IPC Chapter 9, Abetment - Mere Presence is Enough, Right?
criminal bar_exam beginner exam_panicMeh, three days to go and I'm still freaking out. I swear, I've revised IPC chapter 9 to death, but this abetment thing is still not sinking in. I know, section 107 says mere presence can be an abetment, but how do I prove that? Can mere presence be seen as a 'direct' encouragement? What if the person wasn't even aware of the main act? Section 108 says it's a question of fact, but what if it's a close call? I've studied the cases - Mahadeo and Kamta Prasad are clear as daylight, but what about the grey areas? I've made notes, highlighted, underlined, everything, but I still feel lost. Can someone out there tell me, what's the magic formula for proving mere presence as abetment?
2 Comments
Nahin, mere presence hi kafi nahi hai. Abetment ke liye, presence ke saath-saath intention bhi hone chahiye. Koi bhi person presence ke karan abetment ka dhanda na kare, aur koi bhi court wahi kaanun banayega. Section 107 IPC ke anusaar, abetment ke liye intention ka presence zaroor hai. Simple presence kuch nahi.
Dude, I think mere presence is indeed enough for abetment under IPC 107. If someone's presence is making the offence easier or more likely, they can be called guilty of abetment. It's not just about actively helping. I mean, imagine if someone's presence makes a riot more likely, they can be held responsible under this section. Any thoughts on this?