Abetment & Conspiracy MCQ Quiz in मराठी - Objective Question with Answer for Abetment & Conspiracy - मोफत PDF डाउनलोड करा

The correct Answer is YY is not liable as such situations are covered under explanation 2 to Section 107

Key PointsA careful reading of the third clause of Sec 107 along with explanation 2 reveals that an act, which merely amounts to aiding the commission of an offence, does not amount to abetting an offence unless that act was done with intent to aid the commission of the ‘thing’. Here YY didn’t intent to aid XX in murder of ZZ.

The correct answer is Section 107 IPC

Key PointsSection 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.
Illustration:A, a public officer, is authorised by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z, B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, wilfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C.
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 correct answer is guilty of abetment

Key Points

• As per Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, a person is said to abet the doing of a thing if they instigate any person to do that thing.
• The offence of abetment by instigation is complete even if the act is not carried out.
• Actual commission of the offence is not required for the abettor to be held liable.
• In this case:
  • A instigated B to kill C.
  • Even though B did not follow through, the instigation itself is punishable.

Additional Information

• Option 2 (Not guilty of abetment): Incorrect. Instigation is sufficient for liability.
• Option 3 (Guilty of abetment because it does not depend upon commission of the act): Legally correct, but too explanatory for a typical MCQ answer key.
• Option 4 (None of the above): Incorrect. Option 1 is correct.

The correct answer is It is not necessary that the act abetted should be committed.

Key Points

• Abetment – Defined under Sections 107 to 120 of the IPC:
  • Abetment involves instigating a person to commit an offence, engaging in a conspiracy to commit it, or intentionally aiding in its commission.
• The offence of abetment is complete even if the act abetted is not committed. The law punishes the act of abetment itself, regardless of the result.
• Support from Explanation 3 to Section 108 IPC: “It is not necessary that the person abetted should be capable by law of committing an offence, or that he should have the same guilty intention or knowledge as that of the abettor or any guilty intention or knowledge.”
• This means the abettor can be held guilty even if the person abetted is legally incapable of committing the offence (e.g., a child or an insane person), or if the act is not completed.
• Illustration: If A instigates B, a child under 7 years, to steal something and B does so, A is guilty of abetment, though B cannot be held criminally liable due to his age.

Additional Information

• Option 1 – Incorrect: It is not necessary that the abetted act must be completed.
• Option 2 – Incorrect: Even unsuccessful attempts are not required for abetment liability.
• Option 4 – Incorrect: Both 1 and 2 are incorrect.

The correct answer is abetment and conspiracy

Key Points

• Principle of “Proximity of Crime”:
  • Refers to how close an act is to the commission of the actual crime.
  • Generally relevant in distinguishing between attempt and preparation.
  • Used to assess criminal liability in offences that require a completed act, such as attempted crimes.
• Why It’s Irrelevant in Abetment and Conspiracy:
  • In cases of abetment (Section 107 IPC) and criminal conspiracy (Section 120A IPC), liability arises even before the actual offence is committed.
  • The agreement (in conspiracy) or instigation/aid (in abetment) is enough to constitute the offence.
  • Hence, proximity to the actual crime is not a requirement for fixing liability.
• Illustration:
  • If A instigates B to commit murder, A is guilty of abetment even if the murder is not committed.

Additional Information

• Theft and Dacoity: Proximity matters – mere preparation is not enough; act must be committed or attempted.
• Culpable Homicide and Murder: Proximity may affect intent and gravity, especially in attempted murder.
• Kidnapping and Abduction: Act must reach a certain stage; proximity matters to prove the act occurred.

The correct answer is Section 107.

Key Points

• Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 defines "Abetment of a thing." It is the primary provision that lays down what amounts to abetment.
• Abetment can happen in three ways:
  • Instigating a person to commit an offence.
  • Engaging in a conspiracy for an offence.
  • Intentionally aiding someone in committing the offence.
• Instigation means provoking, inciting, or urging a person to do something illegal.
• Conspiracy + an act: There must be an agreement to do an illegal act, and some act must be done in pursuance of the conspiracy.
• Intentional aid: Giving help, support, or facilitating the commission of an offence directly or indirectly.
• Foundation section: This section is the basis for Sections 108 to 120, which elaborate on abetment in specific contexts.

Additional Information

• Section 106 – Deals with right of private defence extending to causing death under certain circumstances; not related to abetment.
• Section 108 – Defines "abetter" (the person who abets) but not the act of abetment itself.
• None of these – Incorrect because Section 107 clearly provides for abetment.

The correct answer is AttemptKey Points

• Abetment under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) includes the following modes:
  • Instigation: Encouraging someone to commit an offence.
  • Aiding: Helping or assisting in the commission of an offence.
  • Conspiracy: Agreeing with others to commit an offence.
• Attempt is not a mode of abetment; it is an independent offence relating to the act of trying to commit a crime but not completing it.

The correct answer is Causing death voluntarily

Key Points

• Facts:
  • “A” sets fire at night to an inhabited house in a large town.
  • The purpose is to facilitate robbery.
  • The act causes the death of “B”.
• Relevant Provisions of IPC:
  • Causing death voluntarily relates to culpable homicide or murder depending on the circumstances.
  • Setting fire to an inhabited house at night causing death is a serious offence under Sections 436 (mischief by fire or explosive substance), 302/304 (murder/culpable homicide), and 436A IPC.
  • The act was done with knowledge and intention that could cause death, so “A” can be held liable for causing death voluntarily.
• Why not other options?
  • Abetment: “A” is the principal offender, not abettor.
  • Mischief: Though setting fire is mischievous, causing death elevates the offence to a more serious charge.
  • An attempt to commit robbery: The robbery is facilitated but the offence is completed by causing death, so not merely an attempt.

Additional Information

• Abetment: “A” is the main offender, not merely abetting someone else.
• Mischief: Causing death elevates the offence beyond simple mischief.
• An attempt to commit robbery: The offence is completed by causing death, so it is not just an attempt.