Abetment of Offence Punishable with Imprisonment - if Offence not Committed - Section - 116

Is Section 116 of IPC a cognizable or non-cognizable offence?

A non-cognizable offence basically represents an offence wherein, in a case, the police officer will have no authority to arrest the person involved without a warrant they are considered less serious compared to cognizable offences and cognizable offences include cases in which the Police do have the authority to arrest a person without a warrant. Section 116 of the Indian Penal Code, according to Offence abetted is cognizable or non-cognizable.

Any famous judgment w.r.t. IPC 116 if any?

Satvir Singh And Others v. the State of Punjab and Another:

A mother of two children, also young, who is a double graduate, who ran into the rail in front of a running train to commit suicide as a way to end all the miseries of her life. She was further driven to extreme action because of the cruel treatments she had to endure at her nuptial home. But she didn’t die as she wished. Instead she lost her left hand from her shoulder joint and also got her spinal cord ruptured. Hence she was bedridden and compelled to a miserable life, one that she longed to just cast an end to. Her In-Laws and husband (the defendants of the case) were convicted by the Sessions Court under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 116 IPC, besides Section 498A In the first verdict they were sentenced to a rigorous punishment of imprisonment for 2 and 1/2 years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, and on the very second verdict they were sentenced to a length of imprisonment of two years and a fine of Rs.5,000/- each.

So, the defendants went on to file an appeal before the High Court in the challenge of the conviction and verdict.

The Court in this case went on to conclude that the defendants cannot be convicted under Section 116 of IPC either by linking it with Section 306 or with Section 304 B and so the conviction and the verdict was passed on them under Section 116 of IPC was set aside.

Get in touch with the best lawyer online

K.Sudhakaran v. The State Of Kerala: In this particular case the allegation of commission of a non-cognizable offence was recognized which was filed before the Judicial First Magistrate II, primarily to seek the permission to attempt to register FIR and to go on to conduct an investigation for offences under Section 116 which is read together with Section 171 IPC. The Magistrate in this particular case had granted permission and the FIR was successfully registered. After the completion of the initial investigation, the final report was dated on 18/5/2017 which is an offence punishable under Section 171 read with Section 116 of the Indian Penal Code. The matter is now pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate. The above issuance of process and the final report did go on to be challenged by the accused, which was being contended that the proceeding against him is not good, both in a moral perspective or in the eyes of law. Though it was brought to the court’s attention, the second respondent complainant did not appear in spite of prior notice.

The Senior counsel promoted three specific contentions. The first one being a contention that no offence could be made out from the facts which were disclosed by the prosecution. The second one being that from the materials that are available, the offences under Section 171F read together with Section 116 of IPC were clearly not made out. Hence, the court came to the verdict which was inclined to hold that the criminal proceeding against the petitioner should be quashed.