INTRODUCTION:

In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons

to commit a crime at some time in the future. [1]Criminal law in some
countries or for some conspiracies may require that at least one overt
act must also have been undertaken in furtherance of that agreement, to
constitute an offense. There is no limit on the number participating in the
conspiracy and, in most countries, no requirement that any steps have been
taken to put the plan into effect (compare attempts which require proximity
to the full offence). For the purposes of concurrence, the actus reus is a
continuing one and parties may join the plot later and incur joint liability and
conspiracy can be charged where the co-conspirators have been acquitted or
cannot be traced. Finally, repentance by one or more parties does not affect
liability unless, in some cases, it occurs before the parties have committed
overt acts but may reduce their sentence.
Abetment of a thing
A person abets the doing of a thing, who;(i)
Instigates any individual to do that thing; or
(ii)
Engages with one or more other person or persons in any
conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if a act or illicit oversight
happens in pursuance of that conspiracy and in order to the doing of
that thing; or
(iii)
Intentionally aids, by any act or unlawful exclusion, the
doing of that thing. Section 107
Explanation
(i)
A person who, by willful distortion, or by willful
concealment of a material fact he is bound to disclose, voluntarily
causes or procures, attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done,
is said to instigate the doing of that thing.
(ii)
whoever, either before 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
Abetment can be committed only when there is positive evidence of
either instigation or conspiracy or intentional aid. If none of these
three elements stated above is available then abetment does not
stand proved. Therefore, mere presence at the scene of offence would

not be sufficient to make out a case of abetment. NLR 1991 Cr.

163(DB)
Instigation
Instigation shows some sort of advice for the commission of an act,
which if done, would be an offence. It necessarily indicates some
active suggestion or support or stimulation to the commission of the
act itself which constitutes an offence. Advice can become
instigation only if it is found that it was meant actively to suggest or
stimulate the commission of an offence. Advice per se, or temptation
to do a forbidden thing does not amount to instigation.
Intentionally aids by act
If a person joins another in the commission of a crime by which he is
to benefit and which it would not be possible to commit anyway for his
support, he is liable of the commission of the crime. In order that
there may be abetment by intentional aid, the commission of the
crime must have been facilitated by either an act on the part of the
abettor or by his illegal omission. The act may be one which directly
assists the commission of the crime or one which merely affords
facilities for its commission. In either case the person who does such
an act is an abettor.
Illegal omission
For proving abetment by illegal omission under section 107 the
accused must be shown to have intentionally aided the commission of
the offence by his non-interference. The prosecution must be able to
establish that such illegal omission was likely to have lent support to
or to have encouraged the principal offender to commit the offence in
question.
Accessory after the fact
Abetment by aiding or instigating necessarily means some active
suggestion or support or stimulation to the commission of the offence
itself. If the offence had already been completed before anything was
done by the alleged abettor, any subsequent action of his which might,
in any way help the main offender, will not abetment within S.107,
being an accessory after the fact which is no offence under Pakistan
Law.
Charge of Abetment

It is open to the prosecution to bring a charge of abetment generally.

The charge will amount to notice to the accused that they have to
meet a case of abetment in one or more of the different ways
indicated in S.107, Penal Code. But a specific charge must be framed
for abetment of an offence under S.114, P.P.C. A general charge of
instigating various persons to commit dacoities is bad. Separate acts
of abetment must be distinctly specified.
Abettor
A person abets an offence, who abets either the commission of an
offence, or the commission of an act which would be an offense, if
submitted by an personable by law of committing an offence with the
same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor. Section 108.
Explanation
(i)
The abetment of the illegal omission of an act may
amount to an offence although the abettor may not himself be bound
to do that act.
(ii)
To constitute the offence of abetment it is not necessary
that act abetted should becommittee, or that the effect requisite to
constitute the offence should be caused.
Abetment is substantive offence
The offence of abetment is a substantive offence. Therefore the fact
that the principal cannot be brought to trial does not prevent a charge
of abetment against the abettor. Even the acquittal of the principal is
no bar to conviction of the abettor.
Abettor and principal may be convicted for separate offences
The fact that his abettors have been found guilty of an offence of
manslaughter only does not prevent the principal offender from being
found guilty of murder, when there is ample evidence to support the
finding. But persons punished as principals cannot also be punished for
abetment of the same offence.
Abetment by act not necessary for commission of offence
An offence of an abetting the making of a false document can be
committed by attesting the document, even if the document does not
require attestation to complete it, if the person who brings this
document into existence intended that it should be attested and that
the accused should be one of the attesters.

Actual knowledge or intention necessary

In order to constitute an abetment, intention is essential. Persons
having no knowledge of the fraud could not have intended to aid the
commission of an offence under section 406, P.P.C. Where the aiding
accused came a little later and were not supposed to be aware of
concealment of knife by the principal accused in his dab from where
he took it out, they could not be blamed for sharing a common
intention and to have acted in concert pursuant to pre-planned
scheme with the principal accused in doing away with the deceased.
Accessory after the act
There can be no abetment of an offence after it is committed,
therefore a person cannot be convicted of abetting an offence of
instituting a false charge solely on the ground that the
gave evidence in support of such charge.

PUNISHMENT UNDER PAKISTAN PENAL CODE

Punishment under Pakistan penal code
The scheme of the punishment is laid down from sections 53 to 75 of the Pakistan penal code
out of which five sections namely sections 56, 58, 59, 61, and 62 have already been repealed.
Different types of punishments rules for their assessment and enhancement in subsequent of
fence, from the subject matter of this topic.
Punishment in Islam
The punishment in Islam in its nature is deterrent as well as reformative. Recent researches
reveal that imprisonment is and has, infected proved itself to be a source of producing criminals,
besides bringing a burden on public ex-chequer.
Fine, as prescribed in various modern legislative enactments, has miserably failed to achieve
the desired results. It neither bring any reformatory to the criminal nor put any deterrent effect
on him. Especially in these days when the money value has gone down tremendously, the
countrys old scales of fines failed to produce any effects on the minds of the criminal. It is
suggested that provisions relating to imposition of fine and prescribing imprisonment in various
enactments may be reconsidered in the light of their effects on reforming the criminal vis-a-vis
the Islamic principles of punishment.
Islamic law has also additional forms of punishments. A person who is convicted of false
accusation of fornication for example, is deprived of the right of testimony, a penalty which

corresponds to some extent to the loss of civil status which accompanies some convictions,
today.

Punishments in Islam are of three kinds

01. HADD
02. QISAS
03. TAAZIR
According to section 53 as amended by the criminal laws amendment act II of 1997, the
offenders are liable to the following punishments:
1. Qisas
2. Diyat
3. Arsh
4. Daman
5. Taazir
6. Death
7. Imprisonment for life
8. Imprisonment of two description (1) rigorous (2) simple
9. Forfeiture of property
10. Fine
Criminal conspiracy
Conspiracy differs from other offences in this respect that in other offences the intention
to do a criminal act is not a crime of itself until something is done amounting to the
doing or attempting to do some act to carry out the intention, conspiracy on the other
hand consist simply in the agreement or confederacy to some act, no matter whether it
is done or not.
When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done:
(i) An illegal act
(ii) or a legal act by illegal means
such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy, provided that no agreement
except an agreement to commit shall amount to criminal conspiracy unless some act
besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance
thereof section 120-A PPC.
Punishment or criminal conspiracy
As regards punishment section 120-B P.P.C provides that one who is a party to a
criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life,
or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where there is no
provision for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished as an abettor of such
offence, in other cases he shall be liable to a punishment that may extend to six months
, or with fine or with both.
Abetment and conspiracy
As regards the difference between abetment and conspiracy the former is the wider of
the two, it is a genus of which the offence of conspiracy is a species. Abetment may be
committed in various ways enumerated in section 107 and 108 and conspiracy is one of
them. Abatement per se is not a substantive offence, while criminal conspiracy is a
substantive offence by itself and is punishable as such.
Attempt to escape from custody

The provisions relating to an attempt to escape from custody are contained in sections
224,225, and 225-B of the Pakistan penal code.
They provide punishment:
(a). for a person resisting or obstructing the lawful apprehension of himself for any
offence with which he is charged or of which he has been convicted, or escaping or
attempting to escape from legal custody. Imprisonment up to two years with fin or with
both.
(b). resisting or obstructing lawful apprehension of another person for an offence or
rescuing or attempting to rescue him from legal custody punishment up to two
years or with fine, but if the person to be apprehended is charged for an offence
punishable :
(1). with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years.
(2). or with death
The sentence provided is up to three years and seven years respectively and
(c). resistance or obstruction to lawful apprehension or escape or rescue in cases not
covered by the above two provisions.. Imprisonment up to six months or with fine.
Harboring an offender
The word harbor according to section 52-A, includes the supplying a person with
shelter, food, drink , money, clothes, arms, ammunition or means of conveyance, or the
assisting a person by any means to evade apprehension.
The various provisions in the penal code relate to harboring or concealing a person
knowing him to be an offender with the intention of screening him from legal
punishment, harboring or concealing an offender having escaped from custody, or
whose apprehension has been ordered, and knowingly harboring any persons who are
about to commit or have committed Robbey or Dacoity.
The above provisions however, do not extend to the case in which the harbor is given
by the wife or husband of the person harbored, (sections212, 216, 216-A)
The above However presupposes that some offence has been actually committed and
that the harbored gives refuge to a person knowingly that thereby he helps to evade his
apprehension or screens him from legal punishment. It does not apply to the harboring
of persons, not being criminals, who abscond to avoid or delay a judicial investigation
Solitary confinement
Solitary confinement is a punishment or special form of imprisonment in which a
prisoner is denied contact with any other persons, excluding members of prison staff. It
is considered by some as a form of psychological torture. It is usually cited as an
additional measure of protection (of society) from the criminal. It is also used as a form
of protective custody.
Solitary confinement is colloquially referred to in American English as the hole,
lockdown, the SHU (pronounced shoe) or the pound, and in British English as the
block or the cooler
This is a kind of imprisonment which secludes the prisoner from any intercourse or
sight of, and communication with other prisoners. it may be accompanied with or without
labor.
Section 73 of Pakistan penal code provides that whenever any person is convicted of
an offence for which under the code the court has power to sentence him to rigorous
imprisonment, the court may by its sentence , order that the offender shall be kept in

solitary confinement for any portion or portions of the imprisonment to which he is

sentenced, not exceeding three months in the whole.
Term of imprisonment solitary confinement
** Not exceeding six months ** a time not exceeding one month
**exceeding 6 months but not exceeding one month ** time not exceeding two months
** Exceeding one year ** time not exceeding three months
It is clear from the above that a sentence inflicting solitary confinement for the whole
term of imprisonment is illegal. It must bear only a portion of the term of imprisonment.
Section 74of the code further limits the solitary confinement by providing that in
executing a sentence of solitary confinement , such confinement shall in no case
exceed fourteen days at a time, with intervals between the periods of solitary
confinement of not less duration than such periods, and when the imprisonment
awarded shall exceed three months, the solitary confinement shall not exceed seven
days in any month of the whole imprisonment awarded, with intervals between the
periods of solitary confinement of not less duration than such periods.
Solitary confinement as a rule is not ordered unless there are special features
appearing in the commission of the offence.
Use and criticism
Those who accept the practice consider it necessary for prisoners who are considered
dangerous to other people (the most predatory prisoners), those who might be
capable of leading crime groups even from within, or those who are kept
incommunicado for purported reasons of national security. Finally, it may be used for
prisoners who are at high risk of being attacked by other inmates, such as pedophiles,
celebrities, or witnesses who are in prison themselves. This latter form of solitary
confinement is sometimes referred to as protective custody.
Counterfeiting:
A person is said to counterfeit who:
(i) Causes one thing to resemble another thing.
(ii) Intending by means of that resemblance to practice deception, or
(iii) Knowing it to be likely that deception will thereby be practiced.
Explanation:
(1) It is not essential to counterfeiting that the imitation should be exact.
(2) When a person cause one thing to resemble another thing, and the resemblance is
such that a person might be deceived thereby, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is
proved, that the person so causing the one thing to resemble the other thing intended
by means of that resemblance to practice deception or knew it to be likely that
deception would thereby be practiced.
(S. 28)

Because evidentiary difficulties frequently arise in conspiracy

trials, judges may find the following notes helpful
1. Conspiracy is a continuous crime. It extends over the period of agreement until the
police intervene or the objective of the agreement is achieved. It remains a single

conspiracy no matter who joins or leaves it, as long as there are at least two persons at
any one time acting in combination to achieve the same criminal
objective: R v Masters (1992) 26 NSWLR 450 at 458.
2. In a joint trial for conspiracy, the summing up must deal separately with the case
against each accused and the trial judge must separate the evidence properly relevant
and admissible against each of the accused: R v Cosgrove and Hunter (1988) 34 A Crim
R 299 at 303.
3. Before the co-conspirators rule can operate to permit acts and statements of others,
in the absence of a particular accused, to be evidence in the case against that accused,
the trial judge must have determined (on the basis of evidence admissible in the
ordinary way against that accused) that there is prima facie reasonable evidence of
participation of that accused in the alleged agreement. The jury is not to be told of the
trial judges finding in the summing up, or at all, and there need not be a formal
judgment or ruling to that effect, but the trial judge must indicate that he or she is
satisfied that there is such reasonable evidence of participation prior to the
summing up.
If there is evidence of reasonable participation, then acts or statements in the absence
of the accused will be admissible against him or her to prove the existence of the
conspiracy and the nature of it. If those acts or statements were done or made in
furtherance of the conspiracy, then they will also be admissible on the issue of the
accuseds participation in the alleged agreement. If, however, the allegation of the
Crown is that the accused joined the conspiracy after it had commenced, then acts
done or statements made prior to his or her joining the alleged conspiracy are
admissible only to prove the existence of the alleged agreement and the nature of it,
but not to prove his or her participation. See generally:R v Masters (1992) 26 NSWLR
450; R v Chai (1992) 27 NSWLR 153; R v Houlker (unrep, 19/03/93, NSWCCA).

4. Section 57(2) of the Evidence Act 1995 provides that if the relevance of evidence of
an act done by a person depends on the court making a finding that the person and one
or more other persons had, or were acting in furtherance of, a common purpose
(whether to effect an unlawful conspiracy, or otherwise), the court may use the
evidence itself in determining whether the common purpose existed.
This provision reflects the common law. See, for example, Ahern v The Queen (1988)
165 CLR 87 at 9394 and Tripodi v The Queen (1961) 104 CLR 1 at 67. The admission
of this evidence does not offend the hearsay rule. Where evidence is admitted on a

provisional basis under s 57(2) of the Evidence Act 1995, even though its admissibility
is in issue, and it transpires that there was no other evidence of common purpose
involving the relevant accused, it will probably be necessary for the judge to exclude
the evidence at a later stage.
5. It is open to the trial judge in the exercise of his or her discretion, even where it is
found that there is reasonable evidence of participation against a particular accused, to
exclude evidence of the acts and statements of others from consideration in the case
against him or her (pursuant to s 135 or s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995) and/or to limit
the use to which the jury might put such evidence under s 136 of theEvidence
Act 1995.
6.Although a warning under s 165 of the Evidence Act 1995 is not required, the jury
should be told that they should scrutinise carefully before acting on evidence of the acts
and statements of others in the absence of a particular accused but which implicate
that accused: R v Chai (1992) 27 NSWLR 153. It should be pointed out to the jury that
the particular accused was not present when the relevant things were said and done by
his or her alleged co-conspirators, and was therefore unable to confirm or deny the
truth of what was said or done.
7.As to the significance of statements made after the arrest of an alleged conspirator,
see: R v Louden (1995) 37 NSWLR 683.
8.The common law rule that a husband and wife cannot be found guilty of conspiring
together has been abolished, see: Crimes Act 1900, s 580D.
9.As to indictments for conspiracy, see: Criminal Procedure Act 1986, Sch 3, cl 21.
10.As to conspiracy to defraud, the jury should be directed that to defraud is to
deliberately use dishonest means to deprive another person of his or her property or to
imperil his or her rights or interests. It involves the intentional creation of a situation by
one person to use dishonest means to deprive another person of money or property, or
to imperil the other persons rights or interests, knowing that he or she has no right to
deprive that other person of money or property, or imperil that other persons rights or
interests.
The summing up should also identify the dishonest means relied upon by the
Crown: Peters v The Queen (1998) 192 CLR 431; Spies v The Queen (2000) 113 A Crim
R 448. See also Defraud Intent to
11.Having regard to the definition of supply in the Drug Misuse and Trafficking
Act 1985, it is not open to the Crown to charge a conspiracy to supply a prohibited drug
where the accused agreed with another to supply a prohibited drug to that
other: R v Challita (1988) 37 A Crim R 175 at 184 and R v Trudgeon (1988) 39 A Crim
R 252. It is, however, open to the Crown to charge a conspiracy where the accused is

alleged to have agreed with another or others to supply drugs to the public generally, or
to another, or others not being conspirators with them:Tannous v The Queen (1989) 64
ALJR 141.
12.An accused may nevertheless be liable for conspiracies to do the factually
impossible: R v El Azzi (2001) 125 A Crim R 113.

Difference Between Criminal Conspiracy And Abetment:

Following are the difference between criminal conspiracy and abetment.
(I) Gist Of Offence:
The gist of the offence of criminal conspiracy is a bare agreement to commit
an offence.
The offence of abetment requires that an act or illegal omission must take
place in pursuance of the conspiracy.
(II) Form:
Abetment is a total complete offence.
Conspiracy is one of the forms of abetment.
(III) Punishment:
Section 109 P.P.C is concerned only with the punishment of abetments for
which no express provision is made under the penal code. A charge u/sec
190, should therefore be along with some other substantive offence
committed in consequence of abetment.
The offence of criminal conspiracy is an independent offence. It is made
punishable u/sec 120-B.
(IV)Scope:
Abetment by conspiracy is narrow in scope.
Criminal conspiracy is wider in scope.

Conclusion
Abetment is rightly declared a substantive offence for the purpose
very aptly defined by;
Terremy Bentham as;
The discovery of such preparatory offence with the object of
prohibiting them would reduce the level of the principal crimes
committed in consequence to them.