TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court sets aside abetment conviction due to lack of direct link</h1> <h3>FAGUNA KANTA NATH Versus THE STATE OF ASSAM</h3> The Supreme Court set aside the appellant's conviction for abetment under s. 165A of the Indian Penal Code due to the acquittal of the co-accused Khalilur ... - Issues:1. Conviction under s. 165A of the Indian Penal Code for abetment.2. Interpretation of abetment under Indian law.3. Impact of acquittal of co-accused on the conviction for abetment.Detailed Analysis:1. The appellant was convicted under s. 165A of the Indian Penal Code for abetting an offence under s. 161, along with co-accused Khalilur Rahman. The High Court acquitted Khalilur Rahman but upheld the conviction of the appellant. The case involved the appellant receiving money from the complainant at the instance of Khalilur Rahman, who demanded a bribe. The Special Judge found the appellant guilty of abetment, leading to the appeal by special leave to the Supreme Court.2. Under Indian law, abetment does not require the actual commission of the offence. Section 165A states that abetting an offence under s. 161 or s. 165 can lead to punishment, regardless of whether the offence is committed. Abetment is defined in s. 107, encompassing instigation, conspiracy, and intentional aiding. The appellant's role in receiving and handing over money at Khalilur Rahman's instance was considered abetment under s. 165A by the lower courts.3. The acquittal of Khalilur Rahman raised a critical issue regarding the appellant's conviction for abetment. The High Court held that as Khalilur Rahman was acquitted, the offence under s. 161 was not established, impacting the abetment charge against the appellant. The Supreme Court analyzed precedents where wrong acquittals did not affect convictions in related cases but emphasized the specific circumstances of each case. In this instance, the appellant's actions were tied to Khalilur Rahman's authority, and without Khalilur Rahman's conviction, the abetment charge against the appellant could not be sustained.In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the appellant's conviction for abetment under s. 165A due to the acquittal of Khalilur Rahman. The judgment highlighted the importance of establishing a direct link between the accused's actions and the commission of the offence for abetment charges to stand, especially when co-accused are acquitted.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
