Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Section 52
Abettor when liable to cumulative punishment for act abetted and for act 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. Illustration. A instigates B to resist by force a distress made by a public servant. B, in consequence, resists that distress. In offering the resistance, B voluntarily causes grievous hurt to the officer executing the distress. As B has committed both the offence of resisting the distress, and the offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt, B is liable to punishment for both these offences; and, if A knew that B was likely voluntarily to cause grievous hurt in resisting the distress, A will also be liable to punishment for each of the offences.
Why this exists
This provision continues a rule from the old Indian Penal Code (Section 111), which itself reflects a long-standing principle in criminal law: a person who instigates or helps another to commit a crime should not escape responsibility for foreseeable additional harm that flows from that instigation. It stops abettors from limiting their liability only to the exact act they intended, when the person they abetted goes further in a way the abettor could reasonably anticipate.
How courts read it
Under the identical provision in the old IPC, courts consistently held that the abettor's liability for the extra offence depends on knowledge or foreseeability — the abettor must have known that the further offence was a likely consequence of the abetment. Courts distinguished between acts that were a natural and probable outgrowth of the abetted act (attracting liability) and acts that were an independent, unconnected choice by the principal offender (not attracting liability). No new judicial interpretation exists yet for the BNS provision itself since it mirrors the earlier IPC section.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: The abettor is automatically punished for any extra crime the main offender commits, no matter what.
Fact: The abettor is only liable for the additional distinct offence if they knew (or the law treats them as having known) that this further offence was a likely result of the abetment — mere accidental or unforeseeable extra acts by the principal offender do not attach to the abettor.