Answer By law4u team
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Section 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.
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.
Brief Detail
BNS Section 51 deals with the liability of an abettor when a different act from what was abetted is committed. The abettor is held responsible for the act done if it was a probable consequence of the abetment and occurred under the influence of the instigation or conspiracy. The section highlights the circumstances under which an abettor is liable for acts beyond the original intent, using specific examples to illustrate different scenarios.
Question & Answers
- Q1: What is the liability of an abettor if a different act is committed than the one abetted?
A1: 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 in pursuance of the conspiracy. - Q2: In Illustration (a), why is A liable for poisoning Y instead of Z?
A2: A is liable because the poisoning of Y was a probable consequence of the abetment, and the child acted under A’s influence, even though the intended target was Z. - Q3: Why is A not liable for the theft in Illustration (b)?
A3: A is not liable for the theft because it was a distinct act and not a probable consequence of the burning of the house. - Q4: What is the liability of A in Illustration (c)?
A4: A is liable for murder if the murder of Z was a probable consequence of the abetment for the robbery, even though it was not directly abetted by A.
Example
- Example 1: If A instigates B to commit a robbery, and B, while committing the robbery, accidentally causes harm to a bystander, A is liable for the harm caused if it was a probable consequence of the robbery.
- Example 2: If A encourages B to commit vandalism, and B, during the act of vandalism, also commits assault, A is only liable for the vandalism and not for the assault unless it was a probable consequence of the vandalism.
Summary
BNS Section 51 establishes that an abettor is liable for any act done as a probable consequence of their abetment, even if the act differs from what was initially abetted. Liability is determined based on whether the act was a likely outcome of the abetment and occurred under the abettor's influence or conspiracy.
