Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Section 53
Liability of abettor for an effect caused by act abetted different from that intended by
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. Illustration. A instigates B to cause grievous hurt to Z. B, in consequence of the instigation, causes grievous hurt to Z. Z dies in consequence. Here, if A knew that the grievous hurt abetted was likely to cause death, A is liable to be punished with the punishment provided for murder.
Why this exists
This rule closes a gap in abetment law. Without it, someone who instigates a crime could escape heavier punishment simply because the actual outcome (like death) was worse than what they explicitly asked for (like injury). Carried forward from Section 111 of the old Indian Penal Code, 1860, it ensures that instigators can't dodge responsibility for foreseeable escalations of harm, while still protecting them from liability for outcomes they could not have anticipated at all.
How courts read it
Indian courts have long held that liability under this kind of provision hinges on the abettor's knowledge of likely consequences, not just the stated intention. Courts examine the nature of the act instigated (e.g., how severe the abetted assault was) to infer whether the abettor could reasonably have foreseen a graver result like death. This mirrors interpretations of the identical provision under the old Penal Code, where courts consistently required proof of the abettor's foresight before extending liability to the unintended, more serious outcome.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: The abettor is only punished for exactly what they asked for, never for anything worse.
Fact: The law explicitly makes the abettor liable for a worse or different effect too, as long as they knew that outcome was a likely result of the act they encouraged. - Myth: Knowledge of the risk doesn't matter — only the original intention counts.
Fact: Knowledge is the key legal condition here; without proof the abettor knew the graver result was likely, they cannot be held liable for that greater harm under this section.