Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 47

Abetment in India of Offences Outside India

Section 47 extends abetment liability across borders in one direction: a person abets an offence within the meaning of the Sanhita if, while in India, they abet the commission of any act outside India that would constitute an offence had it been committed in India.

Please note: This page reflects our understanding of the law as of the date it was last reviewed. Parliament, the State Legislatures, and the courts continue to amend and interpret this law, and this page may not yet reflect the most recent change. Please verify the current text of the law independently, and consult a licensed advocate for advice on your own matter, before relying on this page.

Corresponding Provision Under Prior Law

Verified against the National Crime Records Bureau's official BNS–IPC concordance (Sankalan Portal) and cross-checked directly against the bare text of both Acts. Section 47 is marked Exact correspondence:

BNS 47	Covers	IPC, 1860 equivalent	Category
47	Abetment in India of offences outside India	S.108A (identical, save for "this Code" → "this Sanhita")	Exact

Comparing the bare text directly, BNS Section 47's operative rule reproduces old IPC Section 108A's rule word-for-word, with "this Sanhita" replacing "this Code," consistent with the Act's own renaming. For completeness, the section's illustration uses a different example: the IPC version used "a foreigner in Goa" as its example of someone located outside India, and described the murder as taking place "in Goa"; the BNS version uses the generic "a foreigner in country X" and a murder "in that country." The operative rule is unchanged.

Quick Reference

Section 47 is a definitional/jurisdictional provision — it extends abetment liability to cover instigation, conspiracy, or aiding that happens inside India but is directed at an act committed outside India. It is not itself a stand-alone punishable offence in the ordinary sense and carries no BNSS First Schedule entry or triable-court classification of its own; the punishment applicable is that for abetment of the underlying offence.

What it requires: the abetting conduct (instigation, conspiracy, or aiding, as defined in Section 45) occurs in India, and it is directed at an act committed outside India that would constitute an offence if committed in India.
Effect where it applies: the abettor is treated as having abetted an offence within the meaning of the Sanhita, even though the act actually abetted took place entirely outside India.
Why this matters: without this rule, someone who instigates or aids a crime abroad entirely from within India might otherwise escape liability under the Sanhita on the basis that the abetted act itself occurred outside Indian territory; this section closes that gap.

Statutory Text (Verbatim)

A person abets an offence within the meaning of this Sanhita who, in India, abets the commission of any act without and beyond India which would constitute an offence if committed in India.

Illustration.
A, in India, instigates B, a foreigner in country X, to commit a murder in that country, A is guilty of abetting murder.

Source: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act No. 45 of 2023), as published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary.

Explanation & Illustration (Lexovia's Commentary — Not Statutory Text)

Closing the gap for abetment that crosses the border only one way

Explanation (Lexovia's Commentary)

This section addresses a specific gap that would otherwise exist: ordinarily, the Sanhita's offences apply to acts done within India (subject to separate provisions dealing with Indian citizens' or ships'/aircraft's conduct abroad). Without this section, a person sitting in India who instigates, conspires toward, or aids a crime that is entirely carried out outside India might argue that neither the abetting conduct's location (India) nor the abetted act's location (outside India, and outside the Sanhita's ordinary territorial reach) supports liability under the Sanhita. Section 47 closes this gap directly: so long as the abetting conduct itself takes place in India, and the act abetted would have been an offence had it occurred in India, the abettor is treated as having abetted an offence within the meaning of the Sanhita, regardless of where the abetted act actually occurs.

Illustration (Lexovia's Own Example)

While physically present in India, a person sends detailed instructions and encouragement to an associate located in a foreign country, urging the associate to commit an assault against a third person in that foreign country, and the associate does so. Because the instigation took place in India, and the act instigated — assault — would constitute an offence if committed in India, Section 47 treats the person in India as guilty of abetting that offence, even though the assault itself occurred entirely outside India.

Want legal research on any topic or drafting? Order Now →

Related / Cross-Referenced Sections

FAQs

Does the abettor need to be physically present in India for this section to apply?

Yes, per the statute's own wording — the abetting conduct must occur "in India."

Does the act actually abetted need to be an offence under the law of the foreign country where it occurs?

No, per the statute's own wording — the test is whether the act would constitute an offence "if committed in India," not whether it is an offence under the foreign country's own law.

Why does the statute's illustration no longer refer to Goa?

The older IPC illustration used "a foreigner in Goa" as its example of a place outside India; the BNS illustration uses a generic "country X" instead. The Act itself does not state a reason for the change.