Question Description
Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions.In common parlance, the word ‘abet‘ signifies help, co-activity and support and incorporates within its ambit, illegitimate reason to commit the crime. So as to bring an individual abetting the doing of a thing under any of the conditions specified under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, it isn’t just important to demonstrate that the individual who has abetted has participated in the means of the transactions yet additionally has been associated with those means of the transaction which are criminal. Abetment under the Indian Penal Code is caused by three things. Abetment is constituted by Instigating a person to commit an offence; or Engaging in a conspiracy to commit it; or Intentionally aiding a person to commit it. The offense of abetment by instigation relies on the intention of the individual who abets and not upon the act which is finished by the individual who has abetted. The abetment might be by instigation, connivance or purposeful aid as given under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code However, the words articulated in an angry state or omission without any intention cannot be termed as instigation. For an individual to be called liable for Abetment, and so as to proceed against an individual for a criminal offense under Section 107, prosecution must claim the component of mens rea. Negligence or carelessness can’t be named to be abetment in order to punish the liable, according to the arrangement of penal laws. So as to establish abetment, the abettor must have appeared to “deliberately” support the commission of the wrongdoing. In such a case we need to just prove that the wrongdoing charged couldn’t have been done without the association as well as intervention of the supposed abettor isn’t sufficient with the prerequisites of Section 107. When we talk about a sting operation which is typically carried out in public interest, it must be noted that the same is done by instigating the accused and it is not granted any immunity under the Indian Penal Code.Q.To reveal corruption in a government agency, a journalist runs a sting operation. The journalist purposefully provokes a government official to accept a bribe during the operation. On camera, the officer is seen taking the bribe. The government official is then accused of corruption, and the journalist is accused of aiding and abetting. The journalist contends that the public interest supported their activities. Which of the following answers provide the best legal justification in this case?a)Because the journalist acted in the public interest, they cannot be accused of aiding and abetting.b)The journalist may face charges of aiding and abetting because they unintentionally encouraged the government employee to break the law.c)Because the journalists acts fall under the purview of a sting operation, they cannot be accused of aiding and abetting.d)Because journalism is not exempt from criminal prosecution, the journalist may be charged with abetment if it could be shown that they had malicious intent.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions.In common parlance, the word ‘abet‘ signifies help, co-activity and support and incorporates within its ambit, illegitimate reason to commit the crime. So as to bring an individual abetting the doing of a thing under any of the conditions specified under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, it isn’t just important to demonstrate that the individual who has abetted has participated in the means of the transactions yet additionally has been associated with those means of the transaction which are criminal. Abetment under the Indian Penal Code is caused by three things. Abetment is constituted by Instigating a person to commit an offence; or Engaging in a conspiracy to commit it; or Intentionally aiding a person to commit it. The offense of abetment by instigation relies on the intention of the individual who abets and not upon the act which is finished by the individual who has abetted. The abetment might be by instigation, connivance or purposeful aid as given under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code However, the words articulated in an angry state or omission without any intention cannot be termed as instigation. For an individual to be called liable for Abetment, and so as to proceed against an individual for a criminal offense under Section 107, prosecution must claim the component of mens rea. Negligence or carelessness can’t be named to be abetment in order to punish the liable, according to the arrangement of penal laws. So as to establish abetment, the abettor must have appeared to “deliberately” support the commission of the wrongdoing. In such a case we need to just prove that the wrongdoing charged couldn’t have been done without the association as well as intervention of the supposed abettor isn’t sufficient with the prerequisites of Section 107. When we talk about a sting operation which is typically carried out in public interest, it must be noted that the same is done by instigating the accused and it is not granted any immunity under the Indian Penal Code.Q.To reveal corruption in a government agency, a journalist runs a sting operation. The journalist purposefully provokes a government official to accept a bribe during the operation. On camera, the officer is seen taking the bribe. The government official is then accused of corruption, and the journalist is accused of aiding and abetting. The journalist contends that the public interest supported their activities. Which of the following answers provide the best legal justification in this case?a)Because the journalist acted in the public interest, they cannot be accused of aiding and abetting.b)The journalist may face charges of aiding and abetting because they unintentionally encouraged the government employee to break the law.c)Because the journalists acts fall under the purview of a sting operation, they cannot be accused of aiding and abetting.d)Because journalism is not exempt from criminal prosecution, the journalist may be charged with abetment if it could be shown that they had malicious intent.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions.In common parlance, the word ‘abet‘ signifies help, co-activity and support and incorporates within its ambit, illegitimate reason to commit the crime. So as to bring an individual abetting the doing of a thing under any of the conditions specified under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, it isn’t just important to demonstrate that the individual who has abetted has participated in the means of the transactions yet additionally has been associated with those means of the transaction which are criminal. Abetment under the Indian Penal Code is caused by three things. Abetment is constituted by Instigating a person to commit an offence; or Engaging in a conspiracy to commit it; or Intentionally aiding a person to commit it. The offense of abetment by instigation relies on the intention of the individual who abets and not upon the act which is finished by the individual who has abetted. The abetment might be by instigation, connivance or purposeful aid as given under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code However, the words articulated in an angry state or omission without any intention cannot be termed as instigation. For an individual to be called liable for Abetment, and so as to proceed against an individual for a criminal offense under Section 107, prosecution must claim the component of mens rea. Negligence or carelessness can’t be named to be abetment in order to punish the liable, according to the arrangement of penal laws. So as to establish abetment, the abettor must have appeared to “deliberately” support the commission of the wrongdoing. In such a case we need to just prove that the wrongdoing charged couldn’t have been done without the association as well as intervention of the supposed abettor isn’t sufficient with the prerequisites of Section 107. When we talk about a sting operation which is typically carried out in public interest, it must be noted that the same is done by instigating the accused and it is not granted any immunity under the Indian Penal Code.Q.To reveal corruption in a government agency, a journalist runs a sting operation. The journalist purposefully provokes a government official to accept a bribe during the operation. On camera, the officer is seen taking the bribe. The government official is then accused of corruption, and the journalist is accused of aiding and abetting. The journalist contends that the public interest supported their activities. Which of the following answers provide the best legal justification in this case?a)Because the journalist acted in the public interest, they cannot be accused of aiding and abetting.b)The journalist may face charges of aiding and abetting because they unintentionally encouraged the government employee to break the law.c)Because the journalists acts fall under the purview of a sting operation, they cannot be accused of aiding and abetting.d)Because journalism is not exempt from criminal prosecution, the journalist may be charged with abetment if it could be shown that they had malicious intent.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions.In common parlance, the word ‘abet‘ signifies help, co-activity and support and incorporates within its ambit, illegitimate reason to commit the crime. So as to bring an individual abetting the doing of a thing under any of the conditions specified under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, it isn’t just important to demonstrate that the individual who has abetted has participated in the means of the transactions yet additionally has been associated with those means of the transaction which are criminal. Abetment under the Indian Penal Code is caused by three things. Abetment is constituted by Instigating a person to commit an offence; or Engaging in a conspiracy to commit it; or Intentionally aiding a person to commit it. The offense of abetment by instigation relies on the intention of the individual who abets and not upon the act which is finished by the individual who has abetted. The abetment might be by instigation, connivance or purposeful aid as given under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code However, the words articulated in an angry state or omission without any intention cannot be termed as instigation. For an individual to be called liable for Abetment, and so as to proceed against an individual for a criminal offense under Section 107, prosecution must claim the component of mens rea. Negligence or carelessness can’t be named to be abetment in order to punish the liable, according to the arrangement of penal laws. So as to establish abetment, the abettor must have appeared to “deliberately” support the commission of the wrongdoing. In such a case we need to just prove that the wrongdoing charged couldn’t have been done without the association as well as intervention of the supposed abettor isn’t sufficient with the prerequisites of Section 107. When we talk about a sting operation which is typically carried out in public interest, it must be noted that the same is done by instigating the accused and it is not granted any immunity under the Indian Penal Code.Q.To reveal corruption in a government agency, a journalist runs a sting operation. The journalist purposefully provokes a government official to accept a bribe during the operation. On camera, the officer is seen taking the bribe. The government official is then accused of corruption, and the journalist is accused of aiding and abetting. The journalist contends that the public interest supported their activities. Which of the following answers provide the best legal justification in this case?a)Because the journalist acted in the public interest, they cannot be accused of aiding and abetting.b)The journalist may face charges of aiding and abetting because they unintentionally encouraged the government employee to break the law.c)Because the journalists acts fall under the purview of a sting operation, they cannot be accused of aiding and abetting.d)Because journalism is not exempt from criminal prosecution, the journalist may be charged with abetment if it could be shown that they had malicious intent.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions.In common parlance, the word ‘abet‘ signifies help, co-activity and support and incorporates within its ambit, illegitimate reason to commit the crime. So as to bring an individual abetting the doing of a thing under any of the conditions specified under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, it isn’t just important to demonstrate that the individual who has abetted has participated in the means of the transactions yet additionally has been associated with those means of the transaction which are criminal. Abetment under the Indian Penal Code is caused by three things. Abetment is constituted by Instigating a person to commit an offence; or Engaging in a conspiracy to commit it; or Intentionally aiding a person to commit it. The offense of abetment by instigation relies on the intention of the individual who abets and not upon the act which is finished by the individual who has abetted. The abetment might be by instigation, connivance or purposeful aid as given under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code However, the words articulated in an angry state or omission without any intention cannot be termed as instigation. For an individual to be called liable for Abetment, and so as to proceed against an individual for a criminal offense under Section 107, prosecution must claim the component of mens rea. Negligence or carelessness can’t be named to be abetment in order to punish the liable, according to the arrangement of penal laws. So as to establish abetment, the abettor must have appeared to “deliberately” support the commission of the wrongdoing. In such a case we need to just prove that the wrongdoing charged couldn’t have been done without the association as well as intervention of the supposed abettor isn’t sufficient with the prerequisites of Section 107. When we talk about a sting operation which is typically carried out in public interest, it must be noted that the same is done by instigating the accused and it is not granted any immunity under the Indian Penal Code.Q.To reveal corruption in a government agency, a journalist runs a sting operation. The journalist purposefully provokes a government official to accept a bribe during the operation. On camera, the officer is seen taking the bribe. The government official is then accused of corruption, and the journalist is accused of aiding and abetting. The journalist contends that the public interest supported their activities. Which of the following answers provide the best legal justification in this case?a)Because the journalist acted in the public interest, they cannot be accused of aiding and abetting.b)The journalist may face charges of aiding and abetting because they unintentionally encouraged the government employee to break the law.c)Because the journalists acts fall under the purview of a sting operation, they cannot be accused of aiding and abetting.d)Because journalism is not exempt from criminal prosecution, the journalist may be charged with abetment if it could be shown that they had malicious intent.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions.In common parlance, the word ‘abet‘ signifies help, co-activity and support and incorporates within its ambit, illegitimate reason to commit the crime. So as to bring an individual abetting the doing of a thing under any of the conditions specified under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, it isn’t just important to demonstrate that the individual who has abetted has participated in the means of the transactions yet additionally has been associated with those means of the transaction which are criminal. Abetment under the Indian Penal Code is caused by three things. Abetment is constituted by Instigating a person to commit an offence; or Engaging in a conspiracy to commit it; or Intentionally aiding a person to commit it. The offense of abetment by instigation relies on the intention of the individual who abets and not upon the act which is finished by the individual who has abetted. The abetment might be by instigation, connivance or purposeful aid as given under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code However, the words articulated in an angry state or omission without any intention cannot be termed as instigation. For an individual to be called liable for Abetment, and so as to proceed against an individual for a criminal offense under Section 107, prosecution must claim the component of mens rea. Negligence or carelessness can’t be named to be abetment in order to punish the liable, according to the arrangement of penal laws. So as to establish abetment, the abettor must have appeared to “deliberately” support the commission of the wrongdoing. In such a case we need to just prove that the wrongdoing charged couldn’t have been done without the association as well as intervention of the supposed abettor isn’t sufficient with the prerequisites of Section 107. When we talk about a sting operation which is typically carried out in public interest, it must be noted that the same is done by instigating the accused and it is not granted any immunity under the Indian Penal Code.Q.To reveal corruption in a government agency, a journalist runs a sting operation. The journalist purposefully provokes a government official to accept a bribe during the operation. On camera, the officer is seen taking the bribe. The government official is then accused of corruption, and the journalist is accused of aiding and abetting. The journalist contends that the public interest supported their activities. Which of the following answers provide the best legal justification in this case?a)Because the journalist acted in the public interest, they cannot be accused of aiding and abetting.b)The journalist may face charges of aiding and abetting because they unintentionally encouraged the government employee to break the law.c)Because the journalists acts fall under the purview of a sting operation, they cannot be accused of aiding and abetting.d)Because journalism is not exempt from criminal prosecution, the journalist may be charged with abetment if it could be shown that they had malicious intent.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions.In common parlance, the word ‘abet‘ signifies help, co-activity and support and incorporates within its ambit, illegitimate reason to commit the crime. So as to bring an individual abetting the doing of a thing under any of the conditions specified under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, it isn’t just important to demonstrate that the individual who has abetted has participated in the means of the transactions yet additionally has been associated with those means of the transaction which are criminal. Abetment under the Indian Penal Code is caused by three things. Abetment is constituted by Instigating a person to commit an offence; or Engaging in a conspiracy to commit it; or Intentionally aiding a person to commit it. The offense of abetment by instigation relies on the intention of the individual who abets and not upon the act which is finished by the individual who has abetted. The abetment might be by instigation, connivance or purposeful aid as given under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code However, the words articulated in an angry state or omission without any intention cannot be termed as instigation. For an individual to be called liable for Abetment, and so as to proceed against an individual for a criminal offense under Section 107, prosecution must claim the component of mens rea. Negligence or carelessness can’t be named to be abetment in order to punish the liable, according to the arrangement of penal laws. So as to establish abetment, the abettor must have appeared to “deliberately” support the commission of the wrongdoing. In such a case we need to just prove that the wrongdoing charged couldn’t have been done without the association as well as intervention of the supposed abettor isn’t sufficient with the prerequisites of Section 107. When we talk about a sting operation which is typically carried out in public interest, it must be noted that the same is done by instigating the accused and it is not granted any immunity under the Indian Penal Code.Q.To reveal corruption in a government agency, a journalist runs a sting operation. The journalist purposefully provokes a government official to accept a bribe during the operation. On camera, the officer is seen taking the bribe. The government official is then accused of corruption, and the journalist is accused of aiding and abetting. The journalist contends that the public interest supported their activities. Which of the following answers provide the best legal justification in this case?a)Because the journalist acted in the public interest, they cannot be accused of aiding and abetting.b)The journalist may face charges of aiding and abetting because they unintentionally encouraged the government employee to break the law.c)Because the journalists acts fall under the purview of a sting operation, they cannot be accused of aiding and abetting.d)Because journalism is not exempt from criminal prosecution, the journalist may be charged with abetment if it could be shown that they had malicious intent.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions.In common parlance, the word ‘abet‘ signifies help, co-activity and support and incorporates within its ambit, illegitimate reason to commit the crime. So as to bring an individual abetting the doing of a thing under any of the conditions specified under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, it isn’t just important to demonstrate that the individual who has abetted has participated in the means of the transactions yet additionally has been associated with those means of the transaction which are criminal. Abetment under the Indian Penal Code is caused by three things. Abetment is constituted by Instigating a person to commit an offence; or Engaging in a conspiracy to commit it; or Intentionally aiding a person to commit it. The offense of abetment by instigation relies on the intention of the individual who abets and not upon the act which is finished by the individual who has abetted. The abetment might be by instigation, connivance or purposeful aid as given under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code However, the words articulated in an angry state or omission without any intention cannot be termed as instigation. For an individual to be called liable for Abetment, and so as to proceed against an individual for a criminal offense under Section 107, prosecution must claim the component of mens rea. Negligence or carelessness can’t be named to be abetment in order to punish the liable, according to the arrangement of penal laws. So as to establish abetment, the abettor must have appeared to “deliberately” support the commission of the wrongdoing. In such a case we need to just prove that the wrongdoing charged couldn’t have been done without the association as well as intervention of the supposed abettor isn’t sufficient with the prerequisites of Section 107. When we talk about a sting operation which is typically carried out in public interest, it must be noted that the same is done by instigating the accused and it is not granted any immunity under the Indian Penal Code.Q.To reveal corruption in a government agency, a journalist runs a sting operation. The journalist purposefully provokes a government official to accept a bribe during the operation. On camera, the officer is seen taking the bribe. The government official is then accused of corruption, and the journalist is accused of aiding and abetting. The journalist contends that the public interest supported their activities. Which of the following answers provide the best legal justification in this case?a)Because the journalist acted in the public interest, they cannot be accused of aiding and abetting.b)The journalist may face charges of aiding and abetting because they unintentionally encouraged the government employee to break the law.c)Because the journalists acts fall under the purview of a sting operation, they cannot be accused of aiding and abetting.d)Because journalism is not exempt from criminal prosecution, the journalist may be charged with abetment if it could be shown that they had malicious intent.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions.In common parlance, the word ‘abet‘ signifies help, co-activity and support and incorporates within its ambit, illegitimate reason to commit the crime. So as to bring an individual abetting the doing of a thing under any of the conditions specified under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, it isn’t just important to demonstrate that the individual who has abetted has participated in the means of the transactions yet additionally has been associated with those means of the transaction which are criminal. Abetment under the Indian Penal Code is caused by three things. Abetment is constituted by Instigating a person to commit an offence; or Engaging in a conspiracy to commit it; or Intentionally aiding a person to commit it. The offense of abetment by instigation relies on the intention of the individual who abets and not upon the act which is finished by the individual who has abetted. The abetment might be by instigation, connivance or purposeful aid as given under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code However, the words articulated in an angry state or omission without any intention cannot be termed as instigation. For an individual to be called liable for Abetment, and so as to proceed against an individual for a criminal offense under Section 107, prosecution must claim the component of mens rea. Negligence or carelessness can’t be named to be abetment in order to punish the liable, according to the arrangement of penal laws. So as to establish abetment, the abettor must have appeared to “deliberately” support the commission of the wrongdoing. In such a case we need to just prove that the wrongdoing charged couldn’t have been done without the association as well as intervention of the supposed abettor isn’t sufficient with the prerequisites of Section 107. When we talk about a sting operation which is typically carried out in public interest, it must be noted that the same is done by instigating the accused and it is not granted any immunity under the Indian Penal Code.Q.To reveal corruption in a government agency, a journalist runs a sting operation. The journalist purposefully provokes a government official to accept a bribe during the operation. On camera, the officer is seen taking the bribe. The government official is then accused of corruption, and the journalist is accused of aiding and abetting. The journalist contends that the public interest supported their activities. Which of the following answers provide the best legal justification in this case?a)Because the journalist acted in the public interest, they cannot be accused of aiding and abetting.b)The journalist may face charges of aiding and abetting because they unintentionally encouraged the government employee to break the law.c)Because the journalists acts fall under the purview of a sting operation, they cannot be accused of aiding and abetting.d)Because journalism is not exempt from criminal prosecution, the journalist may be charged with abetment if it could be shown that they had malicious intent.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.