Section 53 BNS: Liability of abettor for an effect caused by act abetted different from that intended by abettor
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Section 53 BNS at a Glance
Section 53 BNS deals with liability of abettor for an effect caused by act abetted different from that intended by abettor. It is triable by the Court by which offence abetted is triable; it replaced Section 113 IPC on 1 July 2024.
The punishment for the effect caused, as if the abettor had abetted the act intending that effect.
Section 53 BNS Bare Act Text
53. Liability of abettor for an effect caused by the act abetted different from that intended by the abettor
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.
IllustrationA instigates B to cause grievous hurt to Z. B, in consequence of the instigation, causes grievous hurt to Z. Z dies in consequence. Here, 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.
Source: Section 53, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Section 53 BNS in Simple Words
Section 53 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) deals with a situation where a person abets an act intending to cause a particular effect, but the act causes a different effect from what the abettor intended. If the abettor knew that the act abetted was likely to cause that different effect, the abettor is liable for the effect caused in the same manner and to the same extent as if he had abetted the act intending that effect.
This section applies to people who encourage, aid, or instigate another person to do an act. It is useful in cases where the intended harm was limited, but a more serious result occurred that the abettor knew was likely. In practice, it prevents an abettor from escaping liability by saying, "I did not mean that exact result."
The court will examine whether the abettor knew that the act abetted was likely to cause the final effect. This makes the section important in criminal cases involving indirect participation and consequences that go beyond the abettor's stated goal.
Ingredients of Section 53 BNS
- Abetment of an act with intention to cause a particular effect
- An act for which the abettor is liable causes a different effect
- Knowledge on the part of the abettor that the act abetted was likely to cause that different effect
- Liability for the effect caused to the same extent as if intended
Punishment Under Section 53 BNS
The punishment for the effect caused, as if the abettor had abetted the act intending that effect.
The fine provided for that offence, where it carries one.
The First Schedule and Section 320(3) CrPC classify this abetment by reference to the offence, so cognizance, bail, the trial court and compounding all follow it.
- Cognizable: According as offence abetted is cognizable or non-cognizable
- Bailable: According as offence abetted is bailable or non-bailable
- Compoundable: Where the offence abetted is compoundable, Section 320(3) CrPC lets its abetment be compounded in like manner. Otherwise it cannot be compounded.
The abettor answers for the effect actually caused where he knew it was likely. Bail, cognizance, the trial court and compounding follow the offence.
Example of Section 53 BNS
When Section 53 BNS Does Not Apply
- The abettor did not know that the act abetted was likely to cause the different effect that occurred
- The act caused only the specific effect intended by the abettor rather than a different effect
- The act that caused the effect was not one for which the abettor was liable in consequence of the abetment
- The accused did not abet the commission of the act
Section 53 BNS in the IPC (Previous Law)
Section 53 BNS replaces Section 113 IPC from the old criminal code.
Section 113 IPC is replaced by Section 53 BNS. The substantive rule and the statutory illustration are retained verbatim. The heading in Section 53 BNS drops the word the twice, reading Liability of abettor for an effect caused by act abetted different from that intended by abettor. The legal effect and punishment remain unchanged.
View IPC Section 113 →FAQs on Section 53 BNS
Does Section 53 BNS punish the abettor for a result they did not want?▼
Yes, if the abettor knew that the act abetted was likely to cause that result. The law does not allow an abettor to avoid responsibility merely because the final effect was more serious or different from what they intended, provided they knew it was likely.
Is a separate offence required under Section 53 BNS?▼
No separate offence is created by this section. It only fixes liability for the abettor when the effect caused by the abetted act differs from what was intended. The actual punishment depends on the main offence and the facts of the case.
How is Section 53 BNS different from ordinary abetment?▼
Ordinary abetment focuses on the encouragement or assistance given to commit an offence. Section 53 BNS goes one step further and covers the situation where the effect caused differs from what was intended, provided the abettor knew that the act abetted was likely to cause that effect.
Can Section 53 BNS apply if the final result was totally unexpected?▼
No. Under Section 53 BNS, the abettor must have known that the act abetted was likely to cause that effect. If the result was unexpected and the abettor did not know the act was likely to cause it, Section 53 BNS does not apply.
Have questions about Section 53 BNS?
Ask NyayGuru for a plain language explanation, punishment details, or how it applies to your situation.
Ask NyayGuru →Disclaimer: This is for informational purposes only. Always consult a qualified advocate for legal advice.
Sources: Bare Act Text, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 · Last updated: 16 Oct 2026 ·