Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

IPC : Direct Causation and Abetment

(Querist) 03 September 2008 This query is : Resolved 
As we know that causation is one of constituents of any offence. Means offence must be caused due to act or omission of offender. Offence may be done directly (by causing some act and omission) or indirectly by abetment (by causing some act and omission).

Just read illustration (b)of section 299 of ipc, which is as follows:

(b) A knows Z to be behind a bush. B does not know it A, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely to cause Z's death, induces B to fire at the bush. B fires and kills Z. Here B may be guilty of no offence; but A has committed the offence of culpable homicide.

Just read another illustration (f)appended with exception 2 of section 300 of ipc, which is as follows:

(f) Z strikes B. B is by this provocation excited to violent rage. A, a bystander, intending to take advantage of B's rage, and to cause him to kill Z, puts a knife into B's hand for that purpose. B kills Z with the knife. Here B may have committed only culpable homicide, but A is guilty of murder.

Just read one more illustration appended with exception 5 of section 300 of ipc, which is as follows:

A, by instigation, voluntarily causes, Z, a person under eighteen years of age to commit suicide. Here, on account of Z"s youth, he was incapable of giving consent to his own death; A has therefore abetted murder.

Now my question here if these illustrations are correctly appended with respective provisions then how abetment is different with direct causation. Don't you think the circumstances given under these illustrations of section 299 and 300 of IPC should come under the topic of abetment?

Please help me to get rid of this confusion.
K.C.Suresh (Expert) 04 September 2008
Dear Vikas, What is the doubt. The illustrations are clear enough. So pl clarify the doubt.
VIKAS GARG (Querist) 05 September 2008
The illustration are given under section 299 and 300. don't u think that it must come under the category of abetment.
PALNITKAR V.V. (Expert) 16 February 2009
Dear Vikas, while abetment provisions are of general application, the illustration are restricted to Sec.299 and 300. Use of the word abetment in illustration 5 to Sec. 300 in exception part makes it crystal clear that causation may include abetment as well.


You need to be the querist or approved LAWyersclub expert to take part in this query .


Click here to login now



Similar Resolved Queries :





Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query