Even if the definition of aided and abetted varies depending on the viewpoint, it always involves two people: one who prepares and plans the crime, and the other who actually does the crime. When it comes to abetment, the aim and other distinct factors are quite important and are under scrutiny. A lot of investigation into abetment, however, rules out the possibility that any involvement on the part of the person planning the crime, other than encouraging the other person to commit the crime, will not be considered abetment and will instead be considered as if the person has committed the crime.

Abetment

In short, abetment is when someone else encourages someone else to commit a crime. This does not, however, address the whole meaning and elements of the offense that the courts use to determine whether an act qualifies as abetment. A few requirements must be met in order for it to be proven to constitute abetment. For their presence to qualify as abetment, the subsequent events must occur:

• Anyone should have been encouraged to commit that particular act (crime) by the abettor.
• If an act or unlawful omission has been committed in the course of pursuing a conspiracy and done in order to carry out the thing, then one or more persons should have been involved in the stated conspiracy.

Even if something hasn't been done yet, someone may have encouraged it in any of the ways listed above. Additionally, the abettor will be held accountable for their actions and penalized if they are present when the act is being carried out. After outlining the key factors and components of abetment, it is clear that these requirements are necessary in order to demonstrate that an act was abetted or that an individual assisted in the commission of a certain act. This chapter was passed on October 6, 1860, and has been followed ever since.

It is based on court precedents that were established following decisions made about abetment. This chapter also discusses various penalties and culpability for aiding and abetting, contingent on specific unique circumstances in each case, which will be covered in more length in subsequent chapters. There have been numerous precedents pertaining to the imposition of punishments for abetment over the years; nevertheless, it remains to be seen to what degree these precedents are feasible and whether they will ultimately serve the interests of justice. These are crucial issues that must be resolved in order to guarantee prompt and equitable justice.

Liability of Abettor

A cautious man would recognize that abetment occurs when someone encourages another person to do something. However, one should also take into account the possibility that the person being encouraged may end up doing the incorrect thing, even though they were encouraged to do something else. Put another way, it may be said that while the act assisted was one, the act carried out by the one abetted was not. If the abettor instigated the person abetted to carry out an action that was thought of, the person abetted would be held accountable for the act that was carried out by the person abetted, even though the act executed was different and resulted in the pursuit of conspiracy.

• Example 1: If A encouraged a child to poison B's drink, but the child ended up poisoning C's drink, whose glass was next to B's, then A would be held accountable for the action to the same extent as if he had committed it against B, disregarding the fact that the action changed while it was being carried out because this was a direct result of A's instructions and encouragement to the child.
   
• Example 2: If A encouraged B and C to rob a house, and if Z resisted them during that time and one of the two killed Z, then A would be accountable for aiding and abetting the murder if the murder occurred as a result of A encouraging B and C to carry out the act.

Punishments:
IPC lays down several punishments for abetment while considering the gravity and circumstance under which and how it was conducted. When an act is committed as a consequence or result of abetment i.e., instigating the person to get done a desired action, and the punishment for such an action is not mentioned in the IPC, then the act would be punished with reference to the offence i.e., the punishment given for that particular offence would be implemented.

• Illustration 1: If A offers bribe to an official person C for a favour from him to act against the grants of another person B and if C accepts it, then A will be liable for abetting that offence under section 161 of IPC.
• Illustration 2: if A instigates B to submit false evidence and as a result of which, if the act is committed, then A will be liable for abetment of that offence and will be punished the same as B.

The Indian Penal Code stipulates multiple penalties for aiding and abetting, taking into account the severity, situation, and manner in which it was carried out. If an act is committed as a result of abetment, which is defined as encouraging someone to carry out a desired action, and the punishment for that kind of action is not specified in the IPC, the act will be punished in accordance with the offense, meaning that the penalty prescribed for that specific offense will be applied. Illustration 1: Section 161 of the IPC holds A accountable for aiding and abetting an offence if A proposes a bribe to an official C in exchange for a favor, such as acting against the wishes of another person B, and C takes it.

IPC Chapter 5 (sections 107–120) discusses abetment, covering everything from its definition to the abettor's responsibilities and penalties. The High Court further interpreted abetment under the IPC in the matter of Kishori Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, furthering the provisions.

Section 108 discusses the concept of abetment, the conditions under which it is considered to be complete, and the additional territoriality granted to this section when the crime of abetment occurs outside of India's borders. Section 111 makes the unintentional consequences of abetment illegal, covering it up to Section 113. If the abettor was present during the execution, Section 114 would make him accountable for the main offense-that is, the result of the abetment-committed by the person they helped

 Even in the event that the act is not carried out, Sections 115 and 116 only discuss the punishment of abetment. The offense of abetment committed generally or by a large group of people is administered under Section 117. The penalty for hiding the plan to conduct a minor offense is included in Section 118. Public employees and others tasked with preventing these crimes are subject to the penalties outlined in sections 119 and 120 for the offenses included in section 118.

Conclusion
It is evident that people's criminal mindsets are developing at a rate equal to that of technology, which has undoubtedly contributed to the surge in abetment. Strongly motivated to achieve their goals and unwilling to accept the punishment the democratic government has in store for them, they devise a plan of action by helping others to carry out their illegal activities. This is an obvious and unmistakable instance of a person indirectly committing a crime by encouraging someone else to do it.

Written By: Akanksha