Abetment requires independent proof of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid; acquittal of the principal can defeat conviction.

A conviction for abetment under Section 165A of the Indian Penal Code cannot stand unless the ingredients of abetment under Section 107 are independently proved. The evidence did not establish instigation, and no conspiracy was pleaded or proved. The only possible basis was intentional aiding, but the appellant's conduct was limited to receiving money at the instance of the alleged principal offender for counting and passing it on. Once the principal offender was acquitted, the substantive offence under Section 161 was not treated as having been committed, and there was no intentional aid of a non-existent offence. The conviction was therefore unsustainable and the appellant was entitled to acquittal.

---

---

Issues: Whether a conviction for abetment under Section 165A of the Indian Penal Code could stand when the alleged principal offender had been acquitted and no case of instigation or conspiracy was proved.

Analysis: Section 165A punished abetment of offences under Section 161 or Section 165, but the abetment had still to fall within Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. The evidence did not establish instigation by the appellant, nor was any conspiracy pleaded or proved. The only possible basis was intentional aiding, but on the findings the appellant had merely received money at the instance of the alleged principal offender for counting and passing it on. Once the acquittal of the principal offender stood, the offence under Section 161 was not treated as having been committed, and in those circumstances the alleged act of the appellant did not amount to intentional aid of a non-existent offence.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 165A of the Indian Penal Code could not be sustained, and the appellant was entitled to acquittal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where abetment is charged only by aid, and the alleged principal offender is acquitted so that the substantive offence is not established, a conviction for abetment cannot stand unless instigation or conspiracy is independently proved.

---