Introduction
Abetment is a fundamental concept in criminal law that extends criminal liability beyond the primary offender to those who assist, instigate, or conspire in the commission of a crime. It reflects the legal principle that not only the person who physically commits the offence is liable, but also those who play a supportive or encouraging role in its execution. The provision related to abetment are in chapter IV of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita hereafter BNS .Understanding abetment is essential for appreciating the broader framework of criminal liability and ensuring justice in cases involving group or collaborative criminal behaviour.
Meaning of Abetment
In layman’s language, abetment means helping, encouraging, or provoking someone to commit a crime. Even if someone doesn’t commit the crime themselves, they can still be held responsible if they encouraged, assisted, or helped plan it along with the person who did.
For Example – If a person tells their friend to steal something, or helps them plan how to do it, even if they don’t steal anything themselves, they are abetting the crime. So, abetment is like being a partner in crime, not by doing it directly, but by helping or pushing someone else to do it.
Definition of Abetment
Abetment is defined in section 45 of BNS. Abetment is established when a person does any of the following:
1. Instigating someone to commit an offence
Instigation means actively encouraging or provoking someone to do or not do something that a person is legally bound to do. Instigation can be done either directly or indirectly through words, gestures, or hints. According to the explanation 1 of Section 45 BNS instigation can also happen through:
- Wilful misrepresentation, or
- Intentional concealment of important facts a person is bound to disclose.
Example – If A lies to a police officer by saying B is C, leading to B’s wrongful arrest, A is guilty of abetment by instigation.
2. Engages in a conspiracy to carry out the offence
Conspiracy refers to an agreement between two or more people to commit an illegal act. Simply thinking about a crime isn’t enough but there must be some agreement. The planned act must be illegal or unlawful.
Example – A, B, and C make a secret plan to rob a bank—A waits in the getaway car, B stands guard, and C goes inside to commit the robbery. Even if only B carries out the crime, all three can still be held liable for abetment by conspiracy.
3. Intentionally aids in the commission of an offence
Abetment can also occur when someone intentionally helps another commit a crime. The most important factor here is clear intention to assist. This aid can by done by either doing some act or by illegal omission.
Example-A police officer who observes a crime and fails to intervene, even though obligated to do so.
Who is an abettor?
Abettor is defined in Section 46 of the BNS. To understand this section, it can be divided into two parts-
The first part states that an abettor is a person who abets the commission of an offence. The second part explains that an abettor is someone who abets the commission of an act Which would be punishable if done by a person legally capable of committing the offence.
This second part reflects Explanation 3 of Section 46 of BNS, which clarifies that the person being abetted does not necessarily have to be legally capable of committing the offence. An abettor can be punished even if the person they abet is not legally capable of committing the crime.
Abetment in India for offence committed outside India
According to Section 47 of BNS, if a person in India abets an offence that is committed outside India, it will be considered abetment only if the act being abetted is also recognized as an offence under Indian law.
For example, if A, who is in India, instigates B, a foreign national residing in country X, to commit murder, A would be guilty of abetting the crime of murder, as murder is punishable in India.
Abetment outside India for offence committed in India
According to Section 48 of BNS, if a person, while located outside the territory of India, encourages, instigates, or aids another person in committing an act within India, it will be considered an act of abetment—provided that the act being abetted is recognized as an offence under Indian law.
For example, if A, who is residing in a foreign country X deliberately provokes or urges B to commit the crime of murder within the borders of India, then A would be held legally accountable for abetting the offence of murder, as murder is a punishable offence under Indian law.
Punishment for Abetment
The law differentiates the punishment for a person who abets a crime depending on whether the offence is actually committed or not.
1. When the Crime is Successfully Committed
According to section 49 of BNS If the abetted offence is committed in consequence of abetment then the abettor is subjected to the same punishment as the person who actually committed the offence.
2. When the Crime is Not Committed
According to Section 55 of BNS, if a person abets an offence that is punishable by life imprisonment or death, but the actual offence is not carried out, the abettor may still face punishment. In such cases, the abettor can be sentenced to imprisonment for a period that may extend up to seven years and may also be required to pay a fine. However, if the abetment causes any harm or injury to someone, the punishment becomes more severe, and the abettor can be imprisoned for a term that may extend up to fourteen years, in addition to being liable to pay a fine.
According to section 56 of BNS, if a person abets an offence that is punishable by imprisonment ,but the actual offence is not carried out in consequence of abetment, abettor can be punished with a term of imprisonment equal to one-fourth of the maximum sentence prescribed for that offence. However, if the abettor is a public servant, the punishment is increased to half of the maximum possible sentence.
3. Other relevant sections prescribing punishment for abetment
According to 50 of the BNS, If the person being abetted carries out the act with a different intention or level of knowledge than the abettor, the abettor will be held responsible and punished as if the act had been committed in line with their own intention or knowledge .In other words abettor remains liable and will be punished according to their own intent or knowledge, regardless of whether the person abetted had a different intention when committing the offence.
According to 51 of BNS, When a person abets a specific act, but a different act is ultimately committed , the abettor can still be made liable for the act carried out—provided it was a probable consequence of abetment. For example, X encourages Y to rob a house at night. During the robbery, Y unexpectedly kills the homeowner who wakes up and tries to stop him. Even though X only intended for Y to commit theft, and not murder, X can still be held liable for the killing because death during a robbery is a probable consequence of the crime he abetted.
According to Section 52 of BNS, if an additional, distinct offence is committed along with the abetted act, the abettor may be held liable and punished for both offences.
According to Section 53 of BNS, If the act that was abetted leads to a consequence different from what the abettor had intended, the abettor will still be held accountable for that consequence, as long as they were aware that such an outcome was likely.
According to Section 54 of BNS, if the abettor is physically present at the time the offence is carried out, they will be considered as having personally committed the offence.
According to Section 57 of BNS, if abettor instigates a crime committed by the public or a group exceeding ten people then abettor may face imprisonment for up to seven years along with fine.
According to Section 58 of BNS, Anyone who is aware of a plan to commit an offence punishable by death or life imprisonment and deliberately hides it can face up to seven years in prison if the offence occurs. If the offence does not take place, they may still be imprisoned for up to three years.
According to Section 59 of BNS, A public servant who conceals the design to commit an offence, particularly one they are duty-bound to prevent, faces punishment of up to half the maximum term for the offence. For example, A customs officer learns about a planned smuggling operation but intentionally hides this information instead of taking action to stop it. Since it is the officer’s duty to prevent such crimes, they can be punished with imprisonment for up to half the maximum sentence prescribed for smuggling under the law.
According to Section 60 of BNS, if someone hides the plan to commit offence punishable by imprisonment, they can be sentenced to imprisonment for up to one-fourth of the maximum term if the offence is committed, or up to one-eighth of the maximum term if it is not committed.
Abetment is an offence of constructive liability
Constructive Liability refers to a legal principle where a person is held criminally liable for an offence, not because they directly committed it, but because they were involved in such a way that the law considers them equally responsible. This involvement may include participation, aiding, abetting, conspiring, or having a common intention or object with others who actually committed the crime.
In other words it is imputed liability. Abetment is an offence based on the principle of constructive liability, where a person is held legally responsible not for directly committing the crime, but for encouraging, aiding, or conspiring in its commission. The law recognizes that those who play a supporting role in a crime contribute to its occurrence and should also be held accountable. Even if the principal offender alone commits the act, the abettor can still be punished for their indirect involvement.
Abetment as an Inchoate offence
Inchoate offences are crimes that involve actions taken toward committing a criminal offence, even if the final offence is not completed. The term “inchoate” means “just begun” or “undeveloped”, so these offences deal with preliminary stages of criminal activity.
Abetment is an inchoate offence because it involves assisting, instigating, or facilitating another person to commit a crime, regardless of whether the crime is actually committed or not law punish the abettors.
Case Laws
Sanju @ Sanjay Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2002) 5 SCC 371
In this case, the Supreme Court set aside the charge sheet under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with abetment of suicide. The Court emphasized that words like “go and die”, spoken during a heated argument or in the heat of the moment, cannot be construed as having the necessary criminal intent (mens rea). The utterance was seen as a result of emotional outburst or anger, not a deliberate instigation to commit suicide.
Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat (2010) 8 SCC 628
In this case, the deceased had previously undergone heart bypass surgery. The court examined the circumstances surrounding the death to determine whether the accused’s actions amounted to abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC. It was held that for abetment to be established, there must be clear evidence showing that the accused intentionally instigated or aided the deceased to take their own life. The court emphasized that mere physical or mental suffering due to illness is insufficient to prove abetment unless it is shown that the accused actively contributed to or encouraged the suicide.
Conclusion
Abetment is a vital and integral concept in criminal law that extends legal responsibility to individuals who, though not directly involved in committing a criminal act, encourage, assist, support, or conspire in its commission. It ensures that those who play a secondary yet significant role in facilitating or provoking a crime are not left unpunished. By recognizing abetment as both a form of constructive liability and an inchoate offence, the law emphasizes that preparatory or supportive conduct can carry serious consequences. This approach upholds the principle of justice, strengthens legal deterrence, and reinforces the accountability of all parties involved in criminal behaviour.
Authors: Deepa Chauhan and Urvashi Sehrawat are 5th Semester, LL.B (Hons.) students at Amity University, Noida.
