Difference Between Abetment and Criminal Conspiracy

Abetment and criminal conspiracy are two distinct but related concepts in criminal law that deal with different aspects of involvement in a crime. Understanding the differences between abetment and criminal conspiracy is important for a comprehensive understanding of criminal law.

Chapter V of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, focuses on laws pertaining to individuals who instigate and aid others in committing crimes. Abetment, as defined in Section 107 of the IPC, involves the instigation by one person to commit a crime or an illegal act.

On the other hand, criminal conspiracy, was introduced in 1870 with the Criminal Amendment Act and further amended in 1913 to include Section 120A in the IPC, is an agreement between two or more persons to commit an act through illegal means. These provisions aim to address the roles of individuals who encourage or conspire to commit unlawful acts, ensuring that such actions are punishable under the law.

Abetment

Abetment is the act of instigating or provoking another person to commit a crime. It also includes engaging in a conspiracy to commit a crime and any act done in furtherance of that conspiracy. The term “abet” essentially means to aid and encourage someone in committing an act. The Supreme Court, in its judgment in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1961), defined “abet” as aiding and helping others in committing an illegal act. On the other hand, conspiracy is derived from the Latin words “con,” meaning together and “spirare,” meaning to breathe.

The Indian Penal Code, 1860, discusses abetment from Sections 107 to 120. Section 107 defines abetment as the willingness of someone to instigate, assist or encourage the execution of a criminal act.

For instance, consider three individuals: A, B and C. A and B plan to kill C, with A devising the plan and setting traps to kill C. B, aware of the plan, helps A create gun traps. This act is also considered abetment, as B assisted the offender (A) in committing the crime. The person who instigates, encourages or promotes another to commit a crime is known as an “abettor,” while the person who commits the offence is referred to as the “principal offender.” In the example above, A is the principal offender and B is the abettor.

There is a notable distinction between a person abetting and the actual perpetrator of the offence under criminal law. In a criminal conspiracy, A and B enter into an agreement to kill C and may or may not contribute equally but assist each other as they share the same intention.

Criminal conspiracy under the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Criminal conspiracy, as defined in Section 120A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, entails an agreement between two or more individuals to engage in an illegal act or to achieve an act that, while not inherently illegal, is to be achieved through illegal means. The term “illegal” in this context, as per Section 43, encompasses anything that constitutes an offence, is prohibited or gives rise to civil action.

According to the Proviso attached to Section 120A, a criminal conspiracy can be established by a mere agreement to commit an offence, without the need for any overt act or omission. This requirement arises only when there is an intention to commit an illegal act that is not itself an offence. It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the primary objective of the agreement or merely incidental to it.

Difference between abetment and criminal conspiracy

The difference between abetment and criminal conspiracy in the context of Indian law are:

Definition:

Abetment is defined under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as a situation where one person instigates, conspires with or intentionally aids another person to commit an offence.

Criminal Conspiracy is defined under Section 120A of the IPC as a situation where two or more persons agree to commit an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means.

Parties Involved:

In abetment, there are usually two parties involved: the abettor (the person who abets) and the principal offender (the person who commits the offence).

In a criminal conspiracy, there are at least two parties involved, known as conspirators, who agree to commit the offence.

Nature of Offence:

Abetment is not a substantive offence on its own. It requires the act of aiding, instigating or conspiring to commit the offence.

Criminal conspiracy is considered a substantive offence, where the mere agreement to commit an offence is punishable, even if the offence is not actually committed.

Punishment:

The punishment for an abettor may not be the same as that for the principal offender, depending on the nature of the abetment.

In a criminal conspiracy, all conspirators are liable to the same punishment as if they had committed the offence themselves.

Overt Act:

In abetment by conspiracy, there must be an overt act or illegal omission in pursuance of the conspiracy to commit the offence.

In criminal conspiracy, the mere agreement between the conspirators is sufficient and no overt act is necessary to constitute the offence.

Legal Proceedings:

For abetment, no prior sanction from competent authorities is required to proceed against the abettors.

In the case of a criminal conspiracy, prosecution may require sanction from competent authorities, depending on the nature of the conspiracy and the laws governing the jurisdiction.

Scope:

Abetment has a broader scope, encompassing various forms of assistance to commit an offence, such as instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid.

Criminal conspiracy is a specific form of abetment that involves an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence.

How the Judiciary differentiated between criminal conspiracy and abetment

The judiciary has played a crucial role in delineating the boundaries between criminal conspiracy and abetment, particularly abetment by conspiracy. Through various judgments, the courts have provided clarity on the distinction between these two concepts.

In the case of Pramatha Nath Talukdar vs. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar (1961), the court highlighted the essence of criminal conspiracy, which lies in the intention to carry out an illegal act by committing an illegal act. The court pointed out that an agreement to commit an offence constitutes a criminal conspiracy.

However, when the agreement is to do an illegal act that is not an offence or is to be done by illegal means, some additional action is needed. This distinction is crucial as it differentiates between abetment by conspiracy and criminal conspiracy. In abetment by conspiracy, a simple agreement does not suffice; there must be an act or omission performed to carry out the conspiracy. In contrast, in criminal conspiracy, the act of agreeing or plotting itself constitutes the crime.

The Supreme Court, in Kehar Singh vs. State (Delhi Administration) (1988), further elaborated on this distinction. The court held that there must be evidence of more than a mere conspiracy for there to be abetment by conspiracy.

If a charge under Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) fails, there needs to be some overt act committed by the appellants to convict them of abetment by conspiracy. This ruling emphasises that while conspiracy is a crucial element, it alone is not sufficient to establish abetment by conspiracy; there must be some action taken towards the execution of the conspiracy.

In Saurendra Mohan Basu vs. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar (1960), the court clarified the procedural aspects related to these offences. It stated that Section 196A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) does not require previous sanction for the offence of abetment by conspiracy. Such previous sanctions are necessary only in cases where there is an allegation of pure conspiracy, whether it be to commit an indictable or non-indictable offence or any illicit act.

The court also held that a previous sanction under Section 196A is not required to take cognisance of the offence of abetment of forgery. This ruling underscores the procedural distinction between criminal conspiracy and abetment by conspiracy, highlighting that the latter does not necessarily require prior sanction for prosecution.

In summary, the judiciary has differentiated between criminal conspiracy and abetment by emphasising the necessity of an agreement to commit an offence in the former and the requirement of an overt act in addition to the agreement in the latter. These distinctions are important for the proper application of the law and for ensuring that individuals are charged and prosecuted based on the specific nature of their involvement in criminal activities.
Here’s a table summarizing the key differences between abetment and criminal conspiracy: