August 9, 2025

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

Amit Kapoor09 mins

Liability of abettor when one act abetted and different act done

51.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.

Example 1 :
Vijay instigates Rakesh to break into an inhabited house at midnight for the purpose of robbery, and provides them with weapons for this purpose. Rakesh breaks into the house, and being resisted by Anita, one of the inmates, murder Anita. Here, if that murder was the probable consequence of the abetment, Vijay is liable to the punishment provided for murder. 

Example 2 :
Vijay instigates Rakesh to burn Anita’s house, Rakesh sets fire to the house and at the same time commits theft of property there. Vijay, 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.

Key Points of Section 51:

  1. Abetment and Different Act:
    • The abettor is held liable for the different act that was committed, in the same way and to the same extent as if they had directly abetted that act.
    • This liability applies only if the different act was a probable consequence of the abetment. This means that the abettor is not held liable for completely unforeseen or unrelated acts.
  2. Conditions for Abettor’s Liability: For the abettor to be held responsible for the different act, the following conditions must be met:
    • The act done must be a probable consequence of the abetment.
    • The act must have been committed under the influence of the instigation, aid, or conspiracy that constituted the abetment.
  3. Illustrations:
    • Illustration (a): A gives poison to a child and instigates the child to poison Z’s food. The child mistakenly poisons Y’s food (who is sitting next to Z). Since poisoning Y was a probable consequence of A’s instigation, A is held responsible for poisoning Y, just as if A had directly instigated it.
    • Illustration (b): A instigates B to burn down Z’s house. While B sets the house on fire, B also steals property from the house. A is guilty of abetting the arson, but not the theft, because theft was a separate act and not a probable consequence of the arson.
    • Illustration (c): A instigates B and C to break into a house for robbery and provides them with weapons. During the robbery, B and C kill Z, an inmate who resists them. If Z’s murder was a probable consequence of A’s abetment (because A armed them), A is guilty of abetting the murder, even though A did not directly instigate the murder.
  4. Key Definitions:
    • Probable Consequence: An outcome that could reasonably be expected to result from the abetment.
    • Instigation: Encouraging or provoking someone to commit a crime.
    • Aid: Assisting or supporting the commission of a crime.
    • Conspiracy: An agreement between two or more people to commit a crime.
  5. Key Takeaway:
    • Section 51 ensures that an abettor is held responsible not only for the specific act they intended to abet but also for any different act that occurs as a probable consequence of their abetment.
    • This provision closes potential loopholes for abettors who might otherwise argue that they only intended to facilitate one crime, but a different crime occurred as a result.

Conclusion:

Section 51 imposes accountability on abettors for indirect consequences of their actions, as long as those consequences are reasonably foreseeable. This ensures that individuals cannot avoid liability simply because the crime committed was different from what they had intended, provided the act was a probable outcome of their abetment.