Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 49

Punishment of Abetment If Act Abetted Is Committed in Consequence and Where No Express Provision Is Made for Its Punishment

Section 49 is the default punishment rule for abetment: whoever abets any offence is punished with the punishment provided for the offence itself, if the abetted act is actually committed in consequence of the abetment, and provided no express provision elsewhere in the Sanhita already fixes a specific punishment for that particular abetment.

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 49 is marked Exact correspondence:

BNS 49	Covers	IPC, 1860 equivalent	Category
49	Punishment of abetment if act abetted is committed in consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment	S.109 (operative rule and Explanation identical, save for "this Code" → "this Sanhita")	Exact

Comparing the bare text directly, BNS Section 49's operative rule and its Explanation reproduce old IPC Section 109 word-for-word, apart from "this Code" becoming "this Sanhita." For completeness, the section's illustrations differ in number: IPC 109 carried three illustrations, the first of which described a bribe offered to a public servant as an example of abetting the offence defined in old IPC section 161 (a bribery/gratification offence). BNS Section 49 as published carries only the second and third of these illustrations (the false-evidence example and the poisoning-by-conspiracy example, quoted above as (a) and (b)); the bribery illustration does not appear in the BNS section. The operative rule is unchanged, and the Act gives no reason for the omission.

Quick Reference

Section 49 is the default punishment provision for abetment — the fallback rule that applies whenever no other, more specific section already fixes the punishment for a particular kind of abetment. It is classified as follows in the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), quoted as that Schedule words each entry:

Punishment — “Same as for offence abetted.” · cognizable or non-cognizable — “According as offence abetted is cognizable or non-cognizable.” · bailable or non-bailable — “According as offence abetted is bailable or non-bailable.” · triable by — “Court by which offence abetted is triable.”
Compoundable: Not listed in either compounding table of BNSS S.359. (Separately, BNSS S.359(3) provides that where an offence is compoundable under that section, the abetment of that offence may be compounded in like manner.)

What it requires: the abetted act must actually be committed in consequence of the abetment (as the Explanation defines: in consequence of the instigation, in pursuance of the conspiracy, or with the aid that constitutes the abetment), and no express provision elsewhere in the Sanhita must already fix a specific punishment for that abetment.
Effect where it applies: the abettor is punished with the same punishment provided for the underlying offence itself — the abettor's punishment tracks the principal offence's punishment, not a separately reduced one.
How this fits the chapter: this is the general rule; later sections of this chapter set out variations for situations such as abetment where the abetted act is not committed at all, or where the abettor and the principal offender face different punishments for other reasons.

Statutory Text (Verbatim)

Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Sanhita for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence.

Explanation.—An act or offence is said to be committed in consequence of abetment, when it is committed in consequence of the instigation, or in pursuance of the conspiracy, or with the aid which constitutes the abetment.

Illustrations.
(a) A instigates B to give false evidence. B, in consequence of the instigation, commits that offence. A is guilty of abetting that offence, and is liable to the same punishment as B.
(b) A and B conspire to poison Z. A, in pursuance of the conspiracy, procures the poison and delivers it to B in order that he may administer it to Z. B, in pursuance of the conspiracy, administers the poison to Z in A’s absence and thereby causes Z’s death. Here B is guilty of murder. A is guilty of abetting that offence by conspiracy, and is liable to the punishment for 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)

The default rule: the abettor's punishment tracks the offence actually committed

Explanation (Lexovia's Commentary)

This section is the general fallback punishment rule for abetment: where the abetted act is actually carried out as a result of the abetment, and no other section already specifies a particular punishment for that specific kind of abetment, the abettor is punished exactly as if they had committed the offence themselves. The statute's own Explanation defines precisely what "committed in consequence of abetment" means, tying it to the three modes of abetment already defined in Section 45: the act must follow from the instigation, be done in pursuance of the conspiracy, or be carried out with the aid that constitutes the abetment. Section 49 supplies the punishment by default, equating the abettor's liability with the principal offender's wherever no other provision of the Sanhita fixes a punishment for that particular abetment.

Illustration (Lexovia's Own Example)

A person instigates another to commit criminal trespass on a neighbour's land, and the instigated person does in fact enter the land unlawfully as a direct result of that instigation. Because the offence of criminal trespass was committed in consequence of the instigation, and no other provision of the Sanhita fixes a distinct punishment for abetting this particular offence, Section 49 makes the instigator liable to the same punishment as the person who actually committed the trespass.

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

Related / Cross-Referenced Sections

FAQs

Does this section apply if a different section already specifies a punishment for abetting a particular offence?

No, per the statute's own wording — this section applies only where "no express provision is made by this Sanhita for the punishment of such abetment."

Must the abetted act actually be committed for this section to apply?

Yes. This section applies "if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment"; abetment where the act is not committed is addressed by other, separate provisions.

Why does the illustration about a bribe to a public servant not appear in this section?

The BNS section as published carries only two illustrations, (a) and (b), whereas the old IPC provision carried three; the bribery illustration, which referred to the old IPC's public-servant gratification offence, does not appear in the BNS text. The Act gives no reason for the omission.