BNS Section 51 – Liability Of Abettor When One Act Abetted And Different Act Done

Section 51 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, addresses situations where a person abets one act, but a different act occurs instead. It ensures that the abettor can still be held responsible if the actual act was a probable result of their instigation or conspiracy.

This provision replaces IPC Section 111, refining the legal landscape on abetment to ensure accountability stays relevant even when outcomes vary slightly from the plan.

Legal Provisions

“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.

Simplified Explanation Of BNS Section 51

BNS Section 51, being an application thereof, means that if you incite another to do something, and the other should do something else, then you shall continue to be considered liable if the act so done was the probable consequence of his incitement. For example, in the case that you have instigated somebody to beat up somebody and the other committed murder, you could be held liable for the killing, as it was one of the incidents upon which your plan could come to an end. The law expressly states that any different act committed should not be a defense to a party who caused its commission, and the commission was a probable consequence of the party's words or assistance.

Practical Examples Illustrating BNS Section 51

• Example A
  A tells a child to poison Z. The child, by mistake, poisons Y instead. Since poisoning someone was the objective and Y was a likely victim, A is liable for poisoning Y.
• Example B
  A urges B to burn down Z’s house. B does that and steals valuables. Theft was not part of the plan or a probable outcome, so A is not liable for the theft.
• Example C
  A prompts B and C to rob a house and arms them. During the break-in, the homeowner Z resists and gets murdered. Since getting violent (murder) was likely during such an act, A is liable as if he had abetted the murder.

Key Improvements & Changes from IPC Section 111 → BNS Section 51

Conclusion

Section 51 of the BNS will ensure that whoever commits a crime or unlawful act shall not escape fault merely because the crime or offence that was committed in fact differed in slight degree from that he had planned or encouraged. If such an act was the possible or probable result of their aiding or encouraging, he is still guilty. This section goes a long way in aiding the law by seeking to punish the aiders of crime so that those playing a part behind the scenes cannot escape punishment merely because the end was not quite what they had in mind. Through this, considerable gaps in law are bridged, ushering in a more robust and fairer justice system.