Conspiracy And Aiding And Abetting Offenses
πΉ I. Criminal Conspiracy β Meaning and Legal Concept
Definition
A criminal conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act or to achieve a lawful act by illegal means.
Key points:
Agreement is the essence β the act itself may not be completed.
Number of persons: Minimum 2.
Illegal object: Must intend to commit a crime or use unlawful means.
Legal Provisions (India)
IPC Section 120A: Defines criminal conspiracy.
IPC Section 120B: Punishment for criminal conspiracy.
Important: Conspiracy can be punished even if the intended act is not carried out, unlike attempt which requires action.
Key Element
Mens Rea: Intention to commit the illegal act.
Actus Reus: Agreement to commit the illegal act (action is not essential).
βοΈ Case 1: R. v. Saik (2006) UKHL 18
Facts:
Several accused were charged with conspiring to import illegal drugs into the UK. The plan was discussed but never executed.
Issue:
Whether the agreement alone, without action, constitutes conspiracy.
Held:
The House of Lords held that conspiracy is complete upon agreement with the intention to commit the crime. No act of execution is required.
Principle:
Criminal conspiracy is an inchoate offence. The mere agreement to commit an illegal act suffices for liability.
βοΈ Case 2: K.K. Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1970 SC 1150)
Facts:
Accused conspired to commit a robbery. Some conspirators took preparatory steps, but the robbery did not occur.
Issue:
Can conspirators be punished for an unexecuted plan?
Held:
Supreme Court held that agreement with criminal intent is sufficient. Those who agreed, even if they did not participate in execution, are liable under Section 120B IPC.
Principle:
Liability for conspiracy arises from intention and agreement, not necessarily participation in the crimeβs execution.
πΉ II. Aiding and Abetting β Meaning and Legal Concept
Definition
Aiding and abetting refers to helping, facilitating, or encouraging another person to commit a crime.
Key points:
Aiding: Providing help or resources for the commission of a crime.
Abetting: Instigating, encouraging, or supporting the crime.
Mens Rea: Knowledge or intention to facilitate the crime is required.
Legal Provisions (India)
Section 107 IPC: Defines abetment.
Sections 108β120 IPC: Various modes of abetment.
Joint liability: Those aiding or abetting are treated as principal offenders.
βοΈ Case 3: Queen v. Dudley and Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273
Facts:
Although not strictly aiding/abetting, this case clarified liability for participation in an unlawful act (killing for survival). Two sailors encouraged and participated in killing another sailor.
Held:
Court held that all participants abetting and aiding a crime are equally liable as the principal offender.
Principle:
Anyone who instigates, aids, or participates in an unlawful act is criminally responsible as a principal under the law.
βοΈ Case 4: State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub (1980)
Facts:
Accused were charged with aiding a terrorist in carrying explosives to target a public place.
Issue:
Whether providing logistical support constitutes aiding and abetting terrorism.
Held:
Supreme Court held that any act that facilitates or encourages the commission of a crime constitutes abetment under IPC. Mere presence or knowledge without action is insufficient; active facilitation is required.
Principle:
Active assistance or encouragement is key to establishing abetment.
βοΈ Case 5: Ahsan Khan v. State (AIR 1995 SC 2560)
Facts:
Accused provided instructions and materials to another for committing theft.
Issue:
Whether providing guidance/material amounts to abetment.
Held:
Supreme Court held that abetment includes aiding, instigating, or facilitating a crime. The facilitator can be punished even if they do not physically commit the offence.
Principle:
Abetment extends liability to those who enable, encourage, or instigate criminal acts.
βοΈ Case 6: R. v. Jogee (2016) UKSC 8
Facts:
Accused was present at a murder but did not physically kill. He encouraged the killer verbally.
Held:
UK Supreme Court clarified that mere presence is not enough; there must be intentional encouragement or assistance for abetment liability.
Principle:
Mens Rea is crucial. Knowledge plus encouragement/assistance establishes aiding or abetting.
πΉ III. Key Distinctions Between Conspiracy and Aiding/Abetting
| Aspect | Criminal Conspiracy | Aiding & Abetting |
|---|---|---|
| Definition | Agreement to commit a crime | Helping, encouraging, instigating another to commit a crime |
| Act Requirement | No act required; agreement sufficient | Some facilitation or instigation required |
| Number of Persons | Minimum 2 | Can be single person aiding another |
| Mens Rea | Intention to commit crime | Knowledge + intention to facilitate crime |
| Example IPC Sections | 120A, 120B | 107, 108 |
πΉ IV. Summary
Conspiracy is about planning together to commit a crime. Punishable even if the plan is not executed.
Aiding and abetting is about assisting, instigating, or facilitating another person in committing a crime. Active participation or encouragement is necessary.
Courts consistently uphold the principle that intent and facilitation, not just presence, create criminal liability.
Key Case Takeaways:
R. v. Saik: Agreement alone is enough for conspiracy.
K.K. Verma v. U.P.: Conspirators liable even if the act not done.
Jogee: Abetment requires intentional encouragement.
Ahsan Khan: Material support constitutes abetment.
State of Maharashtra v. Yakub: Logistical assistance = aiding a crime.
RELATED Blog
0 comments