Law keeps a check on human behaviour. It categorizes them into criminal and noncriminal behaviours. In usual parlance, a person is held to be liable only if he or she has personally committed a crime. Detouring from the usual concept, the concept of Abetment says, that he who has helped the criminal or provided him with any assistance in any form can also be held to be liable. Section 111 of the Indian Penal Codecontinues the development on abetment laws around the phrase “each man is deemed to intend the corollary outcomes of his act.” If one man actuates another to execute a specific wrongdoing, and that other, in pursuance of such instigation, executes not just that wrongdoing but carries out another wrongdoing in advancement of it, the former is criminally liable as an abettor in regard of such last mentioned wrongdoing, in the event that it is one which, as a person with the intelligence of a reasonable man, at the time of inducement would have known to be committed in order to carry out the original crime. This article seeks to gauge the development in the attitude of the court to towards abetment laws discussing the origin and jurisprudence behind Section 111 of the Indian Penal Code in the first segment followed by critical analysis of the provisions of the said law in the next segment along with research questions and conclusion in the final section
