Indian Penal Code, 1860 · Chapter V: Of Abetment
Section 107: Abetment of a thing
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to offences and proceedings from before that date.
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
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 facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 107
-
Mamman Khan v. State of Haryana
Issue arose whether the orders of the trial court, as affirmed by the High Court, directing segregation of the appellant’s trial from that of the co-accused and requiring the filing of a separate charge sheet solely on…
-
Geeta v. The State of Karnataka
Whether the conviction of the appellant u/s.306, IPC is sustainable; was the evidence against the appellant of such nature that the overt acts attributed to her left the deceased-victim with no option except to commit…
-
Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Whether every allegation or accusation levelled, a reprimand or rebuke made, an insinuation or insult voiced or even continuous acts of ill-treatment, harassment and defamation; as alleged in this case, would lead to a…
-
P. Shanthi Pugazhenthi v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police Spe/Cbi/Acb/Chennai
Whether the appellant was rightly convicted for abetment of offence u/s.13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
-
P. Nallammal v. State By The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and
Matter pertains to appeal challenging the conviction and sentence of the appellant u/s.109 IPC r/w ss.13(1)(e) and 13(2) of PC Act; appeal challenging the attachment Order as modified by the High Court; and the appeal…
-
Shenbagavalli and Ors. v. The Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram District and Anr.
Appellants sought for quashing of the chargesheet submitted against them u/s.306 IPC.
-
Patel Babubhai Manohardas & Ors. v. State of Gujarat
The four appellants were convicted by the Trial Court u/ss.306 and 114 of Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years. The High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence. Whether the High Court…
-
Ayyub & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order of High Court declining to quash the proceedings against the appellants u/s.306, Penal Code, 1860.
-
Laxmi Das v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Whether the appellant, can be charged with abetment of suicide of the deceased, under Section 306 of the Penal Code (IPC).
-
Mahendra Awase v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Whether the High Court was justified in declining the prayer of the appellant to discharge him from the offences under Section 306, Penal Code, 1860.
-
Prakash and Others v. The State of Maharashtra and Another
Issue arose whether the courts below were justified in accepting the prosecution case that the act of suicide by the victim was a direct result of the words uttered by the appellants at the mahalokadalat when there was…
-
Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda & Ors. v. State of Gujarat
Matter pertains to correctness of the order passed by the High Court refusing to discharge the appellants-accused from offences punishable u/s.306, 498A and 114 of IPC.
-
Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi v. State of Karnataka Through Sho Kakati Police
Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal of the appellant-accused and convicting him under Sections 417, 306 IPC.
-
Nipun Aneja and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh
The High Court rejected the application filed by the appellants herein seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings under section 306 of IPC.
-
Parveen Kumar v. The State of Himachal Pradesh
Issue arose, if the High Court was justified in convicting and sentencing the husband u/ss. 498A and 306 IPC for subjecting the victim-wife to cruelty and forcing her to commit suicide.
-
Rohini Sudarshan Gangurde v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Whether the alleged conduct of the appellant-accused in the nature of marital disputes attracts s.306 IPC read with s.107 IPC.
-
Prabhat Kumar Mishra @ Prabhat Mishra v. The State of U.P. & Anr.
High Court, if justified in rejecting the application filed by the accused appellant u/s. 482 CrPC seeking quashing of proceeding of the criminal case registered against him u/s. 306 IPC and s. 3(2)(v) of the Schedule…
-
Kumar @ Shiva Kumar v. State of Karnataka
Appellant was convicted for the offence u/s. 306 IPC by the trial Court and the conviction was upheld by the High Court. Whether the prosecution proved the charge of abetment to commit suicide u/s. 306 IPC against the…
-
Vikas Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Respondent No.2 was summoned to face the trial for the offence under Section 306 of the Penal Code, 1860. High Court whether justified in quashing the summons.
-
Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana
Conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable u/s.306, Penal Code, 1860, if justified.
-
M. Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu
Prosecution, if succeeded in establishing that there was mens rea on the part of the appellant to commit the offence rather to push the victim to commit suicide and to attract the offence u/s. 306, IPC.
-
Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of
The two appeals are filed by the appellant-former Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi seeking bail in the prosec utions arising from a case registered by the CBI under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Penal…
-
Kamalakar v. State of Karnataka
Whether the prosecution has proved the charges against the appellant-accused u/ss. 498A and 306 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
- Kashibai & Ors. v. The State of Karnataka
- V. P. Singh Etc v. The State of Punjab & Ors.
- Mariano Anto Bruno & Anr. v. The Inspector of Police
- Manendra Prasad Tiwari v. Amit Kumar Tiwari & Anr.
- The State by S.P. Through the Spe CBI v. Uttamchand Bohra
- Mahendra K C v. The State of Karnataka & Anr.
- Geo Varghese v. The State of Rajasthan & Anr.
- Kanchan Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
- Gumansinh @ Lalo @ Raju Bhikhabhai Chauhan & Anr. v. The State of Gujarat
- Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
- Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu
- Gurcharan Singh v. The State of Punjab
- Somasundaram @ Somu v. The State Rep. by the Deputy Commissioner of Police
- Gurjit Singh v. State of Punjab
- State of West Bengal v. Indrajit Kundu & Ors.
- Samsul Haque v. The State of Assam
- CBI Gujarat v. Dilip Mulani & Anr.
- Ude Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana
- The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Deepak
- Pawan Kumar v. State of H.P.
- State of Kerala and Others v. S. Unnikrishnan Nair and Others
- R. Dineshkumar @ Deena v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police & Others
- Om Prakash v. State of Haryana
- Ak Devaiah v. State of Karnataka
- Satish Chandra & Anr. v. State of M.P.
- Rajat Prasad v. C.B.I
- Mangat Ram v. State of Haryana
- Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander & Anr.
- Rakhal Debnath v. State of West Bengal
- Inderjit Singh Grewal v. State of Punjab & Anr.
- Thanu Ram v. State of M.P.
- C. Muniappan & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu
- S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Another
- Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu v. State of West Bengal
- Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
- Dammu Sreenu v. State of A.P.
- Kishangiri Mangalgiri Goswami v. State of Gujarat
- Rajbabu & Anr. v. State of M.P.
- Sohan Raj Sharma v. State of Haryana
- Kishori Lal v. State of M.P.
- Bhagwan Das v. Kartar Singh and Ors.
- Lalu Prasad@ Lalu Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar Through CBI (Ahd) Patna
- State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mukesh and Ors.
- State (N.C.T. of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu@Afsan Guru
- Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
- Hans Raj v. State of Haryana
- Goura Venkata Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh
- Sanju @ Sanja Y Singh Sengar v. State of M.P.
- Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh
- Saju v. State of Kerala
- P. Nallammal v. State Represented by Inspector of Police
- Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.C. Shukla and Ors.
- Pawan Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana
- Smt. Gian Kaur Etc. Etc. v. The State of Punjab Etc. Etc.
- State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nikku Ram and Ors.
- E.K. Chandrasenan Etc. Etc. v. State of Kerala
- Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab
- Union Carbide Corporation Etc. Etc. v. Union of India Etc. Etc