Protection of good samaritans

The term 'good samaritans' is used to describe people who reach out and help accident victims. Good Samaritans often had to face hardships and harassments at the hospitals and police stations while taking the accident victims. On a PIL filed by SaveLIFE foundation, the Supreme Court ordered that the Centre should frame guidelines for the protection of the good Samaritans. The court has now approved of those guidelines. The various rules for the protection of the good Samaritans are:
(1) The good Samaritan will be treated respectfully and will not be discriminated against on any ground.
(2) He shall not be forced to reveal his identity or contact information.
(3) The police will not force him in procuring information or anything else.
(4) He shall not be forced to be a witness.
(5) If he agrees to be a witness, his statement will be taken at one hearing and will not be made to wait unnecessarily.
(6) The examination will be conducted at the time and place of his convenience by a plain clothed officer.
(7) If he is required to visit the police station, the reasons for the same shall be recorded in writing.
(8) If he declares himself to be an eyewitness, he will be allowed to give evidence in the form of an affidavit.
The given guidelines should protect the Good Samaritans at hospitals and police stations and should encourage more people to come forward to help accident victims.

Abetment

Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, defines the offence of abetment. Section 107 states: A person abets the doing of a thing, who—

(First)  — Instigates any person to do that thing; or

(Secondly)  —Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or

(Thirdly)  — Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Thus, the offence of abetment is completed by three means- aid, conspiring or instigation.

The explanation appended to the section further explain the offence.

Explanation 1.—A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to dis­close, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Illustration- A, a public officer, is authorized by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z. B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, willfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C.

Explanation 2.—Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.

In Barendra Kumar Ghose v King Emperor, commonly known as the postmaster's case, the court observed by quoting Milton's On his blindness, "they also play a role who only stand and wait" to describe the offence of abetment committed by aiding by way of standing at the door and watching. In this case, the accused had stood at the door and kept a watch for the authorities while the others in the group had robbed the postmasters office.

In Kishori Lal v State of MP, (2007) 10 SCC, the court interpreted that section 107 defines a separate and distinct offence. A person commits the offence of abetment of a thing when he either (1) instigates any person to commit it, or (2) engages with one or more persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, or (3) intentionally aids, by act or omission, the doing of that thing.

Section 109 lays down the punishment for abetment where no express provision has been made for its punishment. Section 109 states: Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abet­ment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence. Explanation.—An act or offence is said to be committed in conse­quence of abetment, when it is committed in consequence of the instigation, or in pursuance of the conspiracy, or with the aid which constitutes the abetment. Illustrations

(a) A offers a bribe to B, a public servant, as a reward for showing A some favor in the exercise of B’s official functions. B accepts the bribe. A has abetted the offence defined in section 161.

(b)  A instigates B to give false evidence. B, in consequence of the instigation, commits that offence. A is guilty of abetting that offence, and is liable to the same punishment as B.

(c) A and B conspire to poison Z. A in pursuance of the conspira­cy, procures the poison and delivers it to B in order that he may administer it to Z. B, in pursuance of the conspiracy, adminis­ters the poison to Z in A’s absence and thereby causes Z’s death. Here B is guilty of murder. A is guilty of abetting that offence by conspiracy, and is liable to the punishment for murder.

If a group of men follow a woman about to commit sati chanting slogans, they have committed the offence by instigation.

In Amalendu Pal Alis Jhantu v State of West Bengal, (2010)1 SCC, the court observed that a person commits the abetment of suicide when he instigates a person to do that thing or to do anything as stated under clauses secondly or thirdly of section 107 of IPC.

In Randhir Singh v State of Punjab, (2004)13 SCC, the court observed that: Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing.

Thus, the offence of abetment involves instigation, conspiracy to commit an offence or willful aiding in the commission of an offence. It is a separate and distinct offence. Section 109 further provides that if the act abetted is committed and no separate punishment for the abetment of that offence is provided then it shall be punishable with the same punishment as the original offence.