Punishment of abetment if act abetted is committed in consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment
Section 49 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with punishment of abetment if act abetted is committed in consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment. 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. The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
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.
llustrations.
(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.
Section 49, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 109 Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment Text carried over almost unchanged 90%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 1
How this offence is classified
From the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which classifies every offence under the Sanhita. Cognizable means a police officer may arrest without warrant; bailable means bail is a matter of right rather than of the court's discretion.
| Offence | Punishment | Cognizable | Bailable | Triable by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abetment of any offence, if the act abetted is committed in consequence, and where no express provision is made for its punishment. | Same as for offence abetted. | According as offence abetted is cognizable or non-cognizable. | According as offence abetted is bailable or non-bailable. | Court by which offence abetted is triable. |
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Kartar Singh v. State of Haryana
Decided under Indian Penal Code 109, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
mapping.csv ipc 109→bns 49 near-identical (~0.90); woman abettor / intentional-aiding holding carries to BNS 49 for successor teaching of empty near-identical gap.
On this section: bns 49 successor of ipc 109 — abetment punishment where act abetted is committed
-
P. Shanthi Pugazhenthi vs State Represented By The Inspector Of Police SPE/CBI/ACB/ Chennai
Decided under Indian Penal Code 109, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A non-public servant, including a spouse, can be convicted for abetting an offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by actively assisting a public servant in concealing illegally acquired disproportionate assets, including by allowing such assets to be registered in the abettor's name. The change in marital status of the abettor is immaterial if, at the time of commission of the offence, the abettor was married to the public servant and actively participated in concealing the illegal wealth.
On this section: Provides punishment for abetment. Applied to convict the appellant for abetting her husband's corruption offence.
-
Babita Lila vs Union of India
Decided under Indian Penal Code 109, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 195(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code requires that a complaint for false statements allegedly made in judicial proceedings must be filed by the court concerned or by a court/authority to which that court is 'subordinate' - meaning the authority to which appeals from the proceedings ordinarily and actually lie in the regular course of events. The word 'ordinarily' refers to appellate jurisdiction habitually and regularly exercised, not merely rank hierarchy. When the substantive law (here the Income Tax Act, 1961) clearly designates specific appellate forums and omits to confer appellate jurisdiction on a particular authority, courts cannot supply this legislative gap through judicial interpretation even if that authority is senior in rank, as such omission represents deliberate legislative intent. Therefore, the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation)-I, Bhopal was incompetent to lodge a criminal complaint for false statements made during income tax search proceedings conducted by Income Tax Officers of Nashik and Dhule, as the Deputy Director was not the appellate authority from their decisions; only the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) holds such appellate jurisdiction under the Income Tax Act.
On this section: Sections under which the appellants were charged; Sections 191, 193, and 200 specifically relate to false statement, giving false evidence, and fabricating evidence respectively
-
State of Bihar vs Anand Mohan
Decided under Indian Penal Code 109, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving mass violence and mob culpability, conviction of an abettor (non-principal assailant) for murder under Section 302/109 IPC can be sustained based on ocular evidence of exhortation if: (1) At least 2-3 or a clear majority of credible witnesses consistently depose about the exhortation to the actual shooter (Masalti test); (2) The evidence of exhortation is clear, cogent and reliable, not merely suspicion or tendency to implicate; (3) The medical and ocular evidence is not materially contradictory; (4) The abettor does not discharge the burden of establishing alibi or contrary narrative through defense evidence; and (5) Even if an unlawful assembly with common object of murder is not established, individual liability for abetment through direct exhortation can still be sustained. Furthermore, an ante-dated and ante-timed FIR does not render the entire prosecution case unreliable if the core facts are corroborated by immediate wireless information sent from the scene; however, death sentence is not appropriate for abetment in mass violence cases where the abettor is not the principal assailant.
On this section: Abetment of offence - applied to hold Anand Mohan guilty of abetting the murder of District Magistrate through exhortation to Bhutkun Shukla to shoot
-
State of Bihar vs Arun Kumar Sinha
Decided under Indian Penal Code 109, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where eyewitness evidence from multiple independent witnesses consistently establishes that an accused person exhorted another person to commit murder, and the exhortation is sufficient to instigate the act of murder, the accused can be held guilty of abetment of murder under Section 302/109 IPC even if the accused did not personally commit the act of murder. The test for conviction in such cases involving multiple offenders is that if the testimony is supported by 2-3 or more witnesses giving consistent account of the incident (Masalti test), conviction can be sustained. Medical evidence regarding bullet trajectory will not contradict trustworthy eyewitness testimony unless the medical evidence conclusively rules out the possibility of the circumstances described by eyewitnesses. In cases where FIR is suspected to be ante-dated and ante-timed, the court must carefully analyze the evidence supporting the prosecution case rather than discarding the entire prosecution version.
On this section: Punishment for abetment - Abettor liable to same punishment as principal if abetment causes act
-
Murugan @ Settu vs State of Tamil Nadu
Decided under Indian Penal Code 109, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Documentary evidence of age, specifically birth certificates issued by municipal authorities under the Registration of Birth and Deaths Act, 1969, and corroborating entries in school registers made ante litem motam (before the dispute arose), are reliable and trustworthy evidence of a child's age in criminal proceedings. When such documentary evidence is supported by witness testimony, medical opinion based on radiological tests regarding apparent age cannot override the conclusive documentary proof. The absence of the child's name in the birth certificate does not cast doubt on its authenticity, as it is common knowledge that municipal birth certificates are registered immediately after birth before the child is named. Accordingly, in cases of sexual assault of minors, the court should primarily rely on such documentary evidence to determine the child's age, rather than medical opinions or statements made by the child herself.
On this section: Applied to establish criminal liability of accomplices Ramalingam and Siva for abetment of the offences committed by the primary accused Murugan.
-
Alamelu vs State Rep. by Inspector of Police
Decided under Indian Penal Code 109, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When evidence contains inherent improbabilities, suffers from basic infirmities, and witnesses demonstrate contradictory accounts coupled with unnatural conduct of the alleged victim, courts below must closely scrutinize such evidence before convicting. Mere concurrent findings of courts below, without regard to fundamental improbabilities rendering the evidence unworthy of credence, cannot sustain a conviction. Documentary evidence of age (such as transfer certificates) without examination of the person making the entry has no probative value in criminal prosecutions, and radiological age determination carries a margin of error of two years on either side. The prosecution must prove each element of the charge beyond reasonable doubt, and when the entire narrative contains logical inconsistencies, internal contradictions, and unnatural behavior inconsistent with the alleged crime, acquittal is mandated.
On this section: Punishment for abetment; applied to assess common intention and liability of co-accused; set aside due to failure to prove underlying offence
-
Bhiaru Ram vs Central Bureau of Investigation
Decided under Indian Penal Code 109, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The power to transfer a criminal case under Section 406 CrPC is available only when it is expedient for the ends of justice. Mere inconvenience to parties and witnesses, however genuine, is not a sufficient ground for transfer. A party seeking transfer must demonstrate a reasonable apprehension that justice will not be done if the case remains in the chosen forum. The court must be satisfied that the trial in the current forum will result in denial of justice or failure of justice before exercising its discretionary power to transfer. Convenience is a permissible consideration only when coupled with reasonable apprehension of impropriety or denial of justice.
On this section: The charges against the petitioners for abetment and fabrication of false evidence (preparation of false Agreements to Sell). These sections were cited to describe the role and liability of the accused petitioners.
-
State of A. P vs Aravapally Venkanna
Decided under Indian Penal Code 109, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where an FIR discloses ingredients of a cognizable offence and the allegations, taken at face value, constitute the offence charged, and there is no material to show that the FIR is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, the High Court cannot exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC to quash the FIR at the threshold of investigation. The assessment of whether evidence collected during investigation is sufficient to establish guilt is a matter for trial and not for the High Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction. The inherent power should be exercised sparingly and only in rarest of rare cases where the allegations do not disclose any offence or the proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide or abuse of process.
On this section: Abetment of offences; applicable to the charge in the present FIR
-
Bomb Selvam @ Selvam vs The State of Tamil Nadu State Rep. by Deputy Commissioner of Police
Decided under Indian Penal Code 109, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The ratio decidendi of the majority opinion (Justice V. Gopala Gowda) is that accomplice evidence, even if the witnesses are not formally designated as accomplices, must be corroborated in material particulars by independent evidence before an accused can be convicted. When the prosecution fails to provide such independent corroboration and the accused has been acquitted of the conspiracy charge, the conviction under abetment cannot be sustained. The burden is on the prosecution to establish the involvement of each accused individually in each offence charged, and mere presence at meetings or involvement in preparatory acts without direct evidence of participation in the crime is insufficient for conviction.
On this section: Punishment for abetment; liability of abettor to same punishment as principal offender
-
Manickam @ Poonga Manickam vs The State Rep. by the Deputy Commissioner of Police
Decided under Indian Penal Code 109, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The case resulted in divergent opinions. Justice V. Gopala Gowda's ratio: Accomplice evidence requires corroboration from independent sources in material particulars connecting accused with crime. One accomplice cannot corroborate another. When accomplice evidence is the sole link between accused and crime and lacks independent corroboration, conviction cannot be sustained. Acquittal under Section 120-B IPC precludes conviction under Section 109 IPC as the latter requires proof of overt act in pursuance of conspiracy. Justice Arun Mishra's ratio: Accomplice evidence can sustain conviction when corroborated by confessional statements, vehicle recoveries, and circumstantial evidence. Acquittal under Section 120-B does not affect conviction under Section 109 as these are separate offences with different ingredients. Presumption under Section 106 Evidence Act applies when abduction is proved and victim murdered soon thereafter.
On this section: Punishment for abetment - applied to appellants for abetting kidnapping and murder
-
Hakkim vs State Tr. Dy. Supdt. of Police
Decided under Indian Penal Code 109, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When multiple accused enter a premises with preplanned weapons and execute a coordinated attack resulting in death and injuries, the use of multiple weapons is established by: (1) eyewitness testimony of victims present at the scene; (2) the distribution and severity of injuries across multiple parts of the body and across multiple victims; and (3) recovery of all weapons at the crime scene. Forensic testing of only one weapon does not negate the use of multiple weapons. Therefore, Sections 109 and 149 IPC are validly invoked, and all accused are liable for murder under Section 302 IPC even if one person inflicted the fatal wound. Additionally, persons who commit murder while under 18 years of age are entitled to juvenile justice protections including maximum detention of 3 years, and if this period is exceeded, immediate release must be ordered notwithstanding confirmation of conviction.
On this section: Abetment - Applied to convict Accused Nos. 2, 3, and 4 as abettors of murder committed by A-1. Court found common intention and coordination in the attack.
-
Ravindersingh @ Ravi Pavar vs State of Gujarat
Decided under Indian Penal Code 109, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving mass harm and crimes against society at large, particularly those involving supply of poisonous substances with knowledge of their lethal nature in violation of complete prohibition policy of a State, courts should grant bail only in exceptional circumstances. The gravity of offence, number of casualties and injuries, impact on social fabric, criminal antecedents of the accused, likelihood of witness intimidation, and evidence of destruction of evidence are paramount considerations that may outweigh the consideration of pre-trial detention period. An accused's role as mere supplier does not exonerate from criminal conspiracy charges if materials establish participation in conspiracy to manufacture and distribute poisoned liquor with knowledge of its poisonous nature. Parity argument in bail cannot succeed when State has challenged another accused's bail before the same court.
On this section: Abetment and abetment by conspiracy
-
Shashi Kumar Unnikrishnan vs Republic of India(c.b.i.)
Decided under Indian Penal Code 109, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a trial court allows the prosecution to place on record documents that were inadvertently omitted from the charge sheet, the prosecution is obligated to supply all such documents to the accused in accordance with Section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The accused retains the right to file a discharge application after receiving the documents, which shall be considered in accordance with law. The court will not interfere with the trial court's discretionary order allowing the admission of omitted documents if the omission was inadvertent and not malafide, and if adequate procedural safeguards are in place to protect the accused's rights.
On this section: Charge against the accused for abetment
-
Sreekala K. vs Central Bureau of Investigation
Decided under Indian Penal Code 109, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In Prevention of Corruption Act cases, the power to seize/freeze bank accounts under Section 102 Cr.P.C. is valid and legal, and does not become illegal merely because the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance 1944 (made applicable by Section 18A) provides for attachment of property. Section 102 Cr.P.C. seizure and Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance 1944 attachment serve different purposes - seizure aids investigation while attachment secures money for forfeiture - and can coexist. Further, the failure to report seizure to the Magistrate under Section 102(3) Cr.P.C. does not render the seizure illegal or vitiated, as the validity of the power to seize under Section 102(1) is independent of the duty to report under Section 102(3). The purpose of reporting is only to enable disposal of seized property, and non-compliance may affect the property holder's right to seek disposal but does not vitiate the seizure itself.
On this section: Offences alleged against accused persons in underlying crime - conspiracy, criminal breach of trust, cheating, falsification of accounts
-
Tinopal vs Satish
Decided under Indian Penal Code 109, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal revision petitions against acquittal orders, the appellate court cannot unsettle the acquittal unless it finds perversity or illegality in the findings of the trial court. Where the prosecution fails to prove essential elements of an offense (such as valid marriage ceremonies in a bigamy case) through credible evidence and witness testimony, and where the evidence consists primarily of hearsay and self-serving statements, the acquittal must be upheld. The presumption of innocence is strengthened upon acquittal by the trial court, and where two views are possible regarding guilt or innocence, the view favoring the accused must prevail.
On this section: Abetment - The charge was considered but the court found insufficient evidence to establish abetment.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 49
What have the courts held on Section 49 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Kartar Singh v. State of Haryana (14 Oct 2014) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 109, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: bns 49 successor of ipc 109 — abetment punishment where act abetted is committed. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 13 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2009 to 2025.
Is Section 49 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
According as offence abetted is bailable or non-bailable, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Is Section 49 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita cognizable?
According as offence abetted is cognizable or non-cognizable. "Cognizable" means a police officer may arrest without warrant; "non-cognizable" that they may not. An offence under this section is triable by Court by which offence abetted is triable.
How do I find court cases under Section 49 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BNS 49, section 49 BNS, section 49 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Kartar Singh v. State of Haryana (14 Oct 2014).
What should I read with Section 49 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it. It carries forward IPC 109 (Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 49 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 49 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 49, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 2. Definitions2199 words
- 356. Defamation1543 words
- 335. Making a false document1318 words
- 101. Murder1177 words
- 303. Theft1104 words
- 3. General explanations858 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.