The persons taking part in the commission of an offence have been divided into two classes. They are

Question

“There is no gainsaying that an able bodied youthful Jawan when physically assaulted by his superior may be in a state of provocation. The gravity of such a provocation may be heightened if the physical beating was meant to force him to submit to unnatural carnal intercourse to satisfy the superior’s lust. The store room incident involving the appellant and the deceased is alleged to have taken place when the deceased had bolted the door of the store room to keep out any intruder from seeing what was happening inside. By any standard the act of a superior to humiliate and force his subordinate in a closed room to succumb to the lustful design of the former was a potent recipe for anyone placed in the appellant’s position to revolt and retaliate against the treatment being given to him. What may have happened inside the store room if the appellant had indeed revolted and retaliated against the unbecoming conduct of the deceased is a matter of conjecture. The appellant or any one in his position may have retaliated violently to the grave peril of his tormentor. The fact of the matter, however, is that the appellant appears to have borne the assault without any retaliation against the deceased-superior and somehow managed to escape from the room…All that the evidence proves is that after the said incident
the appellant was seen crying and depressed and when asked by his colleagues, he is said to have narrated his tale of humiliation at the hands of the deceased…. That appears to have happened in the present case also for the appellant’s version is that he and his colleagues had planned to avenge the humiliation by beating up the deceased in the evening when they all assemble near the water heating point. That apart, the appellant attended to his normal duty during the day time and after the evening dinner, went to perform his guard duty at 2100 hrs.”
[Extracted from B.D Khunte v. Union of India, Criminal Appeal No. 2328 of 2014, para 12-13].

Answer 1

Indian criminal law recognises two broad roles for people connected to a crime, someone who commits it directly, and someone who helps make it happen without committing it themselves.

Principal and abettors: the principal physically commits the offence, while an abettor instigates, conspires, or intentionally assists, this is the exact structure used in the Indian Penal Code's chapter on abetment.
Principle and disciples: these words describe a teacher-follower relationship, not any recognised legal classification of offenders.
Principal and accessory: "accessory" is the equivalent term under English common law rather than Indian statute, so while the idea is similar, it is not the phrase the IPC uses.
Debtor and holder: these belong to civil and commercial law, describing parties to a debt or a negotiable instrument, unrelated to criminal participation.

The correct answer is Principal and abettors.

Answer 2

One way to resolve this is to ask which pair of words is actually defined together in a specific chapter of Indian criminal legislation, rather than sounding merely plausible.

Principal and abettors: a full chapter of the Indian Penal Code is devoted entirely to abetment, laying out who counts as an abettor and how their liability compares with the person who directly commits the offence, the principal. This pairing is drawn straight from that statutory scheme.
Principle and disciples: beyond the coincidental similarity in sound to "principal", this phrase has no basis in any criminal statute.
Principal and accessory: this pairing describes a similar idea but under a different legal tradition, English common law, rather than the specific terminology found in the Indian Penal Code.
Debtor and holder: these terms appear in the law relating to negotiable instruments and debts, entirely outside the context of criminal participation.

Because the Indian Penal Code specifically frames the two classes as the principal offender and the abettor, that is the classification being asked for here, Principal and abettors.

Answer 3

One way to resolve this is to ask which pair of words is actually defined together in a specific chapter of Indian criminal legislation, rather than sounding merely plausible.

Principal and abettors: a full chapter of the Indian Penal Code is devoted entirely to abetment, laying out who counts as an abettor and how their liability compares with the person who directly commits the offence, the principal. This pairing is drawn straight from that statutory scheme.
Principle and disciples: beyond the coincidental similarity in sound to "principal", this phrase has no basis in any criminal statute.
Principal and accessory: this pairing describes a similar idea but under a different legal tradition, English common law, rather than the specific terminology found in the Indian Penal Code.
Debtor and holder: these terms appear in the law relating to negotiable instruments and debts, entirely outside the context of criminal participation.

Because the Indian Penal Code specifically frames the two classes as the principal offender and the abettor, that is the classification being asked for here, Principal and abettors.

The persons taking part in the commission of an offence have been divided into two classes. They are

Show Hint

The Correct Option is A

Approach Solution - 1

Approach Solution -2

Top Questions on Criminal Law

Questions Asked in AIBE exam