Section 113 IPC: Liability of Abettor for a Different Effect Caused by the Act Abetted

Section 113 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 addresses a case in which an abettor intends one particular effect, but the act for which the abettor is liable produces a different effect. The provision makes the abettor liable for that different effect where the statutory knowledge requirement is satisfied.

Legal position covered: This article explains Section 113 IPC under the law applicable before the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 came into force. The IPC continues to be relevant to its previous operation and to liabilities, penalties, investigations and proceedings preserved by the applicable repeal-and-savings provision.

Text of Section 113 IPC

When an act is abetted with the intention on the part of the abettor of causing a particular effect, and an act for which the abettor is liable in consequence of the abetment causes a different effect from that intended by the abettor, the abettor is liable for the effect caused, in the same manner and to the same extent as if he had abetted the act with the intention of causing that effect, provided he knew that the act abetted was likely to cause that effect.

Meaning of Section 113 IPC

The section extends liability from the effect intended by the abettor to a different effect actually caused by the act, but it does not do so automatically. The concluding condition is important: the abettor must have known that the act abetted was likely to cause the different effect.

Accordingly, the provision focuses not merely on what ultimately happened, but also on the abettor's knowledge of the likely consequences of the act that was encouraged, aided or otherwise abetted.

Essential requirements

An act must have been abetted with the intention of causing a particular effect.
An act for which the abettor is liable in consequence of the abetment must actually cause a different effect.
The different effect must be one that the abettor knew the act abetted was likely to cause.
When these conditions are satisfied, the abettor is liable for the effect caused in the same manner and to the same extent as if that effect had been intended in the abetment.

Statutory illustration

A instigates B to cause grievous hurt to Z. B, in consequence of the instigation, causes grievous hurt to Z. Z dies in consequence.

If A knew that the grievous hurt abetted was likely to cause death, A is liable to be punished with the punishment provided for murder.

Knowledge of the likely effect

The statutory phrase requiring that the abettor "knew" the act abetted was likely to cause the different effect is central to Section 113. A different result by itself does not satisfy the provision. The required knowledge connects the abettor to the consequence that actually occurred.

Relationship with other IPC provisions on abetment

Section 113 forms part of the IPC scheme governing abetment. Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing, while Section 108 IPC deals with the meaning of an abettor. Section 111 IPC addresses liability where a different act is done, and Section 112 IPC deals with cumulative punishment where the additional act constitutes a distinct offence.

Historical status after commencement of BNS

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 repealed the Indian Penal Code and, except for the separately treated provision in Section 106(2), came into force on 1 July 2024. The repeal-and-savings provision preserves, among other matters, the previous operation of the IPC and specified liabilities, penalties, investigations and proceedings relating to offences under the repealed Code. This page should therefore be read as a reference to Section 113 IPC for the pre-BNS regime and matters preserved after repeal, rather than as the provision governing new post-commencement conduct.