BNS Section 51 — Liability of abettor when one act abetted and different act done

Summary

When an act is abetted but a different act is actually done, the abettor is held liable for the act that was done, in the same way and to the same extent as if they had directly abetted that different act.

However, this liability applies only if the act actually done was a probable consequence of the abetment, and it was committed under the influence of the instigation, or with the aid or in pursuance of the conspiracy that made up the abetment.

Illustration (a): A instigates a child to put poison into Z's food and gives the child poison for that purpose. The child, because of the instigation, mistakenly puts the poison into Y's food, which is next to Z's food. If the child was acting under A's influence and the act done was a probable consequence of the abetment, A is liable in the same way and to the same extent as if he had instigated the child to poison Y's food.

Illustration (b): A instigates B to burn Z's house. B sets fire to the house and at the same time steals property there. A is guilty of abetting the burning of the house, but is not guilty of abetting the theft, because the theft was a separate act and not a probable consequence of the burning.

Illustration (c): A instigates B and C to break into an inhabited house at midnight for robbery and provides them with arms. B and C break in, and when resisted by Z, one of the inmates, they murder Z. If that murder was a probable consequence of the abetment, A is liable to the punishment provided for murder.

Official Text

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.

Related Judgments

• SC (2025) Vol.3 p.1309 — Supreme Court of India (2025)
• SC (2025) Vol.11 p.291 — Supreme Court of India (2025)
• SC (2025) Vol.6 p.280 — Supreme Court of India (2025)
• SC (2025) Vol.2 p.80 — Supreme Court of India (2025)
• SC (2025) Vol.3 p.1531 — Supreme Court of India (2025)
• SC (2024) Vol.6 p.129 — Supreme Court of India (2024)
• SC (2024) Vol.8 p.670 — Supreme Court of India (2024)
• SC (2025) Vol.4 p.2730 — Supreme Court of India (2025)

Old <-> New Code Mapping

• IPC §111 — Liability of abettor when one act abetted and different act done