FAGUNA KANTA NATH vs THE STATE OF ASSAM

The Supreme Court held that the conviction of the appellant for abetment under Section 165A of the Indian Penal Code must be set aside, as the acquittal of the co-accused under Section 161 IPC negated the basis for abetment. The Court reasoned that if no offence was committed by the principal offender, the appellant could not be held liable for intentionally aiding in the commission of that offence. The judgment distinguished the case from Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, [1954] S.C.R. 145, emphasizing that the absence of a proven offence against the principal renders abetment unsustainable.