Law of Crimes – Liability for act of others

by

The Indian Penal Code or IPC contains several provisions imposing criminal liability for wrongful acts committed by others. They are based on the principal that although one person may seem to perform the wrongful act, but in reality he does it at behest of other or others. In such circumstances, that other must not be absolved of his liability merely because he did not pull the trigger himself. Instances of such liability may be categorised as follows –

  • Common Intention

  • Common Object of Unlawful Assembly

  • Abetment

  • Criminal Conspiracy

1. Common Intention

IPC provides that when an act done by several persons in furtherance of common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it is done by him alone. The requirements for application of this principal are as follows –

  1. A criminal act

  2. Act is done by several persons

  3. Active participation of all the persons

  4. In furtherance of common intention of all

  5. Prior meeting of minds.

When the criminal act complained against isdone by one of the accused persons in the furtherance of the common intention of all, then liability for the crime may be imposed on any one of the persons in the same manner as if the act were done by him alone.

The rule is particularly important in cases where the acts of individual perpetrators cannot be distinguished from one another or that each played a part which was incomplete in itself. For example, where two persons tie a rope around the neck of another and each pulls one end of the rope. Both can say that neither was alone capable of causing death of the victim. But theprincipal of common intention will deny them such an absurd defence plea.

Also, one must not confuse common intention with similar or same intention. Two persons may have same intention without having knowledge of the intention of the other. They may also know each other’s intention but may act independently of oneother. In such cases, they have similar intention but notcommon intention. In such cases, each is liable for his act alone and not of the other.

The most important aspect of common intention is prior meeting of minds. This prior meeting need not be a prior physical meeting. It may even develop in spur of a moment, but it must be shared or conveyed among one another.

2. Common Object of Unlawful Assembly

IPCprovides that if an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, every person who at the time of committing of that offence is the member of the same assembly is guilty of that offence. The requirements for application of this principal are as follows –

  1. An unlawful assembly

  2. Criminal act is committed by any member or members of such assembly

  3. Act done is for prosecution of the common object of the assembly or it was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object

  4. Members must have voluntarily joined the unlawful assembly

  5. Member had knowledge of the common object of the assembly

  6. Mere presence of the member is sufficient to be held liable, there need not be any active participation on his part.

An unlawful assembly is an assembly of five or more persons whose common object is to

  1. Overawe by criminal force or assault any government or public servant in the exercise of the lawful power

  2. Resist the execution of any law or legal process

  3. Commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence

  4. Take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of a right or to enforce any right or supposed right by means of criminal force or assault

  5. Compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do by means of criminal force or assault.

The rule of common object requires merely that the offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of its common object. Once the offence is committed, all members having voluntarily joined the assembly and having knowledge of the common object are liable. There may not be any active role. Merely becoming the member is sufficient actus reus in such cases. Again, the person may not have intended the act or may even be against it, but if he had knowledge or the offence was likely, the same is sufficient mens rea on his part.

3. Abetment

Abetment literally means to urge, induceor encourage. IPC does not define abetment, but merely prescribes modes in which one person may abet another to commit any offence. They are as follows –

  • Abetment by Instigation

  • Abetment by Conspiracy

  • Intentional Aiding

Instigation means to incite orprovoke. Abetment by Instigation means when one person instigates other to commit any offence. Instigation may take any form. It may even be persuasion or mere approval. There can be instigation even by lying aimed to achieve desired result.

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.

Abetment by Conspiracy means to engage one or more persons to commit an offence. It is necessary some act or illegal omission must take place as a result of such conspiracy. Mere agreement is not sufficient to be held liable.

Intentionally aiding means directly assisting the commission of the offence, or facilitating the commission of the offence or omit what one is bound to do.

There are certain important rules pertaining to abetment. They help us to understand its scope better. They are –

  1. The abetment of illegal omission is an offence, although the abettor may not himself be bound to do that act.

  2. Abetted act need not be committed.

  3. Person Abetted need not be capable of committing an offence.

  4. The abetment of abetment of an offence is also an offence.

  5. Abettor need not Concert in the Abetment by Conspiracy

Illustrations

  1. A instigates B to murder C. B refuses to do so. A is guilty of abetting B to commit murder.

  2. 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.

  3. A, with a guilty intention, abets a child or a lunatic 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, whether the act be committed or not, A is guilty of abetting the offence.

  4. 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.

  5. 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. A is also liable.

  6. 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.


4. Criminal Conspiracy

When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done an illegal act, or an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy. An agreement to commit an offence is itself Conspiracy. But in other cases, some act besides the agreement must be done by one or more parties in pursuance thereof.

The meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing an illegal act or an act by illegal means is a sine qua nonof the criminal conspiracy. It is not necessary that everyconspirator should take active part in commission of each and every part of conspiracy. They may have specific roles assigned to them, but they are constructively liable for the sum total of acts of all committed in pursuance of the conspiracy.


...

Leave a Comment