If the act for which the abettor is liable under section 51 is committed in addition to the act abetted, and constitute a distinct offence, the abettor is liable to punishment for each of the offences.
Illustration.
A instigates B to resist by force a distress made by a public servant. B, in consequence, resists that distress. In offering the resistance, B voluntarily causes grievous hurt to the officer executing the distress. As B has committed both the offence of resisting the distress, and the offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt, B is liable to punishment for both these offences; and, if A knew that B was likely voluntarily to cause grievous hurt in resisting the distress, A will also be liable to punishment for each of the offences.
Simplified Explanation
Section 52 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) deals with the liability of an abettor when they encourage or assist in committing one offense, but the person carrying out the act ends up committing both the intended offense and an additional offense. This section establishes the conditions under which an abettor may face cumulative punishment for both the act they abetted and the additional act committed.
Key Elements of Section 52
- Applicability of Section 52
- This section applies when:
- An abettor has instigated, assisted, or facilitated the commission of a specific offense.
- The person carrying out the offense commits both the original offense and an additional offense beyond what was abetted.
- Section 52 allows for cumulative punishment, meaning the abettor can be held accountable for both the abetted offense and the additional offense if certain conditions are met.
- This section applies when:
- Conditions for Cumulative Punishment
- Direct Link: There must be a direct connection between the abetted act and the additional offense committed.
- Probable Consequence: The additional offense should be a probable outcome or an easily foreseeable result of the act that was initially abetted.
- If these conditions are satisfied, the abettor may face punishment for both the initial offense they encouraged and the additional offense that occurred.
- Extent of Liability
- The abettor is liable for cumulative punishment, meaning they can receive penalties for both the abetted and the additional acts, rather than just the one they directly encouraged.
- This cumulative punishment reflects the gravity of their role in facilitating a sequence of events leading to multiple offenses.
- Example Scenarios
- Example 1: Suppose an abettor encourages someone to commit a robbery. During the robbery, the perpetrator also assaults someone. The abettor may be liable for cumulative punishment for abetting robbery and indirectly facilitating the assault, as the assault could be a probable consequence of the robbery.
- Example 2: If an abettor instigates arson, and the act of setting fire unintentionally leads to someone’s death, the abettor may be punished both for the arson and for abetting manslaughter, as the death was a foreseeable consequence of setting the fire.
- Purpose of Cumulative Punishment
- Section 52 is designed to ensure accountability when an abettor’s encouragement or assistance leads to more severe consequences than initially intended.
- This section acts as a deterrent, warning abettors that they could face extended liability if their actions contribute to a chain of offenses.
- Limitations of Cumulative Liability
- The additional act must be a logical extension or probable consequence of the abetted offense. If it is entirely unrelated or unforeseen, cumulative punishment may not apply, ensuring that abettors are only held liable for offenses reasonably linked to their original intent.
Importance of Section 52
Section 52 reinforces accountability by holding abettors responsible for both intended and additional probable offenses. It underscores the seriousness of abetment and the consequences it can carry, promoting caution among individuals considering assisting or encouraging criminal acts.
In summary, Section 52 of the BNS provides for cumulative punishment for abettors when both the intended and an additional probable offense are committed as a result of their encouragement. This provision ensures comprehensive accountability, aligning the abettor’s punishment with the full scope of their influence on the crime.
