NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF STUDY AND RESEARCH IN LAW

CRE 2019
SEMESTER VI
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES

JD is a Professor of Law at a National Law University. He is a teacher, who engages in routinely

declaring to the students that they do not put in sufficient efforts in their studies and that none
of them are good enough to pass in his subject. This creates an environment of demotivation
amongst the students and it particularly affects one student, XY.

XY was not able to cope up with the burden of the studies and assignments at the University
but managed to secure passing marks for the next semester. However, she did not fare well
during the mid-semester exams in JD’s subject and confessed to her friends that she would not
be able to pass in this subject and that she is convinced by the words uttered by JD inside the
class apply to her specifically.

Her friends were concerned about her state of mind deteriorating and brought this up before
JD’s notice. However, it was to no avail as JD dismissed the incident citing that over the many
years of his teaching experience, he had encountered many such cases of students unwilling to
work hard and putting the blame on the teacher. He ends up with the statement that such is the
academic culture of NLUs where you either ‘perform or perish’ and that XY is not up to the
“NLU standards”.

A day prior to the commencement of the end semester exams, XY committed suicide and in
her suicide note, she cites the burden of expectations of her parents who are not very affluent
and yet expending a significant amount of over 10 lakh rupees in her studies and the fact that
she is not able to justify their faith in her with her academic performance. She also mentions
depression suffered due to the words spoken by JD in the class, where he questions her “caliber
and standard” regularly and her fear of failing in his subject as the immediate reason for her
act.

A case is filed against JD for abetment of suicide. The matter is listed for hearings.
Relevant Portions of the Penal Code for the purpose of interpretation:

Section 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 authorized 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 facilitate the commission thereof, is said to
aid the doing of that act.

Section 108. Abettor

A person abets an offence, who abets either the commission of an offence, or the commission
of an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable of law of committing
an offence with the same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor.

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

Explanation 2
To constitute the offence of abetment it is not necessary that the act abetted
should be committed, or that the effect requisite to constitute the offence
should be caused.

Illustrations
(a) A instigates B to murder C. B refuses to do so. A is guilty of abetting B to commit murder.
(b) 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.

Explanation 3
It is not necessary that the person abetted should be capable by law of committing an offence,
or that he should have the same guilty intention or knowledge as that of abettor, or any guilty
intention or knowledge.

Illustrations
(a) 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 committed an offence, and having the
same intention as A. Here A, whether the act be committed or not, is guilty of abetting an
offence.
(b) A, with the intention of murdering Z, instigates B, a child under seven years of age, to do
an act which causes Z’s death. B, in consequence of the abetment, does the act in the absence
of A and thereby causes Z’s death. Here, though B was not capable by law of committing an
offence. A is liable to be punished in the same manner as if B had been capable by law of
committing an offence, and had committed murder, and he is therefore subject to the
punishment of death.
(c) A instigates B to set fire to a dwelling-house, B, in consequence of the unsoundness of his
mind, being incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is wrong or
contrary to law, sets fire to the house in consequence of A’s instigation. B has committed no
offence, but A is guilty of abetting the offence of setting fire to a dwelling house, and is liable
to the punishment provided for that offence.
(d) 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.

Explanation 4
The abetment of an offence being an offence, the abetment of such an abetment is also as
offence.

Illustration
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. B is liable to be punished for his
offence with the punishment for murder; and, as A instigated B to commit the offence, A is
also liable to the same punishment.

Explanation 5
It is not necessary to the commission of the offence of abetment by conspiracy that the abettor
should concert the offence with the person who commits it. It is sufficient if he engages in the
conspiracy in pursuance of which the offence is committed.
Illustration
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.

Section 306. Abetment of suicide If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the
commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.