BACK TO SECTIONS
IPC 1860REPEALED

Section 110-119

Abetment: Punishment when different from intended; Abettor present at commission; Abetment of offence punishable with death; Abetment of offence in Army; Abetment of assault by soldier; Abetment of insubordination by soldier; Concealment of abetted acts

Replaced by: BNS 49-60

VariesCognizable: VariesVaries
THE STATUTE

Original Text

Section 110: Whoever abets the commission of an offence shall, if the person abetted does the act with a different intention or knowledge from that of the abettor, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence which would have been committed if the act had been done with the intention or knowledge of the abettor. Section 111: 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, if the act actually done was a probable consequence of the abetment...

Simplified

Sections 110–119 complete the abetment framework by addressing edge cases and military-specific scenarios. Section 110 (abetment with different mental state) closes a loophole: if A abets B to commit murder but B only commits grievous hurt, A is still liable for murder — A's instigating intention governs the abettor's liability, not the executioner's actual mental state. Section 111 addresses 'different act done' — if A abets B to steal but B also murders the victim, A is liable for the murder if it was a probable consequence of the abetment. This is the 'probable consequence' test that courts apply to hold crime initiators responsible for foreseeable escalations. Sections 117–119 target officers and persons who conceal offences or allow subordinates to commit offences under their command — creating superior liability in institutional contexts.

Legal Evolution

Sections 110-119 elaborate the IPC's scheme of abetment liability, building on the foundational definition in Section 107. Drafted from English principles of secondary liability but considerably more systematic, these provisions address punishment for abetment of offences across various scenarios — where the abetted act is committed, where it is not committed, and where the person abetted is a child or person of unsound mind. Courts have consistently applied these sections to organizers of crimes who remain physically distant from the actual commission.

Landmark Precedents

Faguna Kanta Nath v. State of Assam (1959)

AIR 1959 SC 673
RELEVANCE

Established the probable consequence doctrine under Section 111 — an abettor is liable for acts that are natural probable consequences of the abetted act, even if different from what was specifically intended.

Practical Scenarios

"A gang leader who instigates a robbery that escalates into murder — liable for murder under Section 111 (probable consequence)."
"A person who abets grievous hurt with the intention of causing it — liability is for grievous hurt even if the actor only caused simple hurt (Section 110)."

Common Queries

Under Section 111, yes — if the murder was a 'probable consequence' of your abetment of assault. Courts look at the circumstances: if A sent B to 'teach C a lesson' knowing B carried weapons, the murder that followed is a probable consequence.