IPC §111BNS §51

Liability of abettor when one act abetted and different act done

Substantively sameConfidence: mediumStatus: cross checked
Last updated 2026-05-01 · Input coverage: full

Compiled by AI-assisted tools. Text verified against official sources where indicated. Field-level labels (AI-indicated / AI-inferred / Text-verified) apply per edge metadata. Verify current bail/cognizable status against official sources before relying on procedural claims. Last updated: 2026-04-28.

Jump to section

Comparison

Old law
IPC §111
Liability of abettor when one act abetted and different act done

111. Liability of abettor when one act abetted and different act done.—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 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.

New law
BNS §51
Liability of abettor when one act abetted and different act done

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.

What changedAI-inferred

IPC 111 and BNS 51 carry the same rule character-identically — when one act is abetted but a different act is done, the abettor is liable for the act done if it was a probable consequence of the abetment. The proviso and all three illustrations preserved.

Old position

IPC 111 is concerned with Liability of abettor when one act abetted and different act done. Liability of abettor when one act abetted and different act done

New position

BNS 51 preserves the framework with drafting modernisations as required by the new code. Topic: Liability of abettor when one act abetted and different act done. 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,

IPC 111 and BNS 51 carry the same rule character-identically — when one act is abetted but a different act is done, the abettor is liable for the act done if it was a probable consequence of the abetment. The proviso and all three illustrations preserved.

Editorial deltaAI-indicated (source-linked)

IPC 111 and BNS 51 carry the same rule character-identically — when one act is abetted but a different act is done, the abettor is liable for the act done if it was a probable consequence of the abetment. The proviso and all three illustrations preserved.

Transitional note (repeal & savings)

For matters initiated before 1 July 2024, IPC 111 continues to apply. For matters from that date forward, BNS 51 applies. The transition is governed by the repeal-and-savings clause in the new code (BNS 358 / BNSS 531 / BSA 170 as the case may be); pending proceedings under the old code carry forward unaffected.

Frequently asked

BNS 51 (Liability of abettor when one act abetted and different act done). The relationship is classified as substantively_same — see the change-note above for the textual delta.

Sources

Cite this page

Newlaws.in, IPC §111 → BNS §51 Mapping Page, last updated 2026-05-01, accessed 2026-06-14, https://newlaws.in/ipc/111.

Compiled using AI-assisted tools · Source-linked · Last updated 2026-05-01

Not legal advice. Verify against the bare act and consult a qualified advocate for any specific matter.