. Negligence or carelessness can’t be named to be abetment in order to punish the liable, according to the arrangement of penal laws.

So as to establish abetment, the abettor must have appeared to “deliberately” support the commission of the wrongdoing. In such a case we need to just prove that the wrongdoing charged couldn’t have been done without the association as well as the intervention of the supposed abettor isn’t sufficient with the prerequisites of Section 107.

When we talk about a sting operation which is typically carried out in public interest, it must be noted that the same is done by instigating the accused.

Thus the person in question, who is generally honest, is tricked into carrying out a wrongdoing on the confirmation of secrecy and confidentiality of the transaction bringing up the potential issues with respect to how such a victim can be considered in-charge of wrongdoing, which he would not have done had he not been given the assurance. In such conditions, should the individual, i.e., the sting administrator be held criminally liable for commission of the offenceoffense? This is a bewildering question when there is a claim that the sting administrator is asserted to have committed the abetment of the offenceoffense.

Question:

Who is Abettor?

Read the passage and answer the question that follow.

In common parlance, the word ‘abet‘ signifiessignifyie help, co-activity and support and incorporates within its ambit, an 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 offence of abetment by instigation relies on the intention of the individual who abets and not upon the act which is finished by the individual who has abetted. The abetment might be by instigation, connivance or purposeful aid as given under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the words articulated in an angry state or omission without any intention cannot be termed as instigation.

For an individual to be called liable for Abetment, and so as to proceed against an individual for a criminal offense under Section 107, the prosecution must claim the component of mens rea. Negligence or carelessness can’t be named to be abetment in order to punish the liable, according to the arrangement of penal laws.

So as to establish abetment, the abettor must have appeared to “deliberately” support the commission of the wrongdoing. In such a case we need to just prove that the wrongdoing charged couldn’t have been done without the association as well as the intervention of the supposed abettor isn’t sufficient with the prerequisites of Section 107.

When we talk about a sting operation which is typically carried out in public interest, it must be noted that the same is done by instigating the accused.

Thus the person in question, who is generally honest, is tricked into carrying out a wrongdoing on the confirmation of secrecy and confidentiality of the transaction bringing up the potential issues with respect to how such a victim can be considered in-charge of wrongdoing, which he would not have done had he not been given the assurance. In such conditions, should the individual, i.e., the sting administrator be held criminally liable for commission of the offenceoffense? This is a bewildering question when there is a claim that the sting administrator is asserted to have committed the abetment of the offenceoffense.

Question:

A saw a criminal shot B, in front of him. A did not do anything and flewield away. Discuss the liability of A.

Read the following passage and answer the question.
From Sections 107 to 120 of the Indian Penal Code, the idea of abetment is defined. Abetment is the encouragement, conspiracy, or intentional aid given to someone in order for them to do a criminal crime.'Instigation' is the first component of abetment. The act of instigating, urging, or encouraging someone to commit illegal conduct is referred to as instigation. This does not always require direct verbal support; subtle activities that result in the execution of the crime can still be considered incitement.'Conspiracy' is the second component of abetment. A conspiracy is formed when two or more people agree to commit an illegal act or to commit a legitimate act using illegal methods. It is vital to highlight that simple agreement is insufficient; some act or omission must occur in furtherance of the plot  The third component of abetment is 'intentional aid'. Intentional aid refers to the act of intentionally assisting or facilitating the commission of a crime, either by acts or illegal omission. Each of these components establishes a different kind of abetment, and consequently, different liabilities for the abettor. In India, an abettor may be held liable even if the act abetted is not committed, under specific circumstances defined by law.
Question :
What are the three forms of Abetment as provided under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code?

Which of the following is not an essential ingredient of abetment?