Offence of Abetment | Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

Chapter IV of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023, from Sections 45-62, addresses abetment, criminal conspiracy, and attempt, replacing Chapter V (Sections 107-120) of the Indian Penal Code. Abetment, as per Merriam-Webster, means to assist, encourage, instigate, or support with criminal intent in attempting or carrying out a crime.

Abetment of Offences: A Detailed Study of BNS

Section 45 of the BNS states:

A person abets the doing of a thing, who—
(a) instigates any person to do that thing or
(b) engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or
(c) intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Section 46 defines an abettor as a person who aids the commission of an offence or an act that would be an offence if done by someone legally capable of committing it with the same intent or knowledge as the abettor.

• Explanation 1: Abetment of an illegal omission can still be an offence, even if the abettor is not legally bound to perform the act.
• Explanation 2: Abetment is an offence even if the abetted act is not committed or its intended effect is not achieved.

Section 47 talks about the abetment in India of offences outside India. This means that if the person in India abets the commission of any act beyond the jurisdiction of India, it would constitute an offence if committed in India. Section 48 talks about the abetment outside India for offence in India, which would also constitute an offence if committed in India.

Section 49 prescribes the punishment for the offence of abetment where there is the absence of punishment provision, which is punishment for abetment is the same as for the offence being abetted. Whether it is a bailable or non-bailable offence and the court has jurisdiction for trial depends on the nature of the abetted offence.

Section 50 (Section 110 of IPC) states that if a person abetted acts with a different intention or knowledge than the abettor, the abettor will still be held liable and punished as though the act had been committed with the intention or knowledge of the abettor.

Section 51 (Section 111 of IPC) states that if a person abets one act but a different act is committed, the abettor will still be held liable for the act done, provided it was a probable consequence of the abetment. It was committed due to instigation, aid, or conspiracy.

Section 52 (Section 112 of IPC) states that if, in addition to the act abetted, an additional act is committed which constitutes a distinct offence, the abettor will be liable for punishment for both offences.

Section 53 (Section 113 of IPC) states that if the act abetted causes a different effect than what the abettor intended, the abettor will still be liable for the effect caused, provided they knew the act was likely to cause such an effect. Section 54 (Section 114 of IPC) states that if an abettor is present when the offence is committed, they will be deemed to have committed it themselves.

Moreover, Section 107 of the BNS states that whoever abets the commission of suicide of the child, any person of unsound mind, any delirious person or any person in a state of intoxication, shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, along with fine. Section 108 of the BNS prescribes the same punishment as section 107 in cases where the person has committed the abetment of suicide.

Chapter VIII of the BNS deals with the situations where the abetment of offences related to military personnel occurs.

Section 159 of the BNS provides that anyone who abets mutiny or attempts to seduce a soldier, sailor, or airman from their duty shall be punished with life imprisonment or imprisonment for up to ten years and shall also be liable to a fine. Section 158 states that if mutiny is committed due to such abetment, the abettor may face the death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for up to ten years, along with a fine.

Section 160 of BNS says that abetting mutiny by a member of the Indian Army, Navy, or Air Force, if mutiny occurs as a result, is punishable by death, life imprisonment, or up to 10 years’ imprisonment, along with a fine.

Section 161 of BNS provides that Abetting an assault by a member of the armed forces on a superior officer while in execution of duty is punishable by up to 3 years’ imprisonment and a fine.

Section 162 of BNS If such an assault occurs as a result of the abetment, the punishment increases to up to 7 years’ imprisonment and a fine. Section 163 of BNS says that abetting desertion by a member of the armed forces is punishable by up to 2 years’ imprisonment, a fine, or both.

Important Judgments

In Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2009), the court dealt with the aspect of abetment. The Court described the dictionary meaning of the words “instigation” and “goading”. The Court opined that there should be an intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person's suicidality pattern is different from the other. Each person has his idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided based on its facts and circumstances.

In the case of Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab (2004), the court held that abetment involves mentally instigating someone or intentionally helping them commit an act. In cases of conspiracy, it also requires the mental intent to collaborate and plan for carrying out that act.

Similarly, the Supreme Court, in the case of Amalendu Pal Alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal (2010), it was held that in cases of abetment to suicide, the court must carefully assess the facts and evidence to determine whether the victim's suffering left them with no alternative but to end their life. Mere claims of harassment, without any direct or immediate actions by the accused leading to the suicide, cannot justify a conviction under Section 306 IPC. Moreover, in one of the recent cases, the Supreme Court has held that words spoken in the heat of anger cannot amount to the instigation of suicide. [Prakash v. State Of Maharashtra, (2024)]

As the cases related to the abetment to suicide have arisen over some time, the Supreme Court in the case of Nipun Aneja & Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2017), by the bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, issued certain guidelines which involve: -

• The accused caused unbearable harassment or torture, leaving the victim feeling suicide was the only way out.
• They exploited the victim's emotions, making them feel worthless and hopeless.
• Threats to harm the victim's family or cause financial ruin added to their distress.
• False allegations and public humiliation further shattered the victim's dignity and mental strength.

The Court observed that both police and judicial authorities should refrain from pursuing “unnecessary prosecutions” in workplace-related abetment of suicide cases.

Conclusion

Chapter IV of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, comprehensively addresses abetment, criminal conspiracy, and attempts, replacing similar sections of the Indian Penal Code. It defines abetment through instigation, conspiracy, or intentional assistance.

Although unchanged and consistent with Chapter V of the IPC, BNS establishes liability for abettors, even when the act committed differs from the one abetted, provided it was a probable consequence of the abetment. It also holds abettors accountable for unintended effects if they knew the act was likely to cause such outcomes. Additionally, it also specifies punishments for abetment related to military personnel, including mutiny or insubordination against military personnel

References

[1] Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Available Here

[2] Indian Penal Code, Available Here

[3] Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), [(2009) 16 SCC 605]

[4] Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab, [2004 (13) SCC 129]

[5] Amalendu Pal Alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal, [(2010) (1) SCC 707]

[6] Prakash v. State Of Maharashtra, Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1073 of 2023

[7] Nipun Aneja & Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 654 of 2017)