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.
Abetment and Different Act:
Section 51 deals with situations where an abettor encourages or helps commit one act, but a different act is carried out by the person abetted. In this case:
The abettor is liable for the act that was done (the different act), in the same way and to the same extent as if they had directly abetted that act.
This liability only applies if the different act was a probable consequence of the abetment.
2. Conditions for Abettor’s Liability:
For the abettor to be held responsible for the different act done, 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:
These examples clarify how Section 51 works:
Illustration (a):
A gives poison to a child and instigates the child to poison Z’s food. The child mistakenly puts the poison in Y's food (who is sitting next to Z). Since the child acted under A’s instigation, and the poisoning of Y was a probable consequence of A’s abetment, A is responsible for the poisoning of Y, as if A had directly instigated it.
Illustration (b):
A instigates B to burn down Z’s house. B sets the house on fire and, at the same time, steals property from the house. A is guilty of abetting the arson, but not the theft, because the theft was a separate act and not a probable consequence of the abetment to burn the house.
Illustration (c):
A instigates B and C to break into a house at midnight for robbery, and gives them weapons. While robbing the house, 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: Refers to an outcome that could reasonably be expected to result from the abetment.
Instigation: Encouraging or provoking another to commit a crime.
Aid: Providing assistance or support that enables the commission of a crime.
Conspiracy: An agreement between two or more people to commit a crime.
5. Key Takeaway:
Section 51 ensures that abettors are held responsible not just for the specific act they intended to abet, but also for any different act that may occur as a probable consequence of their abetment. This section closes loopholes for abettors who might claim that they only intended one crime but not another that happened during the same incident.
Thus, the law imposes accountability for indirect consequences of abetment, as long as those consequences are reasonably foreseeable.
Offence : Abetment of any offence, when one act is abetted and a different act is done; subject to the proviso.
Punishment : Same as for offence intended to be abetted.
Cognizable or Non-cognizable : According as offence abetted is or non-cognizable.
Bailable or Non-bailable : According as offence cognizable abetted is bailable or non-bailable.
By what Court triable : Court by which offence abetted is triable.
Explore the comprehensive list of all sections under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Our detailed guide provides a complete overview of each section to help you understand Indian law better.
Find the best lawyer for BNS Section 51 charges
Comments by Users
No Comments! Be the first one to comment.