In common parlance, the word ‘abet‘ signifies help, co-activity and support and incorporates within its ambit, an illegitimate reason to commit the crime. So as to bring an individual abetting the doing of a thing under any of the conditions specified under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, it isn’t just important to demonstrate that the individual who has abetted has participated in the means of the transactions yet additionally has been associated with those means of the transaction which are criminal. Abetment is constituted by: -

• 1. Instigating a person to commit an offence; or
• 2. Engaging in a conspiracy to commit it; or
• 3. Intentionally aiding a person to commit it.

The offence of abetment by instigation relies on the intention of the individual who abets and not upon the act which is finished by the individual who has abetted. The abetment might be by instigation, connivance or purposeful aid as given under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the words articulated in an angry state or omission without any intention cannot be termed as instigation. For an individual to be called liable for Abetment, and so as to proceed against an individual for a criminal offence under Section 107, the prosecution must claim the component of mens rea. Negligence or carelessness can’t be named to be abetment in order to punish the liable, according to the arrangement of penal laws. So, to establish the offence of abetment, the abettor must have appeared to “deliberately” support the commission of the wrongdoing or offence. In such instances, one needs to establish that the wrongdoing or offence that is charged could not have been done without the association or the intervention of such a person who according to Section 107 IPC is said to be an abettor. When we talk about a sting operation that is typically carried out in the public interest, it must be noted that the same is done by instigating the accused. Thus the person in question, who is generally honest, is tricked into carrying out wrongdoing on the confirmation of secrecy and confidentiality of the transaction bringing up the potential issues with respect to how such a victim can be considered in-charge of wrongdoing, which he would not have done had he not been given the assurance. In such conditions, should the individual, i.e., the sting administrator be held criminally liable for the commission of the offence? This is a bewildering question when there is a claim that the sting administrator is asserted to have committed the abetment of the offence.