Correct option is B
The correct answer is (b) abetting the commission of murder.
Explanation
This scenario is governed by the principles of abetment, specifically Section 46 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (which corresponds to Section 108 of the IPC, 1860).
The law clarifies that the liability of an abettor is independent of the capacity or the ultimate action of the person abetted through two critical "Explanations":
- Act need not be committed (Explanation 2): To constitute the offence of abetment, it is not necessary that the act abetted should be committed. The moment Kuldeep instigated the lunatic and provided the weapon with a guilty intention, the offence of abetment was complete. The fact that the lunatic misplaced the knife and did nothing does not absolve Kuldeep.
- Capacity of the person abetted (Explanation 3): It is not necessary that the person abetted should be capable by law of committing an offence (like a child or a person of unsound mind). Even if the lunatic is protected by the "insanity defense" (Section 22 BNS / Section 84 IPC), the abettor (Kuldeep) is punished as if the act had been committed by a sane person with the same intention as Kuldeep.
Why the other options are incorrect:
- (a) is incorrect because abetment is a substantive offence in itself. It is complete upon instigation/aiding, regardless of the outcome.
- (c) is incorrect because while the lunatic (the principal offender) has the defense of unsoundness of mind, that defense is not available to the abettor. The law specifically prevents criminals from using "innocent agents" (like children or lunatics) to escape liability.
- (d) is incorrect because "supplying a dangerous weapon to an irrational person" is not the specific charge here; the specific legal framework is abetment of the intended crime (murder).