Analysis of Section 107 IPC

Analyzing Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code: The Contours of Abetment in Indian Law

Introduction

Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) lays the foundation for understanding the concept of abetment in Indian criminal law. Abetment, in essence, refers to the act of encouraging, instigating, or aiding in the commission of an offence. It is a substantive offence in itself and plays a crucial role in attributing criminal liability to individuals who may not have directly committed the principal offence but have contributed to its occurrence. The interpretation of Section 107 IPC has been the subject of extensive judicial scrutiny, particularly in cases involving abetment of suicide (Section 306 IPC) and conspiracies. This article seeks to provide a comprehensive analysis of Section 107 IPC, drawing upon statutory provisions and significant case law from India, primarily based on the provided reference materials.

Defining Abetment under Section 107 IPC

The Statutory Provision

Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code defines what constitutes abetment. As set out in several judicial pronouncements, including P. NALLAMMAL v. STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE (Supreme Court Of India, 2025) and Sonia Petitioner v. State Of Punjab (Punjab & Haryana High Court, 2011), Section 107 IPC states:

107. Abetment of a thing.—A person abets the doing of a thing, who—

First.—Instigates any person to do that thing; or

Secondly.—Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or

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

Explanation 1.—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 instigate the doing of that thing.

Explanation 2.—Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.

The Supreme Court in Kishori Lal v. State Of M.P. ((2007) 10 SCC 797), as cited in MOHAN SINGH v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (Madhya Pradesh High Court, 2023) and Savita Parihar And Another Applicant v. State Of Madhya Pradesh And Another (Madhya Pradesh High Court, 2023), affirmed that these three actions are essential to complete abetment as a crime.

Clause First: Instigation

Instigation is the foremost mode of abetment. The term "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on, or bring about by persuasion to do anything (Kishori Lal v. State Of M.P. (2007) 10 SCC 797, as cited in MOHAN SINGH v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (Madhya Pradesh High Court, 2023)). The Supreme Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government Of Nct Of Delhi) ((2010) SCC CR 3 367, Supreme Court Of India, 2009) analyzed "instigation" by referring to its dictionary meaning and emphasized that it involves provoking, inciting, or encouraging the doing of an act.

A crucial element for instigation is the presence of mens rea, or a guilty mind. The accused must have intended to provoke, incite, or encourage the commission of the offence. As observed in Gurcharan Singh v. State Of Punjab ((2020) SCC ONLINE SC 796, Supreme Court Of India, 2020), establishing mens rea is pivotal for abetment charges. Similarly, in Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State Of M.P. ((2002) SCC 5 371, Supreme Court Of India, 2002), the Court highlighted the necessity of mens rea for instigation. The Bombay High Court in Shankar Mangelal Lokhande v. State Of Maharashtra ((1999) SCC ONLINE BOM 721, Bombay High Court, 1999) also reiterated that "instigates" would necessarily require mens rea on the part of the accused.

Mere words uttered in a fit of anger or emotion, without intending the consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be instigation. The Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State Of Chhattisgarh ((2001) SCC 9 618, Supreme Court Of India, 2001), as cited in PAPPU @ RAMDAYAL AHIRWAR v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (Madhya Pradesh High Court, 2023) and RAMSINGH RAGHUVANSHI v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (Madhya Pradesh High Court, 2023), held that if it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord, and differences in domestic life, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding of abetment. The case of Parveen Pradhan v. State of Uttaranchal ([2012 (1) JT 478]), cited in the same High Court judgments, observed that the offence of abetment by instigation depends upon the intention of the person who abets and not upon the act which is done by the person who has been abetted.

Furthermore, a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide is necessary (Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of A.P. (2010) 1 SCC 750, as cited in Savita Parihar And Another Applicant v. State Of Madhya Pradesh And Another (Madhya Pradesh High Court, 2023)). In S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan ((2010) 12 SCC 190), cited in Gurcharan Singh v. State Of Punjab (2020), it was emphasized that there must be a positive act or intention to instigate suicide. The absence of any act or incidence whereby the appellant is alleged to have committed any wilful act or omission or intentionally aided or instigated the deceased led to the quashing of proceedings in Netai Dutta v. State Of W.B. ((2005) SCC 2 659, Supreme Court Of India, 2005).

Clause Secondly: Conspiracy

The second mode of abetment involves engaging in a conspiracy to commit an offence, provided an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy and in order to the doing of that thing. This form of abetment requires an agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act, or a legal act by illegal means, followed by an overt act. The Supreme Court in Kehar Singh And Others v. State (Delhi Administration) ((1988) SCC CRI 711, Supreme Court Of India, 1988) elucidated Sections 120-A and 120-B IPC (criminal conspiracy) and distinguished criminal conspiracy from mere abetment, noting that conspiracy under Section 120-A is an independent offence requiring proof of an agreement. Abetment by conspiracy under Section 107, clause secondly, requires not only an agreement but also an act or illegal omission in pursuance of that conspiracy for the doing of that thing. The case of State Oe Kerala v. A. Pareed Pillai And Another ((1972) SCC 3 661, Supreme Court Of India, 1972) also involved charges where Section 107 IPC was read with Section 120-B IPC.

Clause Thirdly: Intentional Aid

The third limb of Section 107 IPC pertains to intentionally aiding, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. The word "aid" implies assistance, support, or help. The aid must be intentional. In Shri Ram v. State Of U.P. ((1975) 3 SCC 495), cited in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government Of Nct Of Delhi) (2009), it was established that intentional aiding and active complicity are essential for abetment. The Gujarat High Court in CHANDRESH VASANTBHAI MALANI v. STATE OF GUJARAT (Gujarat High Court, 2024) reiterated that "Intentional aiding and therefore active complicity is the gist of the offence of abetment under the third paragraph of Section 107". It is not enough that an act on the part of the alleged abettor "happens to facilitate the commission of the crime."

Explanation 2 to Section 107 IPC clarifies that whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act. This was noted in Sonia Petitioner v. State Of Punjab (2011). The element of mens rea is equally important here; the aid must be rendered with the intention of facilitating the offence (Shankar Mangelal Lokhande v. State Of Maharashtra (1999)).

Explanations to Section 107 IPC

Explanation 1 to Section 107 IPC expands the scope of "instigation" to include wilful misrepresentation or wilful concealment of a material fact which a person is bound to disclose, thereby voluntarily causing or procuring, or attempting to cause or procure, a thing to be done. Explanation 2, as discussed above, clarifies what constitutes "aiding".

Judicial Interpretation and Application of Section 107 IPC

Abetment of Suicide (Section 306 IPC)

A significant body of case law on Section 107 IPC has emerged from prosecutions under Section 306 IPC, which punishes abetment of suicide. Courts have consistently held that a high threshold of proof is required to establish abetment of suicide. As stated in Hariom v. State Of M.P. (Madhya Pradesh High Court, 2006), for an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, it is the duty of the prosecution to establish that such person has abetted the commission of suicide, and the act must fall in any of the three categories enumerated under Section 107 IPC.

The Supreme Court in Amalendu Pal Alias Jhantu v. State Of West Bengal ((2010) SCC 1 707, Supreme Court Of India, 2009) emphasized that for a conviction under Section 306 IPC, there must be substantial evidence demonstrating that the accused actively instigated or aided the victim's suicide. Mere allegations of harassment or cruelty, without a direct linkage to the act of suicide, are insufficient. This principle was echoed in Gurcharan Singh v. State Of Punjab (2020), where the Court quashed a conviction under Section 306 IPC due to the absence of clear evidence demonstrating direct or indirect involvement in instigating the suicide.

A direct or proximate link between the accused's actions and the deceased's decision to commit suicide is essential. In Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State Of M.P. (2002), the Supreme Court quashed charges under Section 306 IPC, noting, inter alia, the time gap between the alleged abusive incident and the suicide, which undermined the immediacy and direct causation necessary for abetment. The Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State Of Chhattisgarh (2001) also highlighted the independent nature of offences under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC, clarifying that cruelty under Section 498-A does not automatically translate to abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC without specific evidence of instigation or aid leading to the suicide.

The mental state of the deceased is also a relevant factor. If a victim is hypersensitive to ordinary domestic quarrels, it may not be appropriate to hold the accused guilty of abetment (Ramesh Kumar v. State Of Chhattisgarh (2001), as cited in PAPPU @ RAMDAYAL AHIRWAR v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (2023); State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal ((1994) 1 SCC 73), as cited in CHANDRESH VASANTBHAI MALANI v. STATE OF GUJARAT (2024)). The case of Vishnu Prasad v. State Of M.P. ((2005) SCC ONLINE MP 120, Madhya Pradesh High Court, 2005) also involved an analysis of Section 306 IPC in light of Section 107 IPC, citing Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar.

Burden of Proof and Evidentiary Standards

The burden of proof lies squarely on the prosecution to establish the ingredients of Section 107 IPC beyond a reasonable doubt (STATE OF KARNATAKA, v. GURUBASAVARAJ (Karnataka High Court, 2024)). Clear and cogent evidence is required, and courts must be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case (State of W.B v. Orilal Jaiswal (1994) 1 SCC 73, as cited in Ramesh Kumar v. State Of Chhattisgarh (2001)). In Netai Dutta v. State Of W.B. (2005), the Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant for an offence under Section 306 IPC, finding the case to be without any factual foundation and the contents of the alleged suicide note not making out an offence against the appellant. This was also cited in Ramchandra v. State Of M.P. ((2008) SCC ONLINE MP 92, Madhya Pradesh High Court, 2008).

The Nexus with Section 109 IPC: Punishment for Abetment

Section 109 IPC prescribes the punishment for abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by the Code for the punishment of such abetment. In such cases, the abettor is punished with the punishment provided for the offence itself. This section was referred to in P. NALLAMMAL v. STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE (2025), Hariom v. State Of M.P. (2006), and Kishori Lal v. State Of M.P. (2007) (as cited in MOHAN SINGH v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (2023) and Savita Parihar And Another Applicant v. State Of Madhya Pradesh And Another (2023)). The term "abetted" in Section 109 means the specific offence abetted.

Conclusion

Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, provides a comprehensive definition of abetment, encompassing instigation, conspiracy, and intentional aid. The Indian judiciary, through numerous pronouncements, has meticulously interpreted its provisions, particularly emphasizing the requirement of mens rea and a clear, direct link between the abettor's act and the commission of the offence. Especially in sensitive cases like abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, courts have adopted a cautious approach, demanding a high standard of proof to prevent misuse of the law. The principles laid down in cases such as Ramesh Kumar v. State Of Chhattisgarh, Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State Of M.P., Amalendu Pal Alias Jhantu v. State Of West Bengal, and Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government Of Nct Of Delhi) continue to guide the application of Section 107 IPC, ensuring that criminal liability for abetment is determined with precision and fairness, upholding the tenets of justice in Indian criminal jurisprudence.

References