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:
Provision
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.
Classification of Offence
Punishment—Same as for offence intended to be abetted—According as offence abetted is cognizable or non-cognizable—According as offence abetted is bailable or non-bailable—Triable by court by which offence abetted is triable—Non-compoundable.
IPC Section 111: Simplified Explanation
IPC Section 111 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) addresses the liability of an abettor when the act committed by the person abetted is different from the one initially abetted but is a consequence of the abetment. This section is essential in understanding how the law treats cases where the outcome of abetment diverges from the intended crime. Here’s an overview of Section 111:
- Different Acts Committed: If an abettor abets a specific act, but the person abetted commits a distinct act, the abettor is liable for the act done under certain conditions. The crucial point is that the different act must be a probable consequence of the abetment.
- Probable Consequence: For the abettor to be liable, the different act done must be a possible consequence of the abetment. This means it should be something reasonably expected to occur due to the abetment, even if it weren’t the specific act intended.
- Punishment Based on Different Acts: The abettor is subject to the same sentence as if they had abetted the act that was committed, provided it was a probable consequence of the initial abetment. This ensures that the abettor’s liability is aligned with the actual outcome of their actions.
- Ensuring Justice: This provision ensures that abettors cannot argue that they are only liable for the specific outcome they intended if the actual outcome is a logical extension of their initial abetment. It broadens accountability to include unintended but foreseeable results of criminal facilitation.
IPC Section 111 thereby expands the scope of abetment liability to include unintended but foreseeable outcomes, ensuring that abettors are held accountable for the broader impacts of their actions. This is key in cases where the consequences of abetment diverge from the original intent but remain within the realm of probable outcomes.
