Practice paper — IPC Chapter 5 — Abetment

1.Which of the following describes one way a person abets the doing of a thing under Section 107 IPC?

• (A) Instigates any person to do that thing
• (B) Merely advises caution without urging action
• (C) Is present at the scene without acting
• (D) Accidentally causes the thing by mistake

2.According to Section 107 IPC, which of these clearly constitutes abetment by omission or act?

• (A) Expressing sympathy after the act
• (B) Giving vague moral support
• (C) Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing
• (D) Being merely present and watching without acting

3.An act occurs after a conspiracy is formed, but that act was not done in order to the doing of the thing agreed in the conspiracy. Under Section 107 IPC, does this result in abetment by the conspirators?

• (A) Yes, any act following a conspiracy makes the conspirators abettors
• (B) No, because the act must take place both in pursuance of the conspiracy and in order to the doing of that thing
• (C) Yes, if the act is illegal even if unrelated to the conspiracy's object
• (D) Only if one conspirator also instigated someone else to perform the act

4.Which part of Section 107 IPC is explicitly qualified by the word “intentionally”?

• (A) The instigation limb (“Instigates any person to do that thing”)
• (B) The conspiracy limb (engaging in a conspiracy)
• (C) The aiding limb (“aids, by any act or illegal omission”)
• (D) All three limbs are explicitly qualified by the word “intentionally”

5.Which mental element does Section 108 require for abetment?

• (A) No mental element is required; only the physical act matters.
• (B) The abettor must have the same intention or knowledge as is referred to in the provision.
• (C) Only intention is required and knowledge is irrelevant.
• (D) Only knowledge is required and intention is irrelevant.

6.If the actual doer lacked the required intention or knowledge for the offence, can the instigator still be said to "abet" under Section 108?

• (A) No — abetment requires the actual doer to have the required intention or knowledge.
• (B) Yes — but only if the instigator also physically participated in the act.
• (C) No — abetment requires the instigator to be the principal offender.
• (D) Yes — if the act would be an offence when committed by a person capable by law with the same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor.

7.In which situation would a person not be an abettor under Section 108 despite instigating an act?

• (A) If the instigator himself does not possess the intention or knowledge necessary to make the act an offence — then the act would not be one "with the same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor".
• (B) If the act would be an offence when committed by a capable person (this makes abetment possible).
• (C) If the actual doer lacked legal capacity (Section 108 still permits abetment in that case).
• (D) If the instigator merely remained silent at the scene.

8.Does Section 108A require the substantive offence actually to be committed in India for abetment to be punishable under this provision?

• (A) Yes — the substantive offence must be actually committed in India.
• (B) No — the provision applies where the abettor in India abets an act abroad that would be an offence if committed in India, even though the act occurs outside India.
• (C) Yes — unless the abettor and accused are both Indian citizens.
• (D) No — it applies only if the act abroad is also an offence under the law of the place where it was done.

9.If a person located outside India abets the commission of an act outside India which would constitute an offence if committed in India, does Section 108A apply?

• (A) Yes — because the act abroad would be an offence if done in India, so abetment is covered regardless of the abettor's location.
• (B) Yes — but only if the abettor is an Indian national.
• (C) No — Section 108A applies only where the abettor is in India.
• (D) No — unless the principal offender is later found and tried in India.

10.Which of the following best describes the legal scope created by Section 108A IPC?

• (A) It makes abetment punishable only when both the abettor and the substantive offence are located in India.
• (B) It treats as abetment when a person in India induces or assists an act outside India that would amount to an offence if committed in India, regardless of where the act actually occurred.
• (C) It requires that the act abetted abroad must also be an offence under the law of the place where it was committed.
• (D) It applies only to acts abetted abroad which have been carried out by Indian nationals.

11.What punishment does Section 109 IPC prescribe for a person who abets an offence and the act abetted is committed in consequence, with no express provision for punishing such abetment?

• (A) Punished with a fine only.
• (B) Punished with the punishment provided for the offence.
• (C) Punished with imprisonment for a fixed term of two years.
• (D) Punished with half of the punishment provided for the offence.

12.If the Indian Penal Code contains an express provision for the punishment of the abetment of a particular offence, can Section 109 IPC be used to punish the abettor with the punishment provided for the offence?

• (A) Yes — Section 109 always applies regardless of other provisions.
• (B) Yes — but only when the express provision prescribes a lesser punishment.
• (C) Yes — but only if the express provision is not consistently applied.
• (D) No — Section 109 applies only where no express provision is made by the Code for punishment of such abetment.

13.A abets B to commit offence X, but C (not B) commits X in consequence of A's abetment. Assuming there is no express provision elsewhere in the Code, does Section 109 IPC apply to A?

• (A) No — Section 109 requires the abettor and the offender to be the same person.
• (B) No — Section 109 applies only when the person abetted commits the offence.
• (C) Yes — Section 109 applies if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, irrespective of who actually commits it.
• (D) Yes — but only if A had directly assisted C in committing the offence.

14.Under Section 110, the abettor shall be punished with:

• (A) the punishment provided for the offence actually committed by the person abetted.
• (B) the punishment provided for the offence which would have been committed if the act had been done with the intention or knowledge of the abettor, and with no other.
• (C) a separate punishment for abetment in addition to the punishment for the actual offence.
• (D) only a fine irrespective of the offence.

15.If the person abetted does the act with a different intention, can the abettor be punished in addition for the offence actually committed by that person?

• (A) Yes; the abettor may be punished both ways.
• (B) Yes; but only if the court so directs.
• (C) No; the abettor is punished only with the punishment provided for the offence which would have been committed if done with the intention or knowledge of the abettor, and with no other.
• (D) No; the abettor is not punishable at all in such a case.

16.An abettor intended only a minor offence (e.g. simple hurt) but the person abetted caused death. According to Section 110, the abettor should be punished with:

• (A) the punishment for the homicide actually committed.
• (B) no punishment because the result was unforeseeable.
• (C) both the punishment for the minor offence and for homicide.
• (D) the punishment for the offence which would have been committed if the act had been done with the intention of the abettor (i.e. the minor offence), and with no other.

17.What is the extent of the abettor's liability under Section 111 when a different act is done?

• (A) Liable only for the act abetted, not for the act done
• (B) Liable in the same manner and to the same extent as if he had directly abetted the act done
• (C) Liable only to a lesser extent than a direct abettor
• (D) Not liable unless he actually participated in the different act

18.If Act A is abetted but a different Act B is actually committed, how does Section 111 treat the abettor's liability?

• (A) He is not liable because a different act was done
• (B) He is liable only if he intended the different act
• (C) He is liable for the different act in the same manner and to the same extent as if he had directly abetted it
• (D) He is liable only for an attempt to abet

19.Does Section 111 require that the abettor must have directly abetted the specific act done for liability to arise?

• (A) Yes — the abettor must have directly abetted the specific act done to be liable
• (B) No — Section 111 makes the abettor liable for the different act as if he had directly abetted it
• (C) Yes — liability arises only when the act done is identical to the act abetted
• (D) No — the abettor is never liable if a different act is done

20.If the act committed in addition to the act abetted does NOT constitute a distinct offence, what does Section 112 imply about imposing punishment for each offence?

• (A) The abettor is still automatically liable to punishment for both offences under Section 112.
• (B) Section 112 does not make the abettor liable to punishment for each of the offences in that situation.
• (C) The abettor becomes liable only if the court exercises discretion to impose cumulative sentences.
• (D) Section 112 requires that both acts be treated as one combined offence for punishment.

21.Which of the following accurately reflects the requirements in Section 112 for imposing cumulative punishments on an abettor?

• (A) The additional act must be committed only after a conviction for the abetted act.
• (B) The abettor must have personally carried out the additional act for cumulative punishment to follow.
• (C) The additional act must be committed in addition to the act abetted and must constitute a distinct offence.
• (D) The additional act must attract a lesser penalty than the abetted act for Section 112 to apply.

22.The opening phrase of Section 112 reads "If the act for which the abettor is liable under the last preceding section..." What requirement does this phrase impose for Section 112 to operate?

• (A) That the abettor must be liable for the additional act under the immediately preceding section; only then can cumulative punishment follow.
• (B) That any distinct offence committed by any person automatically triggers cumulative punishment of the abettor.
• (C) That the abettor must have first been convicted under the preceding section before Section 112 can be applied.
• (D) That the abettor must have personally committed the additional act in order to be punished for it.

23.Which condition does the proviso in Section 113 IPC expressly require for the abettor to be liable for the different effect?

• (A) That the abettor knew the act abetted was likely to cause that different effect.
• (B) That the abettor intended the different effect.
• (C) That the principal had malicious intention.
• (D) That the abettor participated in the act physically.

24.A abets an act intending effect A; the act causes effect B. A did not know effect B was likely. Under Section 113 IPC, is A liable for B?

• (A) Yes — abettor is automatically liable for any effect caused by the act abetted.
• (B) Yes — but only if the principal also intended B.
• (C) No — the abettor is not liable for B because he did not know the act was likely to cause B.
• (D) Yes — liability arises if the abetted act caused B, irrespective of A's knowledge.

25.Which of the following best captures the essential distinction established by the proviso in Section 113 IPC?

• (A) Liability requires that the abettor actually intended the different effect to occur.
• (B) Liability does not require intention to the different effect but does require knowledge that the abetted act was likely to cause that effect.
• (C) Liability depends solely on the principal's intention, not the abettor's knowledge.
• (D) Liability is automatic whenever an abetted act produces any unintended effect.

26.Which condition is essential for Section 114 IPC to operate?

• (A) Any person simply present at the scene of the offence.
• (B) A person who instigated the offence at any time.
• (C) A person who, if absent, would be liable to be punished as an abettor.
• (D) An accessory after the fact who helps hide the offender.

27.Under Section 114 IPC, if a person who would be punishable as an abettor is present when the offence is actually committed but does not physically perform the criminal act, what is his legal status?

• (A) He is liable only as an abettor and not as having committed the offence.
• (B) He shall be deemed to have committed such act or offence despite not physically doing it.
• (C) He is treated as an accessory after the fact.
• (D) He is innocent because he did not physically perform the act.

28.Does Section 114 IPC apply when the offence actually committed is different from the specific act or offence for which the person would be punishable in consequence of the abetment?

• (A) Yes — presence at any offence converts abettors into persons deemed to have committed offences.
• (B) No — it applies only when the act or offence committed is the same one for which he would be punishable in consequence of the abetment.
• (C) Yes — it applies whenever an abettor is present, regardless of the offence committed.
• (D) No — it never converts abettors into principal offenders; it only increases abettor liability.

29.What is the maximum term of imprisonment that Section 115 IPC provides for abetment of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, when that offence is not committed in consequence of the abetment?

• (A) Seven years
• (B) Ten years
• (C) Life imprisonment
• (D) Three years

30.If an offence punishable with imprisonment for life is actually committed as a consequence of abetment, can Section 115 be used to punish the abettor for that completed offence?

• (A) Yes — Section 115 applies whether or not the offence is committed
• (B) Only if the court specifically invokes Section 115
• (C) No — Section 115 applies when the offence is not committed in consequence of the abetment
• (D) Yes — but only if the punishment imposed is less than life imprisonment

31.Which of the following is an express exception to the applicability of Section 115 IPC?

• (A) Where the Code makes an express provision for punishment of such abetment
• (B) Where the offence was punishable with death
• (C) Where the abetment did not cause any immediate attempt to commit the offence
• (D) Where the abettor is a juvenile

32.Under Section 116 IPC, what is the maximum term of imprisonment that may be imposed for abetment when the offence is not committed in consequence of the abetment?

• (A) Up to three-fourths of the longest term provided for that offence
• (B) Up to one-half of the longest term provided for that offence
• (C) Up to one-fourth of the longest term provided for that offence
• (D) Up to one-third of the longest term provided for that offence

33.If the Code already contains an express provision for the punishment of a particular kind of abetment, can Section 116 be invoked to punish that abetment when the offence is not committed?

• (A) Yes, Section 116 applies in addition to any express provision
• (B) No, Section 116 applies only when no express provision is made by this Code for such abetment
• (C) Only if the express provision prescribes a lesser punishment than Section 116
• (D) Only with the prior approval of a High Court

34.Does Section 116 IPC apply to abetment of an offence that is punishable only with a fine and not with imprisonment?

• (A) Yes — abetment is punishable under Section 116 even if the substantive offence has only a fine
• (B) No — Section 116 applies only to abetment of offences punishable with imprisonment
• (C) Yes, but only to the extent of one-fourth of the fine amount
• (D) Only if a court treats the fine as equivalent to imprisonment

35.Under Section 117 IPC, which of the following best states the punishment for abetting an offence by the public generally or by more than ten persons?

• (A) Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years
• (B) Only a fine
• (C) Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both
• (D) Life imprisonment

36.A person abets the commission of an offence by exactly ten people. Does Section 117 IPC apply?

• (A) Yes; any group qualifies as a 'class of persons' under Section 117
• (B) Yes; because ten or more people are included
• (C) No; Section 117 applies only to solitary offenders
• (D) No; Section 117 requires the number or class of persons to exceed ten

37.If an organizer incites and thereby abets an offence by 15 persons and also participates in the act, does Section 117 IPC apply to that organizer?

• (A) No; Section 117 applies only to those who do not participate in the offence
• (B) No; it applies only when the abettor is not part of the class of persons
• (C) Yes; Section 117 applies to 'whoever abets' and contains no exclusion for the abettor's participation
• (D) Yes; but only if the abettor remains separate from the 15 persons

38.Which mental state does Section 118 require for liability?

• (A) Intending to facilitate the commission of the offence or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby facilitate it.
• (B) Only direct intention to commit the offence.
• (C) Negligence or recklessness regarding the offence.
• (D) Strict liability without any mental element.

39.Section 118 applies when the design concealed relates to the commission of which offences?

• (A) Offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
• (B) Any criminal offence regardless of punishment.
• (C) Only offences punishable with imprisonment for a term less than life.
• (D) Only offences triable summarily.

40.A person who knows of a design to commit a capital offence voluntarily remains silent but has no legal duty to disclose. Under Section 118, is this silence actionable as an 'illegal omission'?

• (A) Yes — any voluntary silence about the design is punishable under Section 118.
• (B) Yes — silence is always treated as an illegal omission under this section.
• (C) No — the provision covers concealment 'by any act or illegal omission,' so omission must be unlawful; mere silence without a legal duty to act is not necessarily an illegal omission.
• (D) No — Section 118 applies only to spoken false representations, not omissions.

41.Who can be prosecuted under Section 119 of the IPC?

• (A) Any person who conceals a design to commit an offence.
• (B) A public servant who intends to facilitate or knows it likely that he will thereby facilitate the commission of an offence which it is his duty to prevent.
• (C) Any public servant who prevents commission of an offence.
• (D) Only public servants who commit the offence themselves.

42.If a public servant conceals a design to commit an offence that is not one it is his duty to prevent, is he liable under Section 119?

• (A) Yes, the offence concealed need not be something he has a duty to prevent.
• (B) No, Section 119 applies only when the offence is one it is his duty as such public servant to prevent.
• (C) Yes, but only if the design results in actual commission of the offence.
• (D) Only if a superior ordered him to prevent that specific offence.

43.What mental element must be present in the public servant for Section 119 to apply?

• (A) Mere negligence or failure to notice the design.
• (B) An intention to prevent the offence.
• (C) Either an intention to facilitate the commission of the offence or knowledge that it is likely he will thereby facilitate it.
• (D) A deliberate intent to commit the underlying offence himself.

44.Which mental element is required under Section 120 of the IPC for the offence described?

• (A) Either intending to facilitate the commission of an imprisonable offence, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby facilitate it
• (B) Only a general intention to commit any unlawful act
• (C) Knowledge that an offence has already been committed
• (D) Negligence in failing to prevent an offence

45.A person voluntarily conceals a design to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment but neither intends to facilitate the offence nor knows that concealment is likely to facilitate it. Under Section 120, is the person guilty?

• (A) Yes — voluntariness of concealment alone suffices
• (B) Yes — if the concealment is by an act rather than an omission
• (C) No — the provision requires either intention to facilitate or knowledge that concealment is likely to facilitate the commission
• (D) Yes — any concealment of a criminal design is punishable regardless of mental state

46.Under Section 120A IPC, what is the minimum number of persons required to form a criminal conspiracy?

• (A) One person
• (B) Two persons
• (C) Three persons
• (D) Four persons

47.Does an agreement to commit an offence require some act besides the agreement to amount to criminal conspiracy under Section 120A IPC?

• (A) Yes, an overt act is always required
• (B) Only if the offence is minor
• (C) No, an agreement to commit an offence alone suffices
• (D) Only if the agreement is not in writing

48.Under Section 120B, where no express provision is made in the Code, what is the punishment for a person party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for two years or upwards?

• (A) Punished in the same manner as if he had abetted that offence.
• (B) Punished with imprisonment for life.
• (C) Subject to the death penalty.
• (D) Punished with imprisonment not exceeding six months.

49.What is the punishment under Section 120B for a person party to a criminal conspiracy other than one to commit an offence punishable with death, life, or rigorous imprisonment for two years or upwards?

• (A) Punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding one year.
• (B) Punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine, or with both.
• (C) Punished with imprisonment for life.
• (D) Not punishable under the Code.

50.If the substantive offence is punishable with imprisonment for one year, what punishment does Section 120B prescribe for a person party to a conspiracy to commit that offence (assuming no other express provision)?

• (A) Punished in the same manner as if he had abetted the offence (i.e., abetment punishment).
• (B) Punished with imprisonment for life.
• (C) Punished with death.
• (D) Punished with imprisonment (either description) for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine, or with both.