Law and You > Criminal Laws > Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 > One Act Abetted and Different Act Done (Ss. 51 to 54 BNS)
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) lays down the substantive criminal law of India, defining offences and prescribing punishments. Within its framework, the concept of abetment plays a crucial role in ensuring that not only the principal offender, but also those who encourage, instigate, or assist in the commission of a crime, are held accountable. Section 51 BNS specifically addresses situations where a person abets one act, but a different act is committed as a consequence of that abetment. This provision ensures that liability is not avoided merely because the final act differs from what was originally intended—so long as the act committed is a probable consequence of the abetment. In this article let us discuss liability of abettor when one act abetted and different act done
This section reflects the IPC’s broader objective of preventing individuals from escaping liability through technical distinctions between intended and actual outcomes. It strengthens the doctrine of constructive liability and reinforces the principle that participation in criminal intent, even indirectly, carries serious legal consequences.
In common parlance, the word ‘abet ‘signifies help, co-activity and support and incorporates within its ambit, illegitimate reason to commit the crime. The offence of abetment depends upon the intention of the person who abets, and not upon the act which is actually done by the person who he abets. According to Section 45 BNS, a person is said to abet the doing of a thing if he or she:
- Instigates any person to do that act; or
- Engages in a conspiracy with one or more persons to commit that act, and an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy; or
- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that act.
Instigation means provoking, inciting, urging, or encouraging someone to commit an offence. Conspiracy as a form of abetment requires both an agreement and some act or omission in furtherance of that agreement. Intentional aiding includes providing assistance, support, or facilitation with knowledge of the unlawful purpose.
Liability of Abettor when One Act Abetted and Different Act Done:
S. 51 BNS:
Liability of Abettor when One Act Abetted and Different Act Done:
When an act is abetted and a different act is done, the abettor is liable for the act done, in the same manner and to the same extent as if he had directly abetted it:
Provided that the act done was a probable consequence of the abetment, and was committed under the influence of the instigation, or with the aid or in pursuance of the conspiracy which constituted the abetment.
Illustrations:
(a) A instigates a child to put poison into the food of Z, and gives him poison for that purpose. The child, in consequence of the instigation, by mistake puts the poison into the food of Y, which is by the side of that of Z. Here, if the child was acting under the influence of A’s instigation, and the act done was under the circumstances a probable consequence of the abetment, A is liable in the same manner and to the same extent as if he had instigated the child to put the poison into the food of Y.
(b) A instigates B to burn Z’s house, B sets fire to the house and at the same time commits theft of property there. A, though guilty of abetting the burning of the house, is not guilty of abetting the theft; for the theft was a distinct act, and not a probable consequence of the burning.
(c) A instigates B and C to break into an inhabited house at midnight for the purpose of robbery, and provides them with arms for that purpose. B and C break into the house, and being resisted by Z, one of the inmates, murder Z. Here, if that murder was the probable consequence of the abetment, A is liable to the punishment provided for murder.
If one man actuates another to execute a specific wrongdoing, and that other, in pursuance of such instigation, executes not just that wrongdoing but carries out another wrongdoing in advancement of it, the former is criminally liable as an abettor in regard of such last mentioned wrongdoing, in the event that it is one which, as a person with the intelligence of a reasonable man, at the time of inducement would have known to be committed in order to carry out the original crime.
Essential Ingredients of Section 51 BNS:
To establish the offence, the prosecution must prove:
- There was abetment of a particular act by the abettor;
- The abetted commissioned different act than that was abetted;
- The act committed by the abetted is a probable consequence of the abetment; and
- The act done by the abetted was under the influence of abetment
Examples:
- A instigates B to beat C to teach him a lesson (simple hurt). During the assault, B hits C on the head with a heavy iron rod, and C dies. Here A intended only to cause hurt. Death was not specifically intended. However, death was a probable consequence of violent assault. Under Section 51 BNS, A can be held liable for culpable homicide, even though he only abetted causing hurt.
- A tells B to steal money from a shop at night. During the theft, B is caught by the shopkeeper and uses force to escape, thereby committing robbery. A abetted theft. Robbery is a more serious offence involving force. If use of force was a likely outcome in case of resistance, A can be held liable for robbery under Section 51 BNS.
- A encourages B to trespass into C’s house to intimidate him. Inside the house, B assaults C and causes grievous injury. A abetted criminal trespass. Assault was a probable consequence of the plan. A may be held liable for grievous hurt under Section 51 BNS.
- A instigates a group to hold a violent protest outside a factory. During the protest, members set the factory on fire. A did not specifically order arson. But if violence and destruction were likely outcomes of the instigation, A may be liable for arson under Section 51 BNS.
Punishment:
Same as for offence actually committed by abetted.
Nature of Offence:
According as offence abetted is cognizable or non-cognizable, according as offence abetted is bailable or non-bailable, non-compoundable and triable by Court by which offence abetted is triable.
Judicial Analysis:
In Kaushal @ Daduan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal 1351/2007 case, where the accused Sushil fired gunshot on the expression of Kaushal “Shoot”. During firing a child got killed. The Madhya Pradesh High Court held Kaushal liable under Section 302 read with Section 111 IPC. The Court said that the explanation of Section 111 IPC provides that the act done was a probable consequence of the abetment and was committed under the influence of the instigation, or with the aid or in pursuance of the conspiracy which constituted the abetment.
In Sonappa v. Emperor, AIR 1940 Bom 126 case, the Court observed S. 111 IPC (S. 51 BNS) provides that when an act is abetted and a different act is done, the abettor liable for the act done in the same manner and to the same extent as if he had directly abetted it. Then there is a proviso in these terms: Provided that the act done was a probable consequence of the abetment, and was committed under the influence of the instigation, or with the aid or in pursuance of the conspiracy which constituted the abetment. Before in abettor is held liable for a different act done it must be proved that the act done was a probable consequence of the act abetted. If the act done could not be a probable result of the act abetted the Section does not apply. When an act is abetted and the abetment takes the form of instigation of an act, and a different act is done that different act must be probable consequence and committed under the influence of the instigation; and when the abetment takes form of aiding or a conspiracy, the different act must be probable consequence and also with the aid or in pursuance of the conspiracy.
Cumulative Punishment for Act Abetted and for Act Done
S. 52 BNS:
Abettor when Liable to Cumulative Punishment for Act Abetted and for Act Done:
If the act for which the abettor is liable under section 51 is committed in addition to the act abetted, and constitute a distinct offence, the abettor is liable to punishment for each of the offences.
Illustration:
A instigates B to resist by force a distress made by a public servant. B, in consequence, resists that distress. In offering the resistance, B voluntarily causes grievous hurt to the officer executing the distress. As B has committed both the offence of resisting the distress, and the offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt, B is liable to punishment for both these offences; and, if A knew that B was likely voluntarily to cause grievous hurt in resisting the distress, A will also be liable to punishment for each of the offences.
Section 52 BNS expands the guidelines articulated in the Section 51 BNS. Under it, the abettor is held liable for the offense abetted and also the offense committed. A joint scrutiny of Sections 51, 52 and 161 make it richly evident that if an individual abets another in the commission of an offense and the chief goes further from there on and accomplishes something more which has an alternative outcome from that planned by the abettor and makes the offense an aggravated one, the abettor is liable for the consequences of the acts of his principal.
The essence of the issue is an enquiry of this sort is whether the abettor as a sensible man at the time that he is being instigated or has been purposefully supporting the main perpetrator would have predicted the likely results of his abetment.
Under this Section person abetted does two acts (1) one abetted and (2) another different from the abetted one and they constitute two different offences. The Section lays down that if abettor can be held liable for unabetted act under Section 51, he shall be punished for each of the offences.
Essential Ingredients of Section 52 BNS:
To establish the offence, the prosecution must prove:
- There was abetment of a particular act by the abettor;
- The abetted commissioned act abetted;
- The act committed by the abetted is a probable consequence of the abetment;
- The additional act committed by the abetted is distinct offence; and
- The act done by the abetted was under the influence of abetment
Examples:
- A instigates B to assault C and cause simple hurt. During the assault, B strikes C with a dangerous weapon, and C dies. A abetted the offence of hurt but death (culpable homicide) occurs. Now, death was a probable consequence of the violent assault. Under Section 52 BNS, A may be liable for the offence of abetment of hurt, and also for culpable homicide, since it was a probable consequence.
- A tells B to commit theft at a shop. When confronted, B uses force and commits robbery. A abetted theft but robbery (a more serious offence) was committed. Use of force in case of resistance was a foreseeable consequence. A can be held liable for abetment of theft, and for robbery, as it resulted from the abetment.
- A encourages B to enter C’s property unlawfully to threaten him. During the trespass, B assaults C and causes grievous hurt. A abetted criminal trespass but grievous hurt was caused. The violence was a probable outcome of the plan. A becomes liable for abetment of trespass, and the offence of grievous hurt.
- A instigates a group to gather and intimidate a rival group. The group carries deadly weapons and commits rioting. A abetted unlawful assembly but rioting with deadly weapons occurred. Such escalation was foreseeable in a hostile situation. A is liable for abetment of unlawful assembly, and the offence of rioting with deadly weapons.
Judicial Analysis:
In Manish Kumar Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan, 1995 CRILJ 3066 case, Rajasthan High Court said that Section 112 IPC (S. 52 BNS), deals with the punishment when abettor is liable for the act abetted and for the act done.
Effect Caused by Act Abetted Different from that Intended
S. 53 BNS:
Liability of Abettor for an Effect Caused by Act Abetted Different from that Intended by Abettor:
When an act is abetted with the intention on the part of the abettor of causing a particular effect, and an act for which the abettor is liable in consequence of the abetment, causes a different effect from that intended by the abettor, the abettor is liable for the effect caused, in the same manner and to the same extent as if he had abetted the act with the intention of causing that effect, provided he knew that the act abetted was likely to cause that effect.
Illustration:
A instigates B to cause grievous hurt to Z. B, in consequence of the instigation, causes grievous hurt to Z. Z dies in consequence. Here, if A knew that the grievous hurt abetted was likely to cause death, A is liable to be punished with the punishment provided for murder.
Section 53 BNS holds an abettor liable for a different result than intended, provided they knew the acted-upon instigation was likely to cause that outcome. The abettor is punished for the actual effect caused, as if they intended that specific outcome, making them liable for the result.
Essential Ingredients of Section 53 BNS:
To establish the offence, the prosecution must prove:
- There was abetment of a particular act by the abettor;
- The abetted commissioned act abetted;
- The act committed by the abetted is a probable consequence of the abetment;
- The additional act committed by the abetted is distinct offence;
- The additional act done by the abetted produce different result than anticipated by the abettor; and
- The act done by the abetted was under the influence of abetment
Examples:
- A instigates B to severely beat C to break his limbs. A knows that C is physically weak and that such a beating may likely cause death. B beats C, and C dies. A intended to cause grievous hurt but death occurred (a different effect). A knew death was a likely consequence. A is liable for culpable homicide, as if he had intended the death, because he knew such effect was likely.
- A tells B to burn a small hut to destroy property. A knows that C is sleeping inside the hut at the time. B sets fire to the hut, and C dies. A intended destruction of property but death occurred (a different effect). A knew that burning the hut was likely to cause death. A is liable for causing death, as he had knowledge of the likely fatal consequence.
- A encourages B to mix a strong intoxicant into C’s drink to make him unconscious.
A knows that C suffers from a medical condition and that the substance could be fatal.
C consumes it and dies. A intended unconsciousness but death occurred. A knew death was a likely outcome. A is liable for the death, as if he had intended that effect. - A instigates B to strike C hard on the head to teach him a lesson. A knows that a forceful blow to the head is likely to cause death. B strikes C, and C dies. A intended serious hurt but death occurred. A had knowledge that death was likely. A is liable for the fatal consequence.
Abettor Present when Offence is Committed
S. 54 BNS:
Abettor Present when Offence is Committed:
Whenever any person, who is absent would be liable to be punished as an abettor, is present when the act or offence for which he would be punishable in consequence of the abetment is committed, he shall be deemed to have committed such act or offence.
This section applies if abettor is found present at the scene when the offence was committed. In such a case the abettor shall be punished in the same manner as if he himself had committed the offence.
Essential Ingredients of Section 54 BNS:
To establish the offence, the prosecution must prove:
- There was abetment of an act by the abettor;
- The abetted commissioned act abetted; and
- The abettor is present when the abetted is committing offence;
Examples:
- A instigates B to beat C. Later, when B assaults C, A stands nearby encouraging him. A had already abetted the offence. A is present during its commission. A will be deemed to have committed the assault himself, not merely abetted it.
- A plans a theft and instructs B to steal goods from a shop. During the theft, A stands outside the shop to watch for police. A had abetted the theft earlier. A is physically present during its commission. A is treated as having committed theft, not just abetted it.
- A persuades B to kill C. When B attacks C, A remains present at the spot to ensure the act is carried out. A previously abetted murder. A is present during the act. A is deemed to have committed murder, as if he himself performed the act.
- A instigates a group to burn a rival’s warehouse. When the fire is set, A is present at the location, supervising the act. A is treated as having committed arson, not merely abetted it.
Conclusion:
Sections 51 to 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 collectively strengthen the law relating to abetment by clearly defining the scope and extent of an abettor’s liability. These provisions ensure that criminal responsibility is not confined to the principal offender alone, but also extends to those who instigate, aid, or encourage the commission of offences.
Section 51 BNS addresses situations where a different act is committed as a probable consequence of abetment. Section 52 BNS further expands liability by making the abettor responsible for both the offence abetted and the offence actually committed when such consequence is foreseeable. Section 53 BNS focuses on differences in intention or knowledge, ensuring that liability corresponds with the abettor’s own mental state. Section 54 BNS elevates the liability of an abettor who is present at the scene, treating him as if he himself committed the offence.
Together, these provisions reflect key principles of criminal jurisprudence—foreseeability, constructive liability, proportional punishment, and individual culpability. They prevent offenders from escaping responsibility on technical grounds and ensure that the law responds effectively to indirect participation in crime.
For More Articles on the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Click Here