Facts of the Case
- A is an adult.
- B is a minor child (below the age of criminal responsibility or below 18 years).
- A encourages, induces, or instigates B to commit theft of valuables.
- B, being a minor, is either incapable of understanding the consequences or legally not fully responsible for his acts.
- The issue is whether A is criminally liable for abetment of theft committed through a minor.
Issues in the Case
- Whether A committed the offence of abetment by instigating a minor to commit theft?
- Whether the minor (B) can be held liable for theft under the IPC?
- Whether A becomes the principal offender even though he did not commit theft himself?
- Whether using a minor to commit theft aggravates criminal liability?
- What punishment can be awarded to A under the IPC?
Legal Principles Covered
A. Section 107 IPC – Abetment
A person abets an act when he:
- Instigates another to commit an offence, or
- Engages in a conspiracy for committing an offence, or
- Intentionally aids the commission of an offence.
Here, A instigated/encouraged B (a minor) to commit theft → abetment.
B. Section 108 IPC – Abettor
A person who abets an offence is an abettor even if:
- The offence is committed by an innocent agent,
- Or the person committing the act is not liable (e.g., child, insane, etc.).
Application to this case
B is a minor, hence:
- B may not be criminally liable (depending on age and mental maturity),
- But A, who used the minor as an “innocent agent,” is fully liable.
C. Section 82 and Section 83 IPC – Criminal Responsibility of Children
- Section 82: Child below 7 years — absolute immunity.
- Section 83: Child between 7–12 years — immunity if lacking maturity.
Thus, B is likely not liable. But A remains fully punishable.
D. Section 378 IPC – Theft
Theft involves:
- Dishonest removal of movable property
- Out of someone’s possession
- Without consent
- With intention to cause wrongful gain or loss.
If B commits theft, and A caused it, then A is liable for the theft.
E. Section 109 IPC – Punishment for Abetment
If an offence is committed as a result of abetment, and the abettor is present or absent, the abettor gets the same punishment as the principal offender.
Thus:
- A is punished as though he himself committed the theft.
Case Law Support
1. Queen v. Tyab Ali (1888)
When an adult uses a child below the age of criminal responsibility to commit an offence, the adult is liable as the principal offender.
2. Sumitra Devi v. State of Bihar (2012)
Instigation of minors to commit an offence results in full liability on the adult.
These support the principle that minors are “innocent agents,” while adults become the actual offenders.
Possible Judgment
A. Liability of B (Minor Child)
- B, being a minor, is not liable or has limited liability under Sections 82 and 83 IPC.
- The law presumes lack of maturity and mens rea.
B. Liability of A
A is fully liable because:
- He instigated the minor to commit theft (Section 107 IPC).
- B acted as an innocent agent, making A the principal offender under Section 108 IPC.
- Therefore, A is guilty of theft read with Section 109 IPC.
Offence Committed by A
- Abetment of theft, punishable as theft itself.
- Punishment:
Under Section 379 IPC → Up to 3 years imprisonment, or fine, or both.
If aggravated circumstances apply (night-time, dwelling house, etc.), higher sections (e.g., 380 or 381 IPC) may apply.
About lawgnan
Understanding abetment becomes crucial when adults misuse minors for criminal activities. Lawgana.in provides detailed legal insights on how encouraging a child to commit theft makes the instigator the real offender under IPC Sections 107 and 109, even though the minor may not be criminally liable. Stay informed about strict legal consequences, punishment guidelines, and relevant case laws that protect children from criminal exploitation. Visit Lawgana.in to access comprehensive notes, case summaries, and legal explanations designed for students, advocates, and competitive law exam aspirants. Enhance your criminal law knowledge with expert-curated content and stay updated with the latest legal interpretations.
