Section 111 IPC: Liability of abettor when one act abetted and different act done
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 111 IPC at a Glance
Section 111 IPC deals with liability of abettor when one act abetted and different act done. It is triable by the Court by which offence abetted is triable; from 1 July 2024 it is replaced by Section 51 BNS.
The punishment provided for the act done, as if the abettor had directly abetted it.
Section 111 IPC Bare Act Text
111. 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 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.
Source: Section 111, Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 111 IPC in Simple Words
Section 111 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) governs liability where one act is abetted and a different act is done. The abettor is held liable for the act done in the same manner and to the same extent as if he had directly abetted it, provided two conditions are met.
First, the act done must be a probable consequence of the abetment. Second, the act must have been committed under the influence of the instigation, or with the aid or in pursuance of the conspiracy that constituted the abetment.
Bail, cognizance, the trial court and compounding follow the offence abetted.
Ingredients of Section 111 IPC
- The accused abetted a particular act through instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid
- A different act was done by the person abetted
- The act done was a probable consequence of the abetment
- The act done was committed under the influence of the instigation, or with the aid or in pursuance of the conspiracy which constituted the abetment
Punishment Under Section 111 IPC
The punishment provided for the act done, as if the abettor had directly abetted it.
The fine provided for the act done, where it carries one.
The First Schedule and Section 320(3) CrPC classify this abetment by reference to the offence abetted, so cognizance, bail, the trial court and compounding all follow that offence.
- 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 act done as though he had abetted it directly, provided the act was a probable consequence of the abetment. Cognizance, bail, the trial court and compounding are those of the offence abetted.
Example of Section 111 IPC
When Section 111 IPC Does Not Apply
- The different act committed by the perpetrator was an independent act and not a probable consequence of the abetment.
- The different act was not committed under the influence of the instigation, with the intentional aid, or in pursuance of the conspiracy constituting the abetment.
- The person abetted carried out only the exact act that was abetted and did not do a different act.
- The accused did not abet any act by instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid in the first place.
Section 111 IPC in the BNS
Section 111 IPC is now covered under Section 51 BNS.
Section 111 IPC is replaced by Section 51 BNS. The substantive rule, proviso and three statutory illustrations are retained. In the opening of the proviso, the words Provided that the act done replace the words Provided the act done in the Indian Penal Code. The punishment and legal effect are unchanged.
View detailed comparison (IPC 111 vs BNS 51) →FAQs on Section 111 IPC
What does Section 111 IPC say?▼
Section 111 IPC provides that 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.
What conditions must be satisfied under the proviso to Section 111 IPC?▼
Two conditions must be met under the proviso. It is necessary that the act done was a probable consequence of the abetment, and that it was committed under the influence of the instigation, or with the aid or in pursuance of the conspiracy which constituted the abetment.
What is the punishment under Section 111 IPC?▼
The abettor is punished with the penalty provided for the act actually done, to the same extent as if he had directly abetted that act.
Is an abettor liable for completely independent acts of the perpetrator under Section 111 IPC?▼
No. As shown in the second statutory illustration, where a person instigates another to burn a house and that person also commits theft there, the abettor is not liable for the theft because it was a distinct act and not a probable consequence of the burning.
Is an offence under Section 111 IPC cognizable?▼
Cognizability is conditional. Under the First Schedule to the CrPC, abetment under Section 111 IPC is cognizable or non-cognizable according as the offence abetted is cognizable or non-cognizable.
Is an offence under Section 111 IPC bailable?▼
Bail status is conditional. Under the First Schedule to the CrPC, abetment under Section 111 IPC is bailable or non-bailable according as the offence abetted is bailable or non-bailable.
Which court tries an offence under Section 111 IPC?▼
Under the First Schedule to the CrPC, abetment under Section 111 IPC is triable by the court by which the offence abetted is triable.
Can an offence under Section 111 IPC be compounded?▼
Under Section 320(3) CrPC, where the offence abetted is compoundable, its abetment may be compounded in like manner. Otherwise it cannot be compounded.
Which provision of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita corresponds to Section 111 IPC?▼
Section 51 BNS corresponds to Section 111 IPC, retaining the statutory rule, proviso and illustrations with identical legal effect.
Have questions about Section 111 IPC?
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, Indian Penal Code, 1860 · Last updated: 16 Oct 2026 ·