To prove both the parts of the offence contemplated in Section 116 of the Indian Penal Code, which of the following must be proved by the prosecution?
1. To prove the first part, the accused did abet the offence either by instigation or by conspiracy or by intentional aiding or by illegal omission.
2. To prove the first part, the offence was such which is punishable with imprisonment.
3. To prove the second part, the person abetted was a public servant during the period he was abetted.
4. To prove the second part, it was the duty of such public servant to prevent the commission of such an offence.

Solution (By Examveda Team)

Definition of Section 116 of the Indian Penal Code:
Section 116 of the IPC deals with the abetment of an offence if it is not committed. It states that if a person abets an offence that is punishable with imprisonment, but the offence is not committed due to any reason, the abettor shall be punished with half the punishment prescribed for the offence.

Additionally, the second part of Section 116 applies to situations where a public servant, who has a duty to prevent an offence, is abetted to commit that offence. If the public servant does not commit the offence, the abettor will still be liable.

Explanation of the Correct Answer:
The correct answer is Option D: 1, 2, 3, 4.

To prove both parts of the offence under Section 116 IPC, the prosecution must establish the following:

First Part:
The accused must have abetted the offence by instigation, conspiracy, intentional aiding, or illegal omission.
The offence abetted must be punishable with imprisonment.

Second Part:
3. The person abetted must have been a public servant at the time of abetment.
4. It must have been the duty of the public servant to prevent the commission of the offence.

Since all four conditions are necessary to establish the complete offence under Section 116 IPC, Option D is the correct choice.

Explanation of Other Options:
Option A (1 and 3): This option is incorrect because it does not include the requirement that the offence must be punishable with imprisonment (condition 2) and that the public servant had a duty to prevent the offence (condition 4).

Option B (1 and 4): This option is incorrect because it does not consider the requirement that the offence must be punishable with imprisonment (condition 2) and that the abetted person must be a public servant (condition 3).

Option C (2 and 4): This option is incorrect because it does not include the crucial requirement of proving abetment by the accused (condition 1) and the fact that the abetted person must be a public servant (condition 3).

Thus, Option D (1, 2, 3, 4) is the correct answer.