9911796707
TMI Blog1966 (9) TMI 168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and convicted the other four of the offence under s. 323 I.P.C. He also convicted Jodha Singh of the offence under s. 436 I.P.C. 3. These four convicted persons appealed to the High Court. The High Court acquitted two of the appellants before it. It acquitted Jodha Singh of the offence under s. 436 I.P.C but maintained his conviction under s. 323 I.P.C. Jamuna Singh's appeal was dismissed. He has come up on appeal to this court. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant did not question the conviction of the appellant under s. 323 I.P.C. He has contended that the conviction of the appellant for the offence under s. 436 read with s. 109 I.P.C. is bad in law, when Jodha Singh, who is said to have set fire to the hut of Baishaki at the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted, 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. 109. Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence. Explanation - an Act or offence is said to be committed in consequence of abetment, when it is committed in consequence of the instigation, or in pursuance of the conspiracy or with the aid which constitutes the abetment. 115. Whoever abets the commission of an offence punishable with death or imprisonme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r has instigated another or engaged with another in a conspiracy to commit the offence. It is not necessary for the offence of abetment that the act abetted must be committed. This is clear from Explanation 2 and illustration (a) thereto, to s. 108 I.P.C. 7. In Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. The King Emperor I.L.R. 52 I.A 40 it was said Abetment does not in itself involve the actual commission of the crime abetted. It is a crime apart. 8. This Court reiterated it and said in Faguna Kanta Nath v. The State of Assam [1959] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 1: Under the Indian law for an offence of abetment it is not necessary that the offence should have been committed. A man may be guilty as an abettor whether the offence is committed or not. 9. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ersons instigating another or engaging in conspiracy with another on the one hand and that of a person aiding the person in committing a certain offence. The observations are: It is not the prosecution case that the appellant abetted the offence by instigating Khalilur Rahman to demand the illegal gratification; nor has the prosecution set up or proved a case of conspiracy between the appellant and Khalilur Rahman for the commission of an offence under s. 161. On the findings of the Court the appellant received the money for and on behalf of Khalilur Rahman and the evidence of the complainant is that Khalilur Rahman had asked him to hand over the money to the appellant. If Khalilur Rahman is acquitted and therefore the offence under s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt. As we read the findings of the learned Judge, it seems clear to us that he found that the person who set fire to the hut of Mst. Rasmani did so in consequence of the abetment, namely, the instigation of the appellant. 12. In the present case, there is no finding of the Court below and it cannot be said that the fire was set by any person who was participating in the incident along with Jamuna Singh and at his instigation. Three alleged co-accused have been acquitted and therefore cannot be said to have taken part in the incident. Jodha Singh and Jamuna Singh took part in the incident according to the findings of the Court below and Jodha Singh did not set fire to the hut. It follows that it cannot be held that Baishaki's hut w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
