Court caseAIR 1967 SC 553

The appellant was charged with instigating another man to set fire to a hut, an offence under s. 436 IPC, and was tried with him. The man who actually set the fire was given the benefit of the doubt by the High Court and acquitted, but the appellant's conviction for abetment under s. 436 read with s. 109 IPC was maintained. The appellant argued before the Supreme Court that once the principal offender was acquitted there could be no conviction for abetting him, relying on Faguna Kanta Nath v. State of Assam (1959).

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. Abetment is a distinct offence. Where the charge is abetment by instigation, the offence of abetment is complete as soon as the instigation is given; it does not depend on the fate of the person instigated. The evidence established that the hut was set on fire and that the appellant had instigated it, so his conviction could stand even though the co-accused was acquitted on the view that his individual participation was not proved beyond doubt. The Court explained that Faguna Kanta Nath turned on its own facts: there the charge was abetment of an offence found not to have been committed at all, and the observations in that case were not a general rule that an abettor must be acquitted whenever the principal is.