The Karnataka High Court has held that to attract the offence of abetment under Section 114 IPC, the abettor must be physically present at the scene of the crime when the offence is committed.

For context, Section 114 of the IPC penalises an abettor who is present when the offence is committed.

Consequently, Justice HP Sandesh quashed criminal proceedings against a police constable, observing that an individual cannot be made to face criminal prosecution under Section 114 merely on allegations that an incident occurred at their instigation when their presence at the spot is not established.

The High Court held that offences invoked against the petitioner—including Sections 143, 504, 323, 324, 448, 506, 114 read with Section 149 of the IPC—would not be attracted against him.

Explaining why Section 114 was inapplicable, the Court observed, “Even in respect of Section 114 of the IPC also, none of the complainant witnesses and also the contents of the complaint discloses the very presence of this petitioner and only an word is used in the complaint that this petitioner is working as P.C. in the very same police station and he is responsible for the said act.”

It added that a blanket allegation that a police officer is “responsible” for an incident simply because he works at the local police station is insufficient to sustain criminal prosecution.

“When such being the case, none of the ingredients of the offence under Section 114 attracts against this petitioner and merely because adding the word that he is responsible for this incident, he cannot be prosecuted, that too, in a criminal prosecution and he need not face the criminal ordinal because he is working in the very same police station,” the Court said.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the criminal petition and quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner.

The petition was filed by Purushothama G.M., a police constable, arrayed as the fifth accused, in a criminal case involving offences punishable under Sections s143, 504, 323, 324, 448, 506, 114 read with Section 149 of IPC.

The petitioner argued that on the date of the incident, he was entrusted with beat and patrol duty across Huluvadi, Mankunda, Hosurudoddi, Devarahalli and Valagerehalli villages.

Relying on a coordinate bench order in Crl.P.No.1294/2020, the petitioner contended that physical presence at the scene of crime was a mandatory statutory requirement for invoking Section 114 of the IPC.