Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
कलम 46
Abettor
A person abets an offence, who abets either the commission of an offence, or the commission of an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence with the same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor. Explanation 1.—The abetment of the illegal omission of an act may amount to an offence although the abettor may not himself be bound to do that act. Explanation 2.—To constitute the offence of abetment it is not necessary that the act abetted should be committed, or that the effect requisite to constitute the offence should be caused. Illustrations.
(a) A instigates B to murder C. B refuses to do so. A is guilty of abetting B to commit murder.
(b) A instigates B to murder D. B in pursuance of the instigation stabs D. D recovers from the wound. A is guilty of instigating B to commit murder. Explanation 3.—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. Illustrations.
(a) A, with a guilty intention, abets a child or a person of unsound mind to commit an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence, and having the same intention as A. Here A, whether the act be committed or not, is guilty of abetting an offence.
(b) A, with the intention of murdering Z, instigates B, a child under seven years of age, to do an act which causes Z’s death. B, in consequence of the abetment, does the act in the absence of A and thereby causes Z’s death. Here, though B was not capable by law of committing an offence, A is liable to be punished in the same manner as if B had been capable by law of committing an offence, and had committed murder, and he is therefore subject to the punishment of death.
(c) A instigates B to set fire to a dwelling-house. B, in consequence of his unsoundness of mind, being incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is wrong or contrary to law, sets fire to the house in consequence of A’s instigation. B has committed no offence, but A is guilty of abetting the offence of setting fire to a dwelling-house, and is liable to the punishment provided for that offence.
(d) A, intending to cause a theft to be committed, instigates B to take property belonging to Z out of Z’s possession. A induces B to believe that the property belongs to A. B takes the property out of Z’s possession, in good faith, believing it to be A’s property. B, acting under this misconception, does not take dishonestly, and therefore does not commit theft. But A is guilty of abetting theft, and is liable to the same punishment as if B had committed theft. Explanation 4.—The abetment of an offence being an offence, the abetment of such an abetment is also an offence. Illustration. A instigates B to instigate C to murder Z. B accordingly instigates C to murder Z, and C commits that offence in consequence of B’s instigation. B is liable to be punished for his offence with the punishment for murder; and, as A instigated B to commit the offence, A is also liable to the same punishment. Explanation 5.—It is not necessary to the commission of the offence of abetment by conspiracy that the abettor should concert the offence with the person who commits it. It is sufficient if he engages in the conspiracy in pursuance of which the offence is committed.
Illustration. A concerts with B a plan for poisoning Z. It is agreed that A shall administer the poison. B then explains the plan to C mentioning that a third person is to administer the poison, but without mentioning A’s name. C agrees to procure the poison, and procures and delivers it to B for the purpose of its being used in the manner explained. A administers the poison; Z dies in consequence. Here, though A and C have not conspired together, yet C has been engaged in the conspiracy in pursuance of which Z has been murdered. C has therefore committed the offence defined in this section and is liable to the punishment for murder.
पडताळणी प्रलंबित
हे का आहे
ही तरतूद Indian Penal Code, 1860 च्या Section 107 मधील चौकटीचा पुढारलेला अवलंब आहे. फौजदारी कायदा मान्य करतो की जे लोक प्रवृत्त करतात, कट रचतात किंवा जाणूनबुजून इतरांना गुन्ह्यास मदत करतात ते प्रत्यक्ष कृत्य करणाऱ्याइतकेच दोषी असतात — कधी कधी अधिक, जेव्हा ते मुलांना किंवा मानसिकदृष्ट्या अस्वस्थ व्यक्तींना साधन म्हणून वापरतात. पाच स्पष्टीकरणे आणि उदाहरणे पळवाटा बंद करतात: साहाय्यासाठी मुख्य गुन्हा यशस्वी होणे आवश्यक नाही, ज्याला प्रवृत्त केले तो कायदेशीररीत्या जबाबदार असणे आवश्यक नाही, आणि थरांचे साहाय्य (साहाय्यास साहाय्य) तसेच जिथे कटकारस्थानी एकमेकांना थेट भेटत नाहीत अशी साखळी कटकारस्थानेही यात मोडतात.
न्यायालये याला कशी वाचतात
माजी Section 107 IPC मधील त्याच भाषेचे अर्थ लावताना भारतीय न्यायालयांनी सातत्याने ठरवले आहे की साहाय्य हा एक स्वतंत्र व पूर्ण गुन्हा आहे, आणि प्रवृत्ती, कटकारस्थान किंवा जाणूनबुजून मदत देण्याच्या क्षणीच तो पूर्ण होतो — लक्ष्यित गुन्हा प्रत्यक्ष घडणे आवश्यक नाही (उदाहरणांप्रमाणे). न्यायालयांनी हेही ठरवले आहे की मुलगा किंवा मानसिकदृष्ट्या अस्वस्थ व्यक्तीला साधन म्हणून वापरल्याने साहाय्यकाची जबाबदारी कमी होत नाही; उलट, साहाय्यकाला जणू त्यानेच गुन्हा केला अशा प्रकारे शिक्षा होते. कटकारस्थानाच्या प्रकरणांत, स्पष्टीकरण 5 (Explanation 5) मधील तर्कावर न्यायालयांनी अवलंब करून, अंतिम कृत्य केलेल्या व्यक्तीशी थेट संपर्क नसतानाही, ज्या कटकारस्थानात कोणीतरी जाणूनबुजून सामील झाले त्यांना दोषी ठरवले आहे.
सामान्य गृहितके
धरण: जर तुम्ही कोणाला गुन्हा करायला सांगितले आणि तो गुन्हा प्रत्यक्ष घडलाच नाही, तर तुम्हांला साहाय्याचा गुन्हा लावता येत नाही.
घटना: स्पष्टीकरण 2 आणि उदाहरणे स्पष्ट करतात की तुम्ही प्रवृत्त केले किंवा कट रचला त्या क्षणी साहाय्याचा गुन्हा पूर्ण होतो — लक्ष्यित गुन्हा घडणे किंवा यशस्वी होणे आवश्यक नाही.
धरण: ज्याला तुम्ही गुन्ह्यास प्रवृत्त केले तो मुलगा किंवा मानसिकदृष्ट्या अस्वस्थ असल्याने शिक्षा पावू शकत नसेल, तर तुम्हालाही शिक्षा होऊ शकत नाही.
घटना: स्पष्टीकरण 3 म्हणते की ज्याला प्रवृत्त केले तो कायदेशीर दृष्ट्या गुन्हा करण्यास समर्थ असण्याची किंवा तशीच दोषी मन:स्थिती बाळगण्याची गरज नाही — साहाय्यक पूर्णपणे जबाबदार ठरतो, कधीकधी पूर्णपणे झालेल्या गुन्ह्याच्या शिक्षेपर्यंतही.
धरण: कटकारस्थानी एकमेकांना ओळखत असणे किंवा थेट संवाद करणे आवश्यक आहे, तेव्हाच कटकारस्थानाद्वारे साहाय्याचा गुन्हा लागतो.
घटना: स्पष्टीकरण 5 स्पष्ट करते की कटकारस्थानात सहभागी होणे — अगदी अप्रत्यक्षरीत्या, मध्यस्थामार्गे, सर्व सदस्यांची माहिती नसतानाही — जबाबदारीस पुरेसे ठरते.