Law and You > Criminal Laws > Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 > Person Abetted does Act with Different Intention from that of Abettor (S. 50 BNS)
The Indian Penal Code (IPC) is designed not only to punish the actual commission of offences but also to hold accountable those who aid, instigate, or conspire for their commission. Section 110 IPC balances accountability with proportionality, punishing the abettor with the ordinary punishment for the offence rather than the enhanced punishment reserved for the principal offender. Understanding this Section is crucial, as it clarifies the nuanced distinction between abetment liability and the principal offender’s liability in cases involving special aggravating factors. Section 50 BNS lays down punishment of abetment if person abetted does act with different intention from that of abettor.
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.
Abetment may be punishable even if the main offence is not ultimately completed, depending on the circumstances and specific provisions of the BNS. The law treats abetment seriously because it recognizes that those who encourage or assist criminal acts share responsibility for the wrongdoing.
Person Abetted does Act with Different Intention from that of Abettor
S. 50 BNS:
Punishment of Abetment if Person Abetted does Act with Different Intention from that of Abettor:
Whoever abets the commission of an offence shall, if the person abetted does the act with a different intention or knowledge from that of the abettor, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence which would have been committed if the act had been done with the intention or knowledge of the abettor and with no other.
Section 50 BNS lays down that gives that even if the individual abetted commits the offense with an intention different than the intention possessed by the main perpetrator of the crime, yet the abettor will be charged with the punishment provided for the offence abetted. The liability of the individual abetted isn’t influenced by this section.
Essential Ingredients of S. 50 BNS:
To establish the offence, the prosecution must prove:
- A person was accused of abetting commission of an offence;
- The offence was committed; and
- The intention and knowledge of the person abetted is different from that of abettor;
Explanation 3, illustration (d) attached to Section 46 BNS illustrate Section 50 BNS. A, intending to cause a theft to be committed, instigates B to take property belonging to Z out of Z’s possession. A induces B to believe that the property belongs to A. B takes the property out of Z’s possession, in good faith, believing it to be A’s property. B, acting under this misconception, does not take dishonestly, and therefore does not commit theft. But A is guilty of abetting theft, and is liable to the same punishment as if B had committed theft.
Examples:
- A instigates B to voluntarily cause hurt to C. B assaults C, who turns out to be a public servant on duty. Since hurting a public servant on duty carries enhanced punishment, B gets higher punishment. A did not know C was a public servant. Under Section 50 BNS, A is punished only with the normal punishment for hurt.
- A encourages B to attack C. B knows C is a pregnant woman and causes grievous hurt.
Law may prescribe stricter punishment due to special knowledge. A did not know about the pregnancy. B gets enhanced punishment. A gets only the ordinary punishment. - A tells B to commit house trespass. B commits house trespass at night, which carries higher punishment. If A did not intend or know that it would be committed at night. B gets enhanced punishment. A receives only the basic punishment.
- A instigates B (a public servant) to misuse his official power. Since B is a public servant, he receives stricter punishment. If A is not a public servant. B gets enhanced punishment. A gets only ordinary punishment.
Punishment:
The convict shall be punished with the punishment provided for the offence which would have been committed if the act had been done with the intention or knowledge of the abettor and with no other.
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 Rex vs Sadla and Ors, AIR 1950 ALL 418 case, where the abettor intended to cause injuries to the deceased the person (victim) but abetted committed murder. The Allahabad High Court held that the abettor is not guilty of murder and held guilty of the offence Under Section 304 IPC (s. 105 BNS), read with Section 109, Penal Code.
In Matadin v. State of Maharashtra, Aug 4, 1998 case, where dying declaration of the deceased indicated that he (deceased) was standing in Paras Chowk with other persons. At that time, Matadin, Udelal, Shivdayal, Ramsingh and two other persons came there. Matadin talked with deceased and said to deceased that not to be Randgar (over smart). The deceased told Matadin that he was a small shopkeeper and he was not showing Rangdari (over smartness). Thereupon, Matadin said, “Maro Sale Ko (Abusive term)”. Immediately, Ramsingh assaulted deceased with knife on his stomach. Then, all the persons ran away. The deceased was brought to hospital. Witnesses said that there were no enmity between the deceased and Matadin. The Court said that when the words “maro sale ko” are used it could mean “to beat” or even “to kill” a person. Though the witnesses have stated that these words were used by Matadin in abusive way but from that it could not be said that he exhorted his fellows to kill Ashok. The Court set aside the conviction and sentence of Matadin under Section 302 IPC (S. 103(1) BNS) read with Section 34 IPC (S. 3(5) BNS) and instead convict him under Section 324/110 IPC (118(1)/50 BNS).
Conclusion:
Section 50 BNS deals with punishment of abetment if person abetted does act with different intention from that of abettor, serves as an important safeguard in criminal law by distinguishing the liability of an abettor from that of the principal offender when special circumstances enhance the punishment of the latter. It reinforces the principle of proportionality in punishment, ensuring that an abettor is held accountable for their role in the offence, but is not unfairly subjected to the enhanced penalties meant for the principal offender’s specific knowledge, status, or intention. By clarifying the boundaries of liability, Section 50 BNS maintains a fair balance between holding all participants responsible and avoiding undue punishment for those who did not share the principal offender’s aggravating circumstances. Understanding this section is crucial for legal practitioners, students, and anyone interested in the nuances of criminal law, as it highlights how the BNS carefully structures accountability while respecting principles of justice and fairness.
For More Articles on the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Click Here