Question:

Principles: - A person is said to abet the doing of a thing when he instigates any other person to do that thing. - Mere acquiescence, however, does not amount to instigation.
Facts: 'A' says to 'B': I am going to kill 'C'. And, 'B' replies: "Do as you wish and take the consequences"; thereafter 'A' kills 'C'.

Show Hint

Instigation or encouragement to commit a crime is sufficient for abetment, even if the person does not physically participate in the crime.
Updated On: Aug 18, 2025
  • 'B' has not abetted 'A' to kill 'C'.
  • 'B' has abetted 'A' by conspiracy.
  • 'B' abetted 'A' to kill 'C'.
  • 'B' is jointly liable with 'A' for killing 'C'.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is C

Solution and Explanation

In this case, 'B' clearly instigated 'A' by encouraging him to take the action of killing 'C', even though he didn’t directly participate in the act. The principle states that mere acquiescence is not enough, but the active encouragement or instigation of the act constitutes abetment. Therefore, 'B' is guilty of abetting 'A' to kill 'C'.


Option (A) 'B' has not abetted 'A' to kill 'C': This is incorrect. 'B' did encourage 'A' to carry out the act of killing 'C'.

Option (B) 'B' has abetted 'A' by conspiracy: While there was instigation, there is no conspiracy mentioned here, as conspiracy requires more than one person agreeing to commit a crime.

Option (D) 'B' is jointly liable with 'A' for killing 'C': While 'B' abetted the act, he is not jointly liable for the killing. He is liable for abetment, not murder itself.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0

Questions Asked in CLAT exam

View More Questions