About this topic
Abetment can be compared to striking a matchstick. Once the match is struck, one of three things can happen: it can die out between the fingers, it can light the lamp that was meant to be lit, or it can set the curtain on fire. The abettor strikes the match by instigating someone, by conspiring, or by helping (aiding). What the law does to him depends on what that spark does next.
The law is contained in the B.N.S. (2023). Chapter 4 of the B.N.S. deals with abetment, criminal conspiracy and attempt.
- Sections 45 and 46 explain what abetment is.
- Sections 49 to 60 decide how abetment is punished.
Four problems to keep in mind
Each of the following problems is settled by the provisions studied below. The solutions are given at the end.
- The vanished hired man: Prince pays a hired man ₹50,000 to kill his business rival. The man pockets the money and simply disappears. Nobody is hurt.
- The innocent nurse: Farhan wants his rich uncle dead. He hands the uncle's nurse a bottle and tells her it is a new tonic the doctor has prescribed. She gives it to the uncle in good faith. It is poison, and the uncle dies.
- The cut brake wire: Aadil wants his rival to miss an important tender meeting, so he pays a mechanic to cut the brake wire of the rival's car. He only wants the car to break down. Instead, the brakes fail on a highway and the rival is badly injured.
- The online group: A man posts a message in an online group of 200 members, urging them to set buses on fire during a strike. Not a single bus is touched.
The basic rule: abetment is complete without the offence
The offence of abetment is complete the moment the match is struck, whatever happens afterwards. Explanation 2 to Section 46 provides:
"To constitute the offence of abetment it is not necessary that the act abetted should be committed, or that the effect requisite to constitute the offence should be caused."
The law does not wait for the crime. The guilty spark (the abetment itself) is enough to complete the offence of abetment, even if the act abetted is never committed or the intended effect is never caused.
Situation 1: The offence abetted is not committed (Sections 55 and 56)
In the first and simplest situation, the spark dies out and the offence is never committed. The abettor is still punished, but more lightly. The scale of punishment depends on how serious the offence was that he tried to bring about.
Section 55: Abetment of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life
Section 55 applies to the gravest offences. It provides:
"Whoever abets the commission of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, shall, if that offence be not committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made under this Sanhita for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if any act for which the abettor is liable in consequence of the abetment, and which causes hurt to any person, is done, the abettor shall be liable to imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to fourteen years, and shall also be liable to fine."
Imprisonment of either description means rigorous or simple imprisonment.
Section 55 works on two levels:
| What happens after the abetment | Maximum punishment |
|---|---|
| Nothing at all happens: the offence is not committed and no hurt is caused | Imprisonment of either description up to 7 years, and liable to fine |
| Some act for which the abettor is liable in consequence of the abetment is done and causes hurt to any person, even though the main offence is still not committed | The limit doubles: imprisonment of either description up to 14 years, and liable to fine |
Problem 1 (the vanished hired man): Murder is punishable with death or imprisonment for life under Section 103(1). The hired man never acted, so Prince faces imprisonment up to 7 years and fine under Section 55.
Variation: Suppose the hired man had stabbed the rival and the rival had survived. Murder would still not be committed, but hurt would have been caused through the abetment, so Prince would face imprisonment up to 14 years.
Section 56: Abetment of an offence punishable with imprisonment
For offences punishable with imprisonment, Section 56 takes over. It provides:
"Whoever abets an offence punishable with imprisonment shall, if that offence be not committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made under this Sanhita for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for that offence for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term provided for that offence; or with such fine as is provided for that offence, or with both; and if the abettor or the person abetted is a public servant, whose duty it is to prevent the commission of such offence, the abettor shall be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for that offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the longest term provided for that offence, or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both."
Here the law speaks in fractions. Picture the longest prison term provided for the offence as a full glass.
- Ordinary abettor: where the offence is not committed, the abettor can be given at most a quarter of the glass, that is, imprisonment of any description provided for the offence up to one-fourth of its longest term, or the fine provided for the offence, or both.
- Public servant on either side: the glass fills to the half when the abettor or the person abetted is a public servant whose duty is to prevent that very offence. The limit becomes one-half of the longest term, or the fine provided for the offence, or both.
Ordinary abettor: A student urges a friend to steal a classmate's laptop, and the friend refuses. The student faces imprisonment up to one-fourth of the longest term provided for theft, or the fine, or both.
Public servant as abettor: A railway police officer, whose job is to prevent theft on trains, urges a gang to steal passengers' bags. Even if the gang is caught before taking anything, he faces up to one-half of the longest term.
Public servant as the person abetted: The same one-half limit applies to a person who urges such an officer to commit that theft.
The reason for the higher limit is plain: when the guard joins hands with the thief, the public has nobody left to protect it.
Sections 55 and 56 compared
| Point | Section 55 | Section 56 |
|---|---|---|
| Offence abetted | Punishable with death or imprisonment for life | Punishable with imprisonment |
| Offence not committed | Up to 7 years (either description), and liable to fine | Up to one-fourth of the longest term, or fine, or both |
| Aggravated case | An act causing hurt is done in consequence of the abetment: up to 14 years, and liable to fine | The abettor or the person abetted is a public servant whose duty is to prevent the offence: up to one-half of the longest term, or fine, or both |
| Method of fixing the limit | Fixed years | Fractions of the longest term |
"No express provision is made under this Sanhita"
This phrase appears in both Section 55 and Section 56. Some kinds of abetment have their own special provisions, for example:
- Abetment of suicide: Sections 107 and 108.
- Abetment of mutiny: Sections 159 and 160.
Where such a special provision exists, it governs, and these general rules step aside.
Situation 2: The offence abetted is committed (Sections 49 and 50)
In the second situation, the spark lights exactly the lamp the abettor wanted, and the offence is committed.
Section 49: Punishment where the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment
"Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Sanhita for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence."
The abettor therefore receives the same punishment as the person who did the deed. This may seem harsh at first, but very often the abettor is the brain and the doer is only the hand.
Under Section 49, the abettor gets the punishment provided for the offence itself. A law that punished only the hand would let the brain walk free.
Meaning of "in consequence of the abetment" (Explanation to Section 49)
The words "in consequence of the abetment" require a real connection between the abetment and the offence. The Explanation to Section 49 states what that connection is:
"An act or offence is said to be committed in consequence of abetment, when it is committed in consequence of the instigation, or in pursuance of the conspiracy, or with the aid which constitutes the abetment."
An act is thus committed in consequence of abetment when it is committed:
- in consequence of the instigation; or
- in pursuance of the conspiracy; or
- with the aid which constitutes the abetment.
Zoya urges her brother to forge their late father's will, not knowing that he had already forged it the day before. The forgery was not committed in consequence of her words. She is still guilty of abetment, but her punishment would follow the rules for an offence not committed in consequence of the abetment (Situation 1 above), not Section 49.
Section 50: Person abetted acts with a different intention or knowledge
What if the hand is innocent? Section 50 answers this:
"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 works together with Explanation 3 to Section 46, which says:
"It is not necessary that the person abetted should be capable by law of committing an offence, or that he should have the same guilty intention or knowledge as that of the abettor, or any guilty intention or knowledge."
Problem 2 (the innocent nurse): The nurse believed she was giving medicine. She had no guilty intention or knowledge, so she commits no murder. But the law measures Farhan by his own mind. Had the act been done with Farhan's intention and knowledge, it would have been murder. So Farhan receives the punishment for murder under Section 50, and for nothing other than that offence.
Under Section 50 the abettor is punished according to his own intention or knowledge, not that of the person abetted. An innocent hand does not wash the guilt off a guilty mind.
Situation 3: The result differs from what the abettor aimed at (Sections 51, 52 and 53)
The third situation is the hardest: the spark lands where the abettor did not aim, and the curtain catches fire. Three Sections deal with this, and each answers one question.
| Question | Section |
|---|---|
| Did the same act produce a bigger (different) result? | Section 53 |
| Was a different act done instead? | Section 51 |
| Was an extra act done as well? | Section 52 |
Section 53: The act abetted causes a different effect
"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."
The key words come at the very end: "provided he knew". The abettor is liable for the different effect only if he knew that the act abetted was likely to cause it.
Problem 3 (the cut brake wire): Aadil wanted only a breakdown. But almost anyone knows that a car without working brakes is likely to crash and injure the person driving it. If the court finds that Aadil knew this, he is liable for the injuries as if he had abetted the act in order to cause them. His wish for a mere breakdown will not protect him.
Section 51: A different act is 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:"
Its proviso adds:
"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."
Two tests must both be passed before the abettor is liable for the different act:
- The act done must be a probable consequence of the abetment; and
- It must flow from the abetment itself, that is, it must be committed under the influence of the instigation, or with the aid, or in pursuance of the conspiracy which constituted the abetment.
Prince urges his nephew to steal a red scooter from a crowded parking lot at night. In the dark, the nephew takes the wrong red scooter, the one standing beside it. Such a mistake is quite likely in those conditions, and it happened while carrying out Prince's plan. Prince is liable as if he had abetted the theft of that scooter.
But suppose the nephew, angry at being shouted at, also smashes the window of the attendant's cabin. That is an act of temper, not a probable result of a plan to steal a scooter, so Prince does not answer for it.
How far does "probable consequence" reach?
The Allahabad High Court drew the line in the following case.
Girja Prasad Singh and others v. Emperor (1934), Allahabad High Court.
Facts: The story began with a few mangoes. A youth named Barka caught Bhagwati, a servant, taking mangoes from a grove held by Barka's family. Barka followed him to the house of his masters, the brothers Girja Prasad and Bishnath, and an argument broke out there. Girja Prasad stood holding a lathi, a heavy wooden stick. In anger, Bishnath shouted to the others to beat the boy. They chased Barka, and Bhagwati caught and held him. Then Girja Prasad suddenly drew a spearhead, about eight or nine inches long, which he had kept hidden in his pocket, and stabbed Barka in the abdomen. The boy died.
Trial: The Sessions Judge sentenced Girja Prasad to death for murder. He treated Bishnath's shout as an instigation to murder, since a lathi can kill. He convicted Bishnath of abetment of murder and Bhagwati of murder, and sentenced both to transportation for life, the form of life sentence used in those days.
Issue: On appeal, the defence first attacked the eyewitnesses as improbable, but the High Court believed them. The real issue was legal: could Bishnath, who had called only for a beating, be made liable for murder simply because a man he had urged on committed murder a moment later?
Held: He could not. Read in its setting, the shout was an instigation only to give the boy a thrashing. Nothing showed that Bishnath knew about the hidden spearhead, and he most probably expected the lathi to be used. Stabbing was therefore a different act from the one instigated, so the court tested it under Section 111 of the Indian Penal Code, the provision then in force. Both conditions had to be proved: (i) that the stab was given under the influence of the instigation, and (ii) that it was a probable consequence of it. The first could perhaps be argued, because the stab followed the shout at once, but the second failed. In the court's words, "A probable consequence of an act is one which is likely or which can reasonably be expected to follow from such an act. An unusual or unexpected consequence cannot be described as a probable one." The court also stressed that criminal provisions must be read strictly, or an abettor's liability would have no limits.
Result:
- Bishnath: his conviction for abetment of murder was set aside. He had instigated an assault, and he answered for that alone. He was convicted of abetment of assault, with the provision on an abettor's presence also applied, and given three months' rigorous imprisonment.
- Bhagwati: he held the boy only for a beating and knew nothing of the weapon. He received one month for the same offence. The court observed that a person who unknowingly assists in a crime is not guilty of that crime, or of abetting it.
- Girja Prasad: his conviction for murder stood, but his death sentence was reduced to transportation for life, because the killing came out of a sudden quarrel and was not planned.
Principle: An abettor carries the risks he could reasonably foresee, not every surprise that somebody else springs. An unusual or unexpected consequence is not a probable consequence.
Position under the present law:
- The rule applied in this case (Section 111 of the Indian Penal Code) is now Section 51 of the B.N.S.
- The provisions on abetment and on an abettor's presence, used for the final convictions, are now Sections 49 and 54.
- Assault is punishable under Section 131.
Probable consequence: a consequence which is likely, or which can reasonably be expected to follow, from the act abetted. An unusual or unexpected consequence is not a probable one.
Section 52: An additional act is 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."
Where the extra act satisfies the test of Section 51 and amounts to a distinct offence, the abettor is punished for each offence: the one abetted and the one added.
A landlord, Aadil, urges two men to force their way into his tenant's room and throw the tenant's belongings onto the street. The tenant resists, and the men beat him. Forcing their way in was the act abetted; the beating is a distinct offence done in addition. If Aadil knew that the men were likely to turn violent when the tenant resisted, the beating passes the test of Section 51, and Aadil is punished for both offences.
When the abettor's aim misfires, ask one of two questions:
- If the same act caused a bigger result (Section 53), ask what the abettor knew.
- If a different act (Section 51) or an extra act (Section 52) was done, ask whether it was a probable consequence of the abetment.
Situation 4: The abettor is present when the offence is committed (Section 54)
The fourth situation brings the abettor to the scene itself. In Girja Prasad Singh's case, Bishnath did not shout from a distance and go home; he was right there when the assault took place. Section 54 deals with such a person:
"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."
In plain words, take a person who would be guilty as an abettor even if he had stayed away. If he is present when the offence is committed, the law treats him as if he had committed it himself.
- Deemed means that the law accepts something as true for legal purposes.
- He is therefore convicted of the offence itself, not merely of abetting it, although the punishment usually matches what Section 49 would give.
Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor (Privy Council): Held: The rule on an abettor's presence comes into operation only when abetment of a particular crime has first been proved, and the presence of the accused at its commission is then proved in addition. Abetment on its own is a crime apart. But when earlier abetment is joined by actual presence, the law conclusively presumes participation, and the crime becomes the very crime abetted. Principle: The rule explained there, under the old Penal Code, is the rule now found in Section 54 of the B.N.S.
Passer-by, partner and planner
Imagine three people near the scene of a crime.
| Person | Role | Liability |
|---|---|---|
| Passer-by | Only watches; was part of no plan | Not guilty. Presence alone does not make a person guilty. |
| Partner | Shares the plan and takes part in the act | Liable under Section 3(5), through shared intention and shared action |
| Planner | Abetted the crime earlier and has now come to watch it happen | Even if he lifts no finger, Section 54 treats him as the offender, through earlier abetment plus presence |
Section 3(5) provides: "When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone."
The Privy Council itself observed that the presumption arising from abetment plus presence brings such a case within the reach of common intention.
Section 54 needs two things: (1) proof of abetment of a particular offence, which would make the person liable as an abettor even if absent; and (2) proof of his presence when that offence is committed. Mere presence without prior abetment is not enough.
Situation 5: Abetting the public or more than ten persons (Section 57)
The fifth situation is like handing out matches to an entire crowd. Section 57 provides:
"Whoever abets the commission of an offence by the public generally or by any number or class of persons exceeding ten, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and with fine."
Two features stand out:
- The audience: it must be the public at large, or a number or class of persons exceeding ten (that is, more than ten persons).
- No act is needed: nobody in that audience needs to act on the abetment.
The words "and with fine" mean that a fine must also be imposed along with imprisonment.
Problem 4 (the online group): The man who urged 200 members of an online group to burn buses is guilty under Section 57, even though no bus was touched. He faces imprisonment up to 7 years, with fine.
The reason for Section 57 is simple: one voice addressed to a crowd can light a hundred fires at once.
Situation 6: Concealing a design to commit an offence (Sections 58 to 60)
In the last situation the person strikes no match at all; he hides the smoke. Sections 58 to 60 punish a person who conceals a design, meaning a plan, to commit an offence.
- He need not instigate anyone, join any conspiracy, or lend a hand.
- His wrong lies in keeping a dangerous plan hidden, or in telling lies about it, so that the crime becomes easier.
Section 58: Concealing a design to commit an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life
"Whoever intending to facilitate or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby facilitate the commission of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, voluntarily conceals by any act or omission, or by the use of encryption or any other information hiding tool, the existence of a design to commit such offence or makes any representation which he knows to be false respecting such design shall,"
Two outcomes follow:
- Clause (a): "if that offence be committed, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years";
- Clause (b): "if the offence be not committed, with imprisonment of either description, for a term which may extend to three years";
- In either case he "shall also be liable to fine."
To facilitate means to make easier. Note the words on encryption or any other information hiding tool, because criminal plans today often travel in digital form.
Farhan learns that his roommate plans to kill a moneylender. To help him, Farhan moves the planning messages on their shared laptop into a password-locked, encrypted folder. When the moneylender's son asks whether the roommate ever talks about his father, Farhan says no. He has concealed the design and lied about it. He faces up to 7 years if the murder takes place, and up to 3 years if it does not, with fine either way.
Section 59: Public servant concealing a design to commit an offence which it is his duty to prevent
Section 59 raises the stakes for public servants:
"Whoever, being a public servant, intending to facilitate or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby facilitate the commission of an offence which it is his duty as such public servant to prevent, voluntarily conceals, by any act or omission or by the use of encryption or any other information hiding tool, the existence of a design to commit such offence, or makes any representation which he knows to be false respecting such design shall,"
Three outcomes follow:
- Clause (a): "if the offence be committed, be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the longest term of such imprisonment, or with such fine as is provided for that offence, or with both";
- Clause (b): "if the offence be punishable with death or imprisonment for life, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years";
- Clause (c): "if the offence be not committed, shall be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for the offence for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of such imprisonment or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both."
A forest range officer receives a tip that a gang will cut and carry away sandalwood trees from a Government forest. Preventing that theft is his duty. To help the gang, he deletes the tip from his official phone and reports that all is calm. If the theft takes place, he faces up to one-half of the longest term provided for it; if it does not, up to one-fourth. In either case, the court may impose fine instead, or both. Had the plan been for an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, the limit would have been 10 years.
Section 60: Concealing a design to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment
Section 60 covers plans for offences punishable with imprisonment, and it applies to anyone:
"Whoever, intending to facilitate or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby facilitate the commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment, voluntarily conceals, by any act or illegal omission, the existence of a design to commit such offence, or makes any representation which he knows to be false respecting such design shall,"
- Clause (a): "if the offence be committed, be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth; and"
- Clause (b): "if the offence be not committed, to one-eighth, of the longest term of such imprisonment, or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both."
An illegal omission means failing to do something that the law requires.
A shop assistant knows that a colleague plans to steal from the cash counter. When the owner asks whether anyone has been asking about the counter keys, he falsely says no. If the theft happens, he faces up to one-fourth of the longest term provided for theft; if it does not, up to one-eighth; or fine, or both.
Sections 58, 59 and 60 compared
| Point | Section 58 | Section 59 | Section 60 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who | Any person | A public servant | Any person |
| Offence planned | Punishable with death or imprisonment for life | An offence which it is his duty as a public servant to prevent | Punishable with imprisonment |
| Mode of concealment | Any act or omission, or encryption or any other information hiding tool; or a false representation about the design | Any act or omission, or encryption or any other information hiding tool; or a false representation about the design | Any act or illegal omission; or a false representation about the design |
| Offence committed | Up to 7 years, and liable to fine | Up to one-half of the longest term, or fine, or both | Up to one-fourth of the longest term, or fine, or both |
| Offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life | The whole Section deals with such offences | Up to 10 years | No separate rule stated |
| Offence not committed | Up to 3 years, and liable to fine | Up to one-fourth of the longest term, or fine, or both | Up to one-eighth of the longest term, or fine, or both |
The fraction ladder
The fractions used in Sections 49 to 60 tie the whole chapter together.
| Rung | Cases covered |
|---|---|
| One-eighth | Concealing a design to commit an imprisonment offence that is never committed (Section 60) |
| One-fourth | Concealing such a design when the offence is committed (Section 60); an ordinary abettor whose abetment failed (Section 56); a public servant concealing a design where the offence is not committed (Section 59) |
| One-half | An abetment that fails with a public servant on either side (Section 56); a public servant concealing a design where the offence is committed (Section 59) |
| Full punishment of the offence | An abettor whose abetment led to the commission of the offence (Section 49) |
For the gravest offences, and for abetting a crowd, the law uses fixed years instead of fractions:
- Failed abetment (Section 55): 7 years, or 14 years where hurt is caused.
- Concealing a design (Section 58): 7 years if the offence is committed, 3 years if not.
- Public servant concealing a design (Section 59): 10 years.
- Abetting the public or more than ten persons (Section 57): 7 years.
The four problems solved
- The vanished hired man: Prince is guilty of abetting murder and faces up to 7 years and fine under Section 55.
- The innocent nurse: Farhan receives the punishment for murder under Section 50, while the nurse is innocent.
- The cut brake wire: Aadil is liable for his rival's injuries under Section 53, provided he knew that cutting a brake wire was likely to cause them.
- The online group: The man is guilty under Section 57, though not a single bus burned.
Quick revision
- The law punishes the one who strikes the match: abetment is complete even if the offence abetted is never committed (Explanation 2 to Section 46).
- The abettor is measured by what the spark actually does: offence not committed (Sections 55 and 56), offence committed (Sections 49 and 50).
- He is also measured by what he could foresee: a different effect if he knew it was likely (Section 53); a different or additional act if it was a probable consequence (Sections 51 and 52).
- He is treated as the doer if he stands beside the fire: abettor present at the offence (Section 54).
- Abetting the public or more than ten persons is punished even if nobody acts (Section 57).
- The law does not spare the one who quietly hides the smoke: concealing a design to commit an offence (Sections 58 to 60).
