Home / Indian Penal Code 1860 / Section 111

Section 111 IPC: Liability of Abettor When a Different Act Is Done

Section 111 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 extended an abettor's liability to a different act done by the person abetted when that different act was a probable consequence of the abetment and had the required connection with it.

Legal position: This article explains Section 111 IPC in the legal framework applicable before the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 came into force on 1 July 2024. The IPC was repealed by the BNS, subject to the repeal and savings provisions governing prior operation, liabilities, penalties, investigations and proceedings.

Text of Section 111 IPC

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 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.

Meaning and Scope of Section 111

Section 111 dealt with a situation in which the act actually committed was not exactly the act that the abettor intended or encouraged. Liability did not arise merely because some different act followed the abetment. The section required the different act to be a probable consequence of the abetment and to have been committed under the influence of the instigation, with the aid, or in pursuance of the conspiracy constituting the abetment.

The provision should be read with Section 107 IPC, which defined abetment of a thing, and Section 108 IPC, which dealt with the meaning of an abettor.

Essential Requirements

  • There must be abetment: The starting point is an act of abetment recognized by law.
  • A different act must be done: The person abetted does something different from the precise act abetted.
  • The different act must be a probable consequence: A merely independent or unrelated act is outside Section 111.
  • A causal connection is required: The different act must be committed under the influence of the instigation, with the aid, or in pursuance of the conspiracy that constituted the abetment.
  • Extent of liability: When these conditions are satisfied, the abettor is liable for the act done in the same manner and to the same extent as if that act had been directly abetted.

Statutory Illustrations

Illustration (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.
Illustration (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.
Illustration (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.

How the Probable Consequence Test Works

The illustrations show the dividing line drawn by Section 111. A mistaken choice of victim may still fall within the provision when it remains a probable consequence of the original instigation. By contrast, an independent theft committed while carrying out an abetted act of burning is not attributed to the abettor merely because both acts occurred at the same time.

The third illustration demonstrates that a more serious act may attract liability where it was a probable consequence of the abetted venture. Whether the statutory test is met depends on the facts and the connection between the abetment and the act ultimately committed.

Related IPC Provisions

Section 110 IPC addressed cases where the person abetted acted with a different intention or knowledge from that of the abettor. Section 112 IPC dealt with cumulative punishment for the act abetted and the act done, while Section 113 IPC addressed a different effect caused by the act abetted.

Key Takeaway

Under Section 111 IPC, an abettor could be held responsible for a different act committed by the person abetted, but only when the different act was a probable consequence of the abetment and was sufficiently connected with the instigation, aid or conspiracy constituting that abetment. An independent act outside that connection did not become the abettor's liability merely because it occurred during the same transaction.