IPC Section 114 requires abettor to be present: Karnataka HC

The High Court of Karnataka has said that IPC Section 114 requires the abettor to be present when the offence is committed.

The court said this while granting relief to a man charged with abetment under both the Pocso Act as well as IPC.

The petitioner was named as accused number 5 in the case of kidnapping and sexual abuse of a 17-year-old girl.

The prosecution case was that the victim had gone missing from October 25, 2019.

Also Read | Karnataka HC junks PIL against Dharwad, Kalaburagi benches

The police traced the victim on October 27 and the petitioner was also arrested along with the other accused. The police filed the charge sheet against all the accused.

It was contended that the petitioner had got nothing to do with the crime and the allegation was only against the first four accused.

It was submitted that the petitioner was dragged into the crime only on the score of him dropping the victim to her grandmother’s place after the incident, on the instruction of the main accused.

The government pleader stated that there are charges of abetment against the petitioner under Section 17 of the Pocso Act and Section 114 of IPC.

The government further submitted that the victim had not named the petitioner even in her statement recorded before the Magistrate under CrPC section 164.

Justice M Nagaprasanna said while Section 17 of the Pocso Act deals with punishment for abetment, the petitioner neither aided the commission of offence employed, harboured nor transported the child by coercion by aiding the commission of crime. On IPC Section 114, the court said that it requires the abettor to be present when the offence is committed.

“The allegation is against accused numbers 1 to 4 who have allegedly been a part of the commission of offence. The petitioner was not even present during the commission of offence or at the scene of alleged crime. The petitioner comes into the picture after everything is over and only for the purpose of driving the victim back to her grandmother’s house. No other allegation is made against the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner cannot even be thought of
hauling for offences under Section 114 of the IPC,” the court said.