Abetment : Sn. 107.
A person abets the doing of a thing if he
1) instigates another to do that thing, or
2) conspires with others in the doing of-the act or
3) intentionally aids the doing of that thing
E.g. A, a police officer, with a Warrant is empowered to arrest Z. B who knew this, instigated A to arrest C who he mis-represented as Z. A arrests C. B abets. General advice is not abetment.Instigation means the instigator actively suggests, or stimulates by any means i.e., by words, hints, encouragement etc.
Abetment by conspiracy:
For this there should be at least two persons, engaged in commission of an act in pursuance of conspiracy and there should be the doing of the thing.
Abetment by aid: The person aids to facilitate commission of an offence. It should be intentional aid. E.g. supplying of food to facili- tate an offence. A police man A, who stands and does nothing to prevent torture of B by C, is guilty of abetment by omission i. e, non interference.
Abettor : Sn. 108.
An abettor is a person who abets.
i) Either the commission of the offence or
ii) The commission of an act which would be an offence if done by a person capable by law of committing the offence with intention or knowledge of that of the abettor
1) Abetment of an illegal omission amounts of an offence
2) Abetted act need not be committed, to constitute an offence
a) A abets B to murder C. B refuses to do so. A is guilty of abetting B to murder. b) A instigates B to murder D. B thereupon stabs D. But, D recovers. A is guilty of instigating B to murder.
b) The abetment of an offence is an offence. Hence, an abetment of such an abetment is also an offence. A instigate C to murder D. B accordingly instigates C who com- mits murder of D. B is guilty and punishable under 302 I.P.C. A has instigated. Hence, A is also liable for the same punishment. It is not necessary that the person abetted should be capable of committing a crime. A child, a lunatic etc. may be used by the abettor to do the crime. In such cases, the abettor is guilty of the offence committed through the child, lunatic etc. 'A with guilty intention abets a child of 5 years to set fire to a house, of B. B, is grievously hurt. A is liable.
Criminal Conspiracy : Sn. 120 A and B.
It is an agreement by two or more persons to do an illegal act or to do any legal act by illegal means. But when the agreement contemplates the commission of the offence, and some act is done by one or more persons, then the offence is completed. It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object or incidental thereto. This section was introduced in 1913. The gist of the offence is that the agreement must be to break the law whether or not any act isdone in pursuance thereof. An agreement to commit the offence, makes criminal conspiracy completed. But, if the agreement is to do a legal act by illegal means, there must be some act done by one or more persons, to the conspiracy, e.g., Recovery of a debt by illegal use of force or assault.
In Hussain umar V. Dalip Singh the Supreme Court held that agreement was essential and there should be a common design & a common intention in furtherance of the common design. All need not agree on a single illegal act. There may be the commission of a number of acts.If conspirators commit several offences, all of them will be liable even if some of them had not participated in the commission of the offence.Criminal conspiracy is an independent offence punishable under Sn. 120 B of the I. P. C. (6 months, fine or both).
Sedition (विद्रोह) : Sn. 124 A.
Sedition is an offence punishable under 124 A.
A person who by words, (spoken or written), by signs or by visible representation brings or attempt to bring hatred or contempt or excites disaffection towards the Government of India, is guilty of sedition. He is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or fine or both. The explanation states that disaffection includes disloyalty and ill feelings of enmity. Mere criticism of Government or its measures or the adminis- trative bodies or seeking alteration of lawful means is not sedition.
The leading cases are ;
R.V. Bala Gangadhar Tilak
R.V. Sadasiva Narayan
R.V. Dhirendranath Sen
R.V. Jogendra Chandra Bose
Criticism of the Government or its measure is part of democratic institutions. But, what constitutes sedition is the Animus of the person with the words, calculated to bring the popular Government to hatred or contempt. Everything should be decided according to the time and place of the commission of the act. Publication is of course an essential ingredient.
The section is not against the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Art. 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution. The words excite disaffection, includes the tendering or intention to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to violence. Kedarnath V. State of Bihar. Hence, according to Supreme Court, what is punishable under Sn. 124 A, is therefore not a criticism of the Govt. in power, but utterances which either intend or have a tendency to subvert the existing Govt. by means of violence.