Section 113 IPC: Liability of abettor for an effect caused by the act abetted different from that intended by the abettor

Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 113 IPC at a Glance

Section 113 IPC deals with liability of abettor for an effect caused by the act abetted different from that intended by the abettor. It is triable by the Court by which offence abetted is triable; from 1 July 2024 it is replaced by Section 53 BNS.

Punishment

The punishment for the effect caused, as if the abettor had abetted the act intending that effect.

Bail depends on the underlying offence ⓘCognizance depends on the case ⓘCompoundable (depends on the case) ⓘ🏛️ Court by which offence abetted is triable ⓘ
BNS Equivalent

Section 53 →

Section 113 IPC Bare Act Text

113. 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.

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. 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 113, Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 113 IPC in Simple Words

Section 113 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) governs liability where an act is abetted with the intention of causing a particular effect, but causes a different effect.

The abettor is held liable for the effect caused in the same manner and to the same extent as if he had intended that effect, provided he knew the act abetted was likely to cause that effect.

Bail, cognizance, the trial forum and compounding follow the offence.

Ingredients of Section 113 IPC

  • The accused abetted an act with the intention of causing a particular effect
  • An act for which the abettor is liable in consequence of the abetment caused a different effect from that intended
  • The abettor knew that the act abetted was likely to cause that different effect

Punishment Under Section 113 IPC

Imprisonment

The punishment for the effect caused, as if the abettor had abetted the act intending that effect.

Fine

The fine provided for that offence, where it carries one.

Bail depends on the underlying offence ⓘCognizance depends on the case ⓘCompoundable (depends on the case) ⓘ🏛️ Court by which offence abetted is triable ⓘ

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 113 IPC

In 2016, at a timber yard in Shimla, Gautam instigated Hemant to hit Nitin on the chest with a heavy wooden plank, intending only to cause grievous hurt. In consequence of that instigation, Hemant struck Nitin on the chest with the plank, and Nitin died from chest injuries. The act for which Gautam was liable in consequence of the abetment thus caused death, a different effect from the one he intended. Because Gautam knew the act abetted was likely to cause death, he was liable for the death caused as if he had intended that effect under Section 113 IPC.

When Section 113 IPC Does Not Apply

  • The abettor did not know that the act abetted was likely to produce the different effect that actually resulted.
  • The act committed in consequence of the abetment produced only the exact effect that the abettor intended.
  • The abettor was not liable in consequence of the abetment for the act that caused the different effect.
  • The accused did not instigate, conspire in, or intentionally aid the commission of any act.

Section 113 IPC in the BNS

Section 113 IPC is now covered under Section 53 BNS.

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 detailed comparison (IPC 113 vs BNS 53) →

FAQs on Section 113 IPC

What does Section 113 IPC say?▼

Section 113 IPC provides that 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.

Is an abettor liable under Section 113 IPC if he lacked knowledge of the likely effect?▼

No. The section applies only provided he knew that the act abetted was likely to cause that effect. Without that knowledge he is not liable for the different effect under Section 113 IPC.

What punishment is imposed under Section 113 IPC?▼

The abettor is liable to the punishment provided for the effect actually caused, to the same extent as if he had abetted the act with the intention of causing that effect.

What is the illustration given in Section 113 IPC?▼

In the statutory illustration, A instigates B to cause grievous hurt to Z. B causes grievous hurt to Z, and 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.

Is an offence under Section 113 IPC cognizable?▼

Cognizability is conditional. Under the First Schedule to the CrPC, abetment under Section 113 IPC is cognizable or non-cognizable according as the offence abetted is cognizable or non-cognizable.

Is an offence under Section 113 IPC bailable?▼

Bail status is conditional. Under the First Schedule to the CrPC, abetment under Section 113 IPC is bailable or non-bailable according as the offence abetted is bailable or non-bailable.

Which court tries an offence under Section 113 IPC?▼

Under the First Schedule to the CrPC, abetment under Section 113 IPC is triable by the court by which the offence abetted is triable.

Can an offence under Section 113 IPC be compounded?▼

Under Section 320(3) CrPC, where the substantive 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 113 IPC?▼

Section 53 BNS corresponds to Section 113 IPC, retaining the statutory text and illustration while shortening the section heading by dropping the word the twice.

Have questions about Section 113 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 ·