Question Description
Directions:The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.As per Section 107 IPC, a person is said to abet the doing of a thing, who instigates any person to do that thing or engages with one or more other 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 intentionally aids, by an act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.Explanations to this section state that a person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful 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. To constitute the offence of abetment, it is not necessary that the act abetted should be committed, or that the effect requisite to constitute the offence should be caused.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.Abetment is completely a separate and distinct offence from conspiracy. Most of the time, abetment is confused with conspiracy. However, abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or the act of intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. Whereas, in the cases of conspiracy, it would also involve the mental process entering into the doing of an act. The act of abetment could take place by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid. The offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with can only be linked with the proven offence.The term instigate here denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action. In committing abetment, mens rea is a necessary ingredient. When a person provokes another to do an act prohibited by law, he is said to commit the offence of abetment by instigation.A person is said to abet the commission of an offence by conspiracy if he enters into an agreement with one or more persons to do an illegal act.A person is said to abet the commission of an offence if he intentionally provides assistance or gives aid by doing or omitting an act. Mere intention to provide assistance is not sufficient in these cases. To hold a person guilty and liable for abetment, there must be some active conduct on the part of the abettor and the act must be accomplished in furtherance of that.It is not necessary that the person abetted should be capable by law of committing an offence, or that he should have the same guilty intention or knowledge as that of the abettor, or any guilty intention or knowledge. A person abets an offence within the meaning of this Code who, in India, abets the commission of any act without and beyond India which would constitute an offence if committed in India.Q. Sabya instigates Lovish to set fire to a dwelling house. Lovish, in consequence of the unsoundness of his mind, being incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he is doing what is wrong or contrary to law, sets fire to the house in consequence of Sabyas instigation. Sabya takes the defence of Lovishs unsoundness. Decide.a)Sabya will be guilty as this is the case of abetment and Sabya only will be liable for the fire.b)Sabya will be guilty as this is the case of abetment and Sabya along with Lovish will be liable for the fire.c)Lovish will be guilty as he was the only one present while setting the house on fire.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions:The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.As per Section 107 IPC, a person is said to abet the doing of a thing, who instigates any person to do that thing or engages with one or more other 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 intentionally aids, by an act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.Explanations to this section state that a person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful 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. To constitute the offence of abetment, it is not necessary that the act abetted should be committed, or that the effect requisite to constitute the offence should be caused.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.Abetment is completely a separate and distinct offence from conspiracy. Most of the time, abetment is confused with conspiracy. However, abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or the act of intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. Whereas, in the cases of conspiracy, it would also involve the mental process entering into the doing of an act. The act of abetment could take place by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid. The offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with can only be linked with the proven offence.The term instigate here denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action. In committing abetment, mens rea is a necessary ingredient. When a person provokes another to do an act prohibited by law, he is said to commit the offence of abetment by instigation.A person is said to abet the commission of an offence by conspiracy if he enters into an agreement with one or more persons to do an illegal act.A person is said to abet the commission of an offence if he intentionally provides assistance or gives aid by doing or omitting an act. Mere intention to provide assistance is not sufficient in these cases. To hold a person guilty and liable for abetment, there must be some active conduct on the part of the abettor and the act must be accomplished in furtherance of that.It is not necessary that the person abetted should be capable by law of committing an offence, or that he should have the same guilty intention or knowledge as that of the abettor, or any guilty intention or knowledge. A person abets an offence within the meaning of this Code who, in India, abets the commission of any act without and beyond India which would constitute an offence if committed in India.Q. Sabya instigates Lovish to set fire to a dwelling house. Lovish, in consequence of the unsoundness of his mind, being incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he is doing what is wrong or contrary to law, sets fire to the house in consequence of Sabyas instigation. Sabya takes the defence of Lovishs unsoundness. Decide.a)Sabya will be guilty as this is the case of abetment and Sabya only will be liable for the fire.b)Sabya will be guilty as this is the case of abetment and Sabya along with Lovish will be liable for the fire.c)Lovish will be guilty as he was the only one present while setting the house on fire.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions:The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.As per Section 107 IPC, a person is said to abet the doing of a thing, who instigates any person to do that thing or engages with one or more other 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 intentionally aids, by an act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.Explanations to this section state that a person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful 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. To constitute the offence of abetment, it is not necessary that the act abetted should be committed, or that the effect requisite to constitute the offence should be caused.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.Abetment is completely a separate and distinct offence from conspiracy. Most of the time, abetment is confused with conspiracy. However, abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or the act of intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. Whereas, in the cases of conspiracy, it would also involve the mental process entering into the doing of an act. The act of abetment could take place by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid. The offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with can only be linked with the proven offence.The term instigate here denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action. In committing abetment, mens rea is a necessary ingredient. When a person provokes another to do an act prohibited by law, he is said to commit the offence of abetment by instigation.A person is said to abet the commission of an offence by conspiracy if he enters into an agreement with one or more persons to do an illegal act.A person is said to abet the commission of an offence if he intentionally provides assistance or gives aid by doing or omitting an act. Mere intention to provide assistance is not sufficient in these cases. To hold a person guilty and liable for abetment, there must be some active conduct on the part of the abettor and the act must be accomplished in furtherance of that.It is not necessary that the person abetted should be capable by law of committing an offence, or that he should have the same guilty intention or knowledge as that of the abettor, or any guilty intention or knowledge. A person abets an offence within the meaning of this Code who, in India, abets the commission of any act without and beyond India which would constitute an offence if committed in India.Q. Sabya instigates Lovish to set fire to a dwelling house. Lovish, in consequence of the unsoundness of his mind, being incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he is doing what is wrong or contrary to law, sets fire to the house in consequence of Sabyas instigation. Sabya takes the defence of Lovishs unsoundness. Decide.a)Sabya will be guilty as this is the case of abetment and Sabya only will be liable for the fire.b)Sabya will be guilty as this is the case of abetment and Sabya along with Lovish will be liable for the fire.c)Lovish will be guilty as he was the only one present while setting the house on fire.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions:The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.As per Section 107 IPC, a person is said to abet the doing of a thing, who instigates any person to do that thing or engages with one or more other 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 intentionally aids, by an act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.Explanations to this section state that a person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful 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. To constitute the offence of abetment, it is not necessary that the act abetted should be committed, or that the effect requisite to constitute the offence should be caused.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.Abetment is completely a separate and distinct offence from conspiracy. Most of the time, abetment is confused with conspiracy. However, abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or the act of intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. Whereas, in the cases of conspiracy, it would also involve the mental process entering into the doing of an act. The act of abetment could take place by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid. The offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with can only be linked with the proven offence.The term instigate here denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action. In committing abetment, mens rea is a necessary ingredient. When a person provokes another to do an act prohibited by law, he is said to commit the offence of abetment by instigation.A person is said to abet the commission of an offence by conspiracy if he enters into an agreement with one or more persons to do an illegal act.A person is said to abet the commission of an offence if he intentionally provides assistance or gives aid by doing or omitting an act. Mere intention to provide assistance is not sufficient in these cases. To hold a person guilty and liable for abetment, there must be some active conduct on the part of the abettor and the act must be accomplished in furtherance of that.It is not necessary that the person abetted should be capable by law of committing an offence, or that he should have the same guilty intention or knowledge as that of the abettor, or any guilty intention or knowledge. A person abets an offence within the meaning of this Code who, in India, abets the commission of any act without and beyond India which would constitute an offence if committed in India.Q. Sabya instigates Lovish to set fire to a dwelling house. Lovish, in consequence of the unsoundness of his mind, being incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he is doing what is wrong or contrary to law, sets fire to the house in consequence of Sabyas instigation. Sabya takes the defence of Lovishs unsoundness. Decide.a)Sabya will be guilty as this is the case of abetment and Sabya only will be liable for the fire.b)Sabya will be guilty as this is the case of abetment and Sabya along with Lovish will be liable for the fire.c)Lovish will be guilty as he was the only one present while setting the house on fire.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Directions:The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.As per Section 107 IPC, a person is said to abet the doing of a thing, who instigates any person to do that thing or engages with one or more other 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 intentionally aids, by an act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.Explanations to this section state that a person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful 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. To constitute the offence of abetment, it is not necessary that the act abetted should be committed, or that the effect requisite to constitute the offence should be caused.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.Abetment is completely a separate and distinct offence from conspiracy. Most of the time, abetment is confused with conspiracy. However, abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or the act of intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. Whereas, in the cases of conspiracy, it would also involve the mental process entering into the doing of an act. The act of abetment could take place by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid. The offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with can only be linked with the proven offence.The term instigate here denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action. In committing abetment, mens rea is a necessary ingredient. When a person provokes another to do an act prohibited by law, he is said to commit the offence of abetment by instigation.A person is said to abet the commission of an offence by conspiracy if he enters into an agreement with one or more persons to do an illegal act.A person is said to abet the commission of an offence if he intentionally provides assistance or gives aid by doing or omitting an act. Mere intention to provide assistance is not sufficient in these cases. To hold a person guilty and liable for abetment, there must be some active conduct on the part of the abettor and the act must be accomplished in furtherance of that.It is not necessary that the person abetted should be capable by law of committing an offence, or that he should have the same guilty intention or knowledge as that of the abettor, or any guilty intention or knowledge. A person abets an offence within the meaning of this Code who, in India, abets the commission of any act without and beyond India which would constitute an offence if committed in India.Q. Sabya instigates Lovish to set fire to a dwelling house. Lovish, in consequence of the unsoundness of his mind, being incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he is doing what is wrong or contrary to law, sets fire to the house in consequence of Sabyas instigation. Sabya takes the defence of Lovishs unsoundness. Decide.a)Sabya will be guilty as this is the case of abetment and Sabya only will be liable for the fire.b)Sabya will be guilty as this is the case of abetment and Sabya along with Lovish will be liable for the fire.c)Lovish will be guilty as he was the only one present while setting the house on fire.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions:The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.As per Section 107 IPC, a person is said to abet the doing of a thing, who instigates any person to do that thing or engages with one or more other 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 intentionally aids, by an act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.Explanations to this section state that a person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful 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. To constitute the offence of abetment, it is not necessary that the act abetted should be committed, or that the effect requisite to constitute the offence should be caused.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.Abetment is completely a separate and distinct offence from conspiracy. Most of the time, abetment is confused with conspiracy. However, abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or the act of intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. Whereas, in the cases of conspiracy, it would also involve the mental process entering into the doing of an act. The act of abetment could take place by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid. The offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with can only be linked with the proven offence.The term instigate here denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action. In committing abetment, mens rea is a necessary ingredient. When a person provokes another to do an act prohibited by law, he is said to commit the offence of abetment by instigation.A person is said to abet the commission of an offence by conspiracy if he enters into an agreement with one or more persons to do an illegal act.A person is said to abet the commission of an offence if he intentionally provides assistance or gives aid by doing or omitting an act. Mere intention to provide assistance is not sufficient in these cases. To hold a person guilty and liable for abetment, there must be some active conduct on the part of the abettor and the act must be accomplished in furtherance of that.It is not necessary that the person abetted should be capable by law of committing an offence, or that he should have the same guilty intention or knowledge as that of the abettor, or any guilty intention or knowledge. A person abets an offence within the meaning of this Code who, in India, abets the commission of any act without and beyond India which would constitute an offence if committed in India.Q. Sabya instigates Lovish to set fire to a dwelling house. Lovish, in consequence of the unsoundness of his mind, being incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he is doing what is wrong or contrary to law, sets fire to the house in consequence of Sabyas instigation. Sabya takes the defence of Lovishs unsoundness. Decide.a)Sabya will be guilty as this is the case of abetment and Sabya only will be liable for the fire.b)Sabya will be guilty as this is the case of abetment and Sabya along with Lovish will be liable for the fire.c)Lovish will be guilty as he was the only one present while setting the house on fire.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions:The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.As per Section 107 IPC, a person is said to abet the doing of a thing, who instigates any person to do that thing or engages with one or more other 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 intentionally aids, by an act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.Explanations to this section state that a person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful 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. To constitute the offence of abetment, it is not necessary that the act abetted should be committed, or that the effect requisite to constitute the offence should be caused.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.Abetment is completely a separate and distinct offence from conspiracy. Most of the time, abetment is confused with conspiracy. However, abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or the act of intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. Whereas, in the cases of conspiracy, it would also involve the mental process entering into the doing of an act. The act of abetment could take place by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid. The offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with can only be linked with the proven offence.The term instigate here denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action. In committing abetment, mens rea is a necessary ingredient. When a person provokes another to do an act prohibited by law, he is said to commit the offence of abetment by instigation.A person is said to abet the commission of an offence by conspiracy if he enters into an agreement with one or more persons to do an illegal act.A person is said to abet the commission of an offence if he intentionally provides assistance or gives aid by doing or omitting an act. Mere intention to provide assistance is not sufficient in these cases. To hold a person guilty and liable for abetment, there must be some active conduct on the part of the abettor and the act must be accomplished in furtherance of that.It is not necessary that the person abetted should be capable by law of committing an offence, or that he should have the same guilty intention or knowledge as that of the abettor, or any guilty intention or knowledge. A person abets an offence within the meaning of this Code who, in India, abets the commission of any act without and beyond India which would constitute an offence if committed in India.Q. Sabya instigates Lovish to set fire to a dwelling house. Lovish, in consequence of the unsoundness of his mind, being incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he is doing what is wrong or contrary to law, sets fire to the house in consequence of Sabyas instigation. Sabya takes the defence of Lovishs unsoundness. Decide.a)Sabya will be guilty as this is the case of abetment and Sabya only will be liable for the fire.b)Sabya will be guilty as this is the case of abetment and Sabya along with Lovish will be liable for the fire.c)Lovish will be guilty as he was the only one present while setting the house on fire.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions:The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.As per Section 107 IPC, a person is said to abet the doing of a thing, who instigates any person to do that thing or engages with one or more other 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 intentionally aids, by an act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.Explanations to this section state that a person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful 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. To constitute the offence of abetment, it is not necessary that the act abetted should be committed, or that the effect requisite to constitute the offence should be caused.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.Abetment is completely a separate and distinct offence from conspiracy. Most of the time, abetment is confused with conspiracy. However, abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or the act of intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. Whereas, in the cases of conspiracy, it would also involve the mental process entering into the doing of an act. The act of abetment could take place by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid. The offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with can only be linked with the proven offence.The term instigate here denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action. In committing abetment, mens rea is a necessary ingredient. When a person provokes another to do an act prohibited by law, he is said to commit the offence of abetment by instigation.A person is said to abet the commission of an offence by conspiracy if he enters into an agreement with one or more persons to do an illegal act.A person is said to abet the commission of an offence if he intentionally provides assistance or gives aid by doing or omitting an act. Mere intention to provide assistance is not sufficient in these cases. To hold a person guilty and liable for abetment, there must be some active conduct on the part of the abettor and the act must be accomplished in furtherance of that.It is not necessary that the person abetted should be capable by law of committing an offence, or that he should have the same guilty intention or knowledge as that of the abettor, or any guilty intention or knowledge. A person abets an offence within the meaning of this Code who, in India, abets the commission of any act without and beyond India which would constitute an offence if committed in India.Q. Sabya instigates Lovish to set fire to a dwelling house. Lovish, in consequence of the unsoundness of his mind, being incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he is doing what is wrong or contrary to law, sets fire to the house in consequence of Sabyas instigation. Sabya takes the defence of Lovishs unsoundness. Decide.a)Sabya will be guilty as this is the case of abetment and Sabya only will be liable for the fire.b)Sabya will be guilty as this is the case of abetment and Sabya along with Lovish will be liable for the fire.c)Lovish will be guilty as he was the only one present while setting the house on fire.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions:The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.As per Section 107 IPC, a person is said to abet the doing of a thing, who instigates any person to do that thing or engages with one or more other 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 intentionally aids, by an act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.Explanations to this section state that a person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful 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. To constitute the offence of abetment, it is not necessary that the act abetted should be committed, or that the effect requisite to constitute the offence should be caused.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.Abetment is completely a separate and distinct offence from conspiracy. Most of the time, abetment is confused with conspiracy. However, abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or the act of intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. Whereas, in the cases of conspiracy, it would also involve the mental process entering into the doing of an act. The act of abetment could take place by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid. The offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with can only be linked with the proven offence.The term instigate here denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action. In committing abetment, mens rea is a necessary ingredient. When a person provokes another to do an act prohibited by law, he is said to commit the offence of abetment by instigation.A person is said to abet the commission of an offence by conspiracy if he enters into an agreement with one or more persons to do an illegal act.A person is said to abet the commission of an offence if he intentionally provides assistance or gives aid by doing or omitting an act. Mere intention to provide assistance is not sufficient in these cases. To hold a person guilty and liable for abetment, there must be some active conduct on the part of the abettor and the act must be accomplished in furtherance of that.It is not necessary that the person abetted should be capable by law of committing an offence, or that he should have the same guilty intention or knowledge as that of the abettor, or any guilty intention or knowledge. A person abets an offence within the meaning of this Code who, in India, abets the commission of any act without and beyond India which would constitute an offence if committed in India.Q. Sabya instigates Lovish to set fire to a dwelling house. Lovish, in consequence of the unsoundness of his mind, being incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he is doing what is wrong or contrary to law, sets fire to the house in consequence of Sabyas instigation. Sabya takes the defence of Lovishs unsoundness. Decide.a)Sabya will be guilty as this is the case of abetment and Sabya only will be liable for the fire.b)Sabya will be guilty as this is the case of abetment and Sabya along with Lovish will be liable for the fire.c)Lovish will be guilty as he was the only one present while setting the house on fire.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.