Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 53

Liability of Abettor for an Effect Caused by Act Abetted Different From That Intended by Abettor

Section 53 addresses a mismatch not in the act itself but in its effect: where an act is abetted with the intention of causing a particular effect, but the act for which the abettor is liable in consequence of the abetment actually causes a different effect, the abettor is liable for the effect actually caused, in the same manner and to the same extent as if they had abetted the act intending that effect, provided the abettor knew the abetted act was likely to cause it.

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 53 is marked Exact correspondence:

BNS 53	Covers	IPC, 1860 equivalent	Category
53	Liability of abettor for an effect caused by act abetted different from that intended by abettor	S.113 (identical, word-for-word)	Exact

Comparing the bare text directly, BNS Section 53 reproduces old IPC Section 113 word-for-word, including its illustration, with no change whatsoever.

Quick Reference

Section 53 is a punishment provision addressing a mismatch between the effect the abettor intended and the effect the abetted act actually caused. 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 committed.” · 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 abettor abetted an act intending a particular effect; the act for which the abettor is liable in consequence of the abetment actually causes a different effect; and the abettor knew that the abetted act was likely to cause that different effect.
Effect where it applies: the abettor is liable for the effect actually caused, in the same manner and to the same extent as if they had abetted the act with the intention of causing that very effect.
Effect where the knowledge requirement is not met: if the abettor did not know the abetted act was likely to cause the further, different effect, this section does not extend the abettor's liability to that effect — the knowledge requirement is the key limiting condition.

Statutory Text (Verbatim)

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: 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)

Escalated liability where the abettor foresaw the graver effect as likely

Explanation (Lexovia's Commentary)

This section deals with a specific kind of divergence: not a different act being done (that is Section 51's concern), but the same abetted act producing a different, unintended effect. The statute's own illustration captures the classic scenario — an abettor instigates grievous hurt, but the victim dies as a result, so the effect actually caused (death) differs from the effect the abettor originally intended (grievous hurt). The key limiting condition is knowledge: the abettor is escalated to liability for the graver effect actually caused only if they knew the abetted act was likely to cause that effect. Without this knowledge requirement, an abettor could be punished for consequences entirely beyond anything they could have foreseen; with it, the section fairly extends liability to abettors who took the risk of a foreseeable, graver outcome, even though that outcome was not their primary intention.

Illustration (Lexovia's Own Example)

A person instigates another to set fire to an empty warehouse, intending only to cause damage to the structure, but knowing that a security guard was known to occasionally sleep inside the warehouse at night. The person instigated sets fire to the warehouse as planned, and the guard, who happened to be inside that night, dies in the fire. Because the abettor knew that the abetted act of setting fire to the warehouse was likely to cause death in these circumstances, even though the abettor's original intention was only property damage, Section 53 makes the abettor liable for the death actually caused, in the same manner as if they had abetted the act with the intention of causing that death.

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

Related / Cross-Referenced Sections

FAQs

Is the abettor automatically liable for any unintended effect the abetted act causes?

No. Liability for the different effect requires that the abettor knew the abetted act was likely to cause that effect.

Does this section apply to a different act, or to a different effect of the same act?

A different effect of the same act. A different act altogether is addressed separately by Section 51.

What punishment does the abettor face where this section applies?

The punishment for the offence corresponding to the effect actually caused, as the statute's own illustration shows (the punishment for murder, where the abetted grievous hurt caused death and the abettor knew that was likely).