Abetment & Conspiracy MCQ Quiz in தமிழ் - Objective Question with Answer for Abetment & Conspiracy - இலவச PDF ஐப் பதிவிறக்கவும்

The correct Answer is YY is not liable as such situations are covered under explanation 2 to Section 107

Key PointsA careful reading of the third clause of Sec 107 along with explanation 2 reveals that an act, which merely amounts to aiding the commission of an offence, does not amount to abetting an offence unless that act was done with intent to aid the commission of the ‘thing’. Here YY didn’t intent to aid XX in murder of ZZ.

The correct answer is Section 107 IPC

Key PointsSection 107.   Abetment of a thing.
A person abets the doing of a thing, who—
First.—Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly.—Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or
Thirdly.—Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1.—A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.
Illustration:A, a public officer, is authorised by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z, B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, wilfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C.
Explanation 2.—Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act

The correct answer is abetment and conspiracy

Key Points

• Principle of “Proximity of Crime”:
  • Refers to how close an act is to the commission of the actual crime.
  • Generally relevant in distinguishing between attempt and preparation.
  • Used to assess criminal liability in offences that require a completed act, such as attempted crimes.
• Why It’s Irrelevant in Abetment and Conspiracy:
  • In cases of abetment (Section 107 IPC) and criminal conspiracy (Section 120A IPC), liability arises even before the actual offence is committed.
  • The agreement (in conspiracy) or instigation/aid (in abetment) is enough to constitute the offence.
  • Hence, proximity to the actual crime is not a requirement for fixing liability.
• Illustration:
  • If A instigates B to commit murder, A is guilty of abetment even if the murder is not committed.

Additional Information

• Theft and Dacoity: Proximity matters – mere preparation is not enough; act must be committed or attempted.
• Culpable Homicide and Murder: Proximity may affect intent and gravity, especially in attempted murder.
• Kidnapping and Abduction: Act must reach a certain stage; proximity matters to prove the act occurred.

The correct answer is Section 107.

Key Points

• Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 defines "Abetment of a thing." It is the primary provision that lays down what amounts to abetment.
• Abetment can happen in three ways:
  • Instigating a person to commit an offence.
  • Engaging in a conspiracy for an offence.
  • Intentionally aiding someone in committing the offence.
• Instigation means provoking, inciting, or urging a person to do something illegal.
• Conspiracy + an act: There must be an agreement to do an illegal act, and some act must be done in pursuance of the conspiracy.
• Intentional aid: Giving help, support, or facilitating the commission of an offence directly or indirectly.
• Foundation section: This section is the basis for Sections 108 to 120, which elaborate on abetment in specific contexts.

Additional Information

• Section 106 – Deals with right of private defence extending to causing death under certain circumstances; not related to abetment.
• Section 108 – Defines "abetter" (the person who abets) but not the act of abetment itself.
• None of these – Incorrect because Section 107 clearly provides for abetment.

The correct answer is AttemptKey Points

• Abetment under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) includes the following modes:
  • Instigation: Encouraging someone to commit an offence.
  • Aiding: Helping or assisting in the commission of an offence.
  • Conspiracy: Agreeing with others to commit an offence.
• Attempt is not a mode of abetment; it is an independent offence relating to the act of trying to commit a crime but not completing it.

The correct answer is Causing death voluntarily

Key Points

• Facts:
  • “A” sets fire at night to an inhabited house in a large town.
  • The purpose is to facilitate robbery.
  • The act causes the death of “B”.
• Relevant Provisions of IPC:
  • Causing death voluntarily relates to culpable homicide or murder depending on the circumstances.
  • Setting fire to an inhabited house at night causing death is a serious offence under Sections 436 (mischief by fire or explosive substance), 302/304 (murder/culpable homicide), and 436A IPC.
  • The act was done with knowledge and intention that could cause death, so “A” can be held liable for causing death voluntarily.
• Why not other options?
  • Abetment: “A” is the principal offender, not abettor.
  • Mischief: Though setting fire is mischievous, causing death elevates the offence to a more serious charge.
  • An attempt to commit robbery: The robbery is facilitated but the offence is completed by causing death, so not merely an attempt.

Additional Information

• Abetment: “A” is the main offender, not merely abetting someone else.
• Mischief: Causing death elevates the offence beyond simple mischief.
• An attempt to commit robbery: The offence is completed by causing death, so it is not just an attempt.

The correct answer is Option 4

Key Points 🔹 Section 120A – Definition of Criminal Conspiracy
Criminal Conspiracy means:

• When two or more persons agree:
• To do an illegal act, or
• To do a legal act by illegal means

Such an agreement itself is called a "criminal conspiracy."

Section 120A:
Mere Agreement = Conspiracy (when the object is an offence)

• If the object of the conspiracy is to commit an offence, then just the agreement is enough to constitute the offence of conspiracy.
• No need for any overt act (i.e., physical action) to be done.
• If the act is not an offence (e.g., breach of contract) but still illegal by some law (e.g., civil wrong), then:

At least one act in pursuance of the agreement must be done by any one of the conspirators.

🔸 Example:

• A & B agree to kill C → It's an offence → Criminal conspiracy is complete by agreement alone.
• A & B agree to defraud someone in a contract (civil wrong) → It's not an offence → They must take some action to make it punishable.

🔹 Section 120B – Punishment for Criminal Conspiracy
Divided into two categories:

(1) For serious offences (graver conspiracy)
If the conspiracy is to commit an offence:

• Punishable with death
• Imprisonment for life

Or rigorous imprisonment for 2 years or more

🔸 Punishment:

Same as if the person had abetted (instigated/helped in committing) the offence.

(2) For lesser offences (non-serious conspiracy)
If the conspiracy is not to commit such serious offences as above:

🔸 Punishment:

• Imprisonment up to 6 months, or fine, or both.

The correct answer is  Only if the act done was a probable consequence of the abetment.

Key Points

Explanation:

• Section 111 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) addresses the liability of an abettor when an act is committed in consequence of the abetment, but the act done is different from what was intended or planned by the abettor. The section states that if an act is abetted and a different act is done, the abettor is still liable for the act done, provided that the act done is a probable consequence of the act abetted.

Key Points:

• Abetment: The abettor encourages, instigates, or assists someone in committing a crime.
• Different act done: The abettor may have intended for a specific act to be done, but a different act is actually carried out.
• Probable consequence: The abettor can be held liable for the actual act if it was a natural or probable consequence of the act that he abetted. This is based on the principle that the abettor should have foreseen that the act, even if different from what was intended, was likely to occur.

 Other Options :

• Only if the abettor takes part in the commission of the offence:
  • This is incorrect because Section 111 does not require the abettor to be directly involved in the commission of the crime. Even if the abettor is not physically present during the crime, he can still be held liable if the act done is a probable consequence of his abetment.
• Regardless of whether the consequence has any nexus with the act done:
  • This is incorrect because there must be a nexus or connection between the abetted act and the act actually committed. If the act done is completely unrelated to the act that was abetted, the abettor may not be held liable.
• All of the above:
  • This is incorrect because not all of the other options are correct. Specifically, Option 1 and Option 3 are not consistent with the requirements of Section 111.