Abetment is the act of instigating, conspiring with, or intentionally aiding another person to commit an offence, or to cause an act to be done which would be an offence if committed. Under Indian law, abetment is defined in Sections 107-109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (now Sections 45-47 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), and an abettor is punished with the same severity as the principal offender in most cases.
Legal definition
Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines abetment through three distinct modes:
Section 107: 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.
The punishment for abetment is prescribed by Sections 109 and 115-117 IPC:
Section 109: Whoever 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 provided for the offence.
This means that an abettor of murder faces the same punishment as the murderer — death or life imprisonment. Where the offence abetted is not committed, Sections 115-117 prescribe lesser punishments proportionate to the gravity of the offence that was abetted.
New law equivalent: Under the BNS, 2023, Section 45 defines abetment in identical terms, retaining the three modes of instigation, conspiracy, and intentional aid. Section 47 BNS corresponds to Section 109 IPC, maintaining the principle that an abettor faces the same punishment as the principal offender.
How courts have interpreted this term
Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2001) 9 SCC 618]
The Supreme Court examined abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC (abetment + Section 107) and held that to constitute instigation, there must be a direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of the offence. Mere quarrel or verbal abuse, however harsh, does not by itself amount to instigation unless it can be shown that the accused intended to provoke the deceased to commit suicide or that the conduct was of such a nature as to drive the deceased to suicide.
Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P. [(2002) 5 SCC 371]
The Court held that abetment by instigation requires active encouragement or incitement. A person who merely expresses a wish or makes a casual remark ("go and die") does not necessarily instigate within the meaning of Section 107 First. The instigation must be of a nature that would, in the ordinary course, result in the commission of the offence.
State of Maharashtra v. Syed Umar Syed Abbas [(2024) SCC OnLine SC 2244]
The Supreme Court reiterated that for abetment by conspiracy (Second limb), there must be a clear meeting of minds and an overt act in pursuance of the conspiracy. Mere association or presence at the scene is insufficient. The prosecution must prove a specific agreement to do an illegal act, followed by an act or omission in furtherance of that agreement.
Types of abetment
The three modes of abetment under Section 107 IPC are:
- Instigation (First limb): Actively provoking, inciting, urging, or encouraging another person to commit an offence. This can be through words, actions, or wilful misrepresentation. The instigation must be direct enough to establish a causal link between the abettor's conduct and the commission of the offence.
- Conspiracy (Second limb): Engaging with one or more persons in an agreement to commit an illegal act, where an overt act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of the conspiracy. This overlaps with but is narrower than criminal conspiracy under Section 120A IPC.
- Intentional aid (Third limb): Deliberately assisting the principal offender through any act or illegal omission. The aid must be intentional — accidental or unwitting assistance does not constitute abetment. Examples include providing a weapon, keeping watch, or supplying information necessary for the commission of the offence.
Why this matters
Abetment is a foundational concept in Indian criminal law because it extends criminal liability beyond the person who physically commits the offence to all those who instigate, conspire, or intentionally aid in its commission. This ensures that masterminds, facilitators, and accomplices are held equally accountable.
In practice, abetment is most frequently invoked in three contexts: (1) abetment to suicide (Section 306 IPC / Section 108 BNS), which is one of the most commonly charged offences in matrimonial disputes and harassment cases; (2) abetment of murder, where the instigator or conspirator is charged as an abettor even though they did not physically commit the act; and (3) economic offences, where company directors or officers who authorise or facilitate fraud are charged as abettors.
For defence practitioners, the key challenge is establishing the mental element. Abetment requires either an intention to instigate, a meeting of minds for conspiracy, or an intentional act of aid. Mere association, presence, or passive knowledge is not sufficient. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the prosecution must prove an active role in instigating, conspiring, or aiding — and that the burden of proving abetment lies on the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
Related terms
Related offences:
Related concepts:
Frequently asked questions
Can an abettor be punished even if the offence is not committed?
Yes. If the offence abetted is not committed, the abettor is still liable under Sections 115-117 IPC (Sections 48-50 BNS). The punishment is a fraction of the punishment prescribed for the offence — for example, one-quarter of the maximum imprisonment for the offence, if it carries 10+ years.
What is the difference between abetment and criminal conspiracy?
Abetment under Section 107 Second (conspiracy as a mode of abetment) and criminal conspiracy under Section 120A IPC overlap but differ. For abetment by conspiracy, an overt act must take place in pursuance of the conspiracy. Criminal conspiracy under Section 120A is complete upon the agreement itself — no overt act is needed if the object is an offence punishable with death, life imprisonment, or two or more years.
Is abetment to suicide a common charge in India?
Yes. Section 306 IPC (Section 108 BNS) — punishment for abetment of suicide — is one of the most frequently charged provisions in matrimonial disputes, workplace harassment cases, and student suicide cases. The punishment is imprisonment up to 10 years and fine.
Can a person be convicted of both the main offence and abetment?
A person cannot be convicted as both the principal offender and an abettor for the same offence. However, where multiple accused are involved, some can be convicted as principals and others as abettors for the same crime.
This entry is part of the Veritect Indian Legal Glossary, a comprehensive reference of Indian legal terminology grounded in statutory text and judicial interpretation.
Last updated: 2026-03-27. Veritect provides this content for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.