Abettor present when offence is committed
Section 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with abettor present when offence is committed. Whenever any person, who is absent would be liable to be punished as an abettor, is present when the act or offence for which he would be punishable in consequence of the abetment is committed, he shall be deemed to have committed such act or offence. The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
Whenever any person, who is absent would be liable to be punished as an abettor, is present when the act or offence for which he would be punishable in consequence of the abetment is committed, he shall be deemed to have committed such act or offence.
Section 54, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 114 Abettor present when offence is committed Text carried over almost unchanged 100%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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 abettor present when offence is committed. | Same as for offence committed. | 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.
-
Sondabhai Hanubhai Bharwad vs State of Gujarat
Decided under Indian Penal Code 114, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the same act constitutes an offence both under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and under the Indian Penal Code, specifically where minerals are dishonestly removed from government land without consent (theft under IPC), the two offences are distinct in their ingredients and ingredients are different. Therefore, Section 22 of the MMDR Act, which restricts cognizance of offences under the Act to complaints by authorized officers, does not bar prosecution under the IPC for the distinct offence of theft. The police can register FIR for theft, investigate, and submit report to Magistrate for cognizance under Section 190(1)(d) CrPC, while simultaneously the authorized officer can file complaint for MMDR Act violation requiring different procedure for Magistrate cognizance. Both prosecutions can proceed as the offences are distinct and the bar against double jeopardy applies only to identical offences.
On this section: Abetment; applied in mining cases where multiple persons involved in illegal extraction
-
Kalubhai Dulabhai Khachar vs State of Gujarat
Decided under Indian Penal Code 114, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where conduct constitutes an offence under both the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 and the Indian Penal Code, the provisions of the MMDR Act do not impliedly or explicitly exclude prosecution under the IPC. Police can register FIR, investigate and submit charge sheets for theft of minerals under IPC Sections 378-379 based on discovery of unauthorized removal of minerals from government land. Magistrates can take cognizance of theft offences on police reports under Section 190(1)(d) CrPC without awaiting complaint from authorized MMDR officer. However, for offences constituting breach of mining lease or unauthorized mining specifically under MMDR Act Section 21, cognizance by Magistrate can only be taken upon complaint in writing by person authorized by Central or State Government as required by MMDR Act Section 22. These are distinct offences with different ingredients and prosecution for both does not violate Article 20(2) protection against double jeopardy provided person is not punished twice for identical offence. The Public Trust Doctrine establishes that natural resources are national assets requiring protection through multiple enforcement mechanisms. Police duty under Sections 149-152 CrPC to prevent cognizable offences includes authority and responsibility to investigate illegal mining even without prior authorization from mining authorities.
On this section: Abetment and criminal conspiracy provisions cited in FIRs for mining cases
-
Patel Maheshbhai Ranchobhai vs State of Gujarat
Decided under Indian Penal Code 114, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a trial court abandons its prime duty to appreciate evidence for search of truth and disposes of a criminal case hastily without properly examining all available evidence, an appellate court can reverse the acquittal and convict the accused based on a proper re-appreciation of the evidence on record, particularly when the dying declaration of the victim is corroborated by circumstances and the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act applies. The courts have a constitutional duty to ensure justice and cannot remain passive when the prosecuting agency fails to present complete evidence or when there is evidence of collusion between the prosecution and the trial court. Both the prosecutor and the trial court have a duty to ensure that full and material facts are brought on record to prevent miscarriage of justice.
On this section: Abetment by conspiracy. Applied to establish joint liability of all three appellants in abetting the suicide.
-
Gambhirsinh R. Dekare vs Falgunbhai Chimanbhai Patel
Decided under Indian Penal Code 114, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An Editor whose name is printed on a newspaper is presumed under Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, to be responsible for the selection of matter published in every portion of the newspaper, including editions published from different locations with separate resident editors, unless the Editor proves to the contrary. At the stage of cognizance and issuance of process on a complaint, allegations of knowledge and involvement of the Editor in the publication of defamatory content must be accepted as true; the High Court cannot quash the prosecution based on an assumption that the Editor lacked knowledge when specific allegations establishing such knowledge are pleaded in the complaint. The presumption of editorial responsibility is rebuttable, but the burden to rebut it arises only after the allegation is established or at trial, not at the stage of cognizance.
On this section: Abettment - applied to allege that both editors conspired to publish the defamatory content
-
Sunil Mehta vs State of Gujarat
Decided under Indian Penal Code 114, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Evidence recorded during preliminary inquiry under Section 202 CrPC before the accused appears in court cannot be used to frame charges against the accused under Section 246 CrPC without fresh evidence being produced and recorded under Section 244 CrPC in the presence and with the opportunity of cross-examination by the accused. The accused has a fundamental right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses before charges are framed, as this right is essential for the accused to demonstrate that allegations are groundless and no case exists warranting framing of charges. The scheme and procedure of Chapter XV (dealing with complaints and preliminary inquiry) is distinct from Chapter XIX Part B (dealing with trial of warrant cases on private complaint), and evidence recorded at the preliminary stage cannot substitute for evidence properly recorded under Section 244 in the presence of the accused.
On this section: Abetment - originally alleged offence
-
State of Bihar vs Anand Mohan
Decided under Indian Penal Code 114, 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 when offence committed as consequence of abetment - cited in charges but ultimately not sustained due to lack of proof of common object
-
State of Bihar vs Arun Kumar Sinha
Decided under Indian Penal Code 114, 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: Abetment by conspiracy - Additional charge against Anand Mohan, Lovely Anand and Arun Kumar Singh for abetting murder by conspiracy
-
C. Muniappan vs State of Tamil Nadu
Decided under Indian Penal Code 114, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The ratio decidendi of this judgment is multi-faceted: (1) Charges under Section 188 IPC cannot be framed without written complaint by competent public servant as mandated by Section 195 CrPC, and absence of such complaint renders those charges void ab initio. However, such procedural defect does not vitiate the entire prosecution case or other charges if sufficient evidence exists for those charges. (2) Test identification parade is primarily an investigative tool and corroborative evidence, not substantive evidence. Actual evidence is the court testimony of witnesses. Identification parade is reliable when conducted properly without prior exposure of accused to witnesses, and when witnesses have direct observation opportunity. (3) Evidence of hostile witnesses cannot be rejected in toto; relevant parts consistent with prosecution or defence case can be relied upon after close scrutiny. (4) Defective investigation does not automatically lead to acquittal; court must examine evidence independently of investigation lapses to determine reliability. (5) Death sentence is warranted in rarest of rare cases involving planned, brutal crimes with exceptional depravity targeting helpless victims, where collective conscience is shocked, and no mitigating circumstances exist. Life imprisonment is the rule; death penalty is exception. (6) Two separate FIRs arising from same incident can be clubbed into one charge sheet if they are part of continuous sequence of events.
On this section: Abetment - applied to convict C. Muniappan for aiding and abetting the murder by providing motorcycle for escape
-
Mohmed Amin @ Amin C. R. M. Shaikh vs C. B. I Tr. Its Director
Decided under Indian Penal Code 114, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When confessions are recorded by police officers of Superintendent of Police rank or above in accordance with Section 15 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 and Rule 15 of the TADA Rules, 1987, such confessions are substantive evidence admissible against the maker as well as co-accused, abettors, or conspirators charged and tried in the same case. Even if an accused is acquitted of charges under the TADA Act, such confessions can be used for convicting him for offences under the Indian Penal Code or other enactments, provided the accused was tried jointly with TADA offences. The voluntary nature of confessions depends on the Court being satisfied that the requirements of Section 15 and Rule 15 were complied with, and when challenged by the accused, the initial burden is on the prosecution to prove such compliance. Once the prosecution discharges this burden, the burden shifts to the accused to prove through evidence that the confession was not made voluntarily or was not truthful. Confessions do not require independent corroboration for conviction of the maker, though as a matter of prudence, courts may seek general corroboration for use against co-accused unless satisfied of the confession's probative value. Mere retraction of confession is not sufficient to reject it; the crucial question is whether the accused was subjected to coercion, threat, or undue influence at the time of confession-making. Guidelines laid down in earlier judgments like Kartar Singh, while advisable, are not mandatory legal requirements unless incorporated into the statutory Act or Rules.
On this section: Applicable to show abetment of murder by some accused
-
Asrafkhan Kalandar Khan Pathan vs State of Gujarat
Decided under Indian Penal Code 114, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In an appeal against acquittal based on circumstantial evidence, the appellate court must not merely substitute its view for that of the Trial Court. The appellate court must identify a gross error or significant mistake in the Trial Court's reasoning before interfering with an acquittal. Double presumption of innocence applies: the general presumption that every person is innocent unless proved guilty, and the reinforced presumption that arises once the Trial Court has acquitted. When medical and ballistic evidence are consistent with accidental death and no clear motive is established, homicidal death has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Statements made by the accused under Section 313 CrPC cannot be treated as evidence against him unless properly put to him during examination.
On this section: Constructive liability when act is committed with knowledge that it is likely to be committed. High Court found accused no. 2 guilty under this section, but Supreme Court set aside this conviction.
-
Surajsinh Alias Sonu Surajsinh Collectorsinh Alias Sevaram Rajput vs State of Gujarat
Decided under Indian Penal Code 114, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases of kidnapping for ransom, conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence where the core facts—kidnapping of the victim, recovery of the victim in custody of the accused, and proof of ransom demand through telephone records and witness testimony—are established. Minor discrepancies and inconsistencies in witness statements, particularly those arising from the passage of time or the tender age of a child witness, must be ignored if the essential elements of the crime and the identity of the accused are proved through reliable and corroborating evidence. Non-recovery of a specific item (such as a SIM card) does not materially affect the proof of the act alleged to have been committed using that item when the act itself is proved through independent witness testimony and documentary records such as call details. An acquittal in related but distinct criminal charges does not operate to overturn a conviction in a separate and distinct charge arising from the same transaction if the evidence for the latter charge stands independently proved.
On this section: Abetment. The court considered whether the appellant abetted the commission of kidnapping by the co-accused Kamlesh.
-
Ushaben vs Kishorbhai Chunilal Talpada
Decided under Indian Penal Code 114, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a complaint alleges offences under both Section 498A IPC (cruelty - Chapter XXA) and Section 494 IPC (bigamy - Chapter XX), police can legally investigate the complaint as a whole without being fettered by the requirement of complaint by aggrieved person under Section 198 CrPC. This requirement applies only to the stage of court cognizance, not to police investigation. The requirement of complaint by aggrieved person under Section 198 CrPC is a procedural requirement for court cognizance under Section 190(1)(a), but does not restrict police investigation when the complaint alleges cognizable offences like Section 498A which can be investigated on police report under Section 198-A.
On this section: Vicarious liability - persons acting in concert. Applied to hold family members liable for aiding and abetting offences.
-
Sanjay Babubhai Patel vs State of Gujarat
Decided under Indian Penal Code 114, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In a revision application against an acquittal order, the High Court cannot reappreciate evidence. The revision court can only examine whether the trial court committed any error in law or procedure, or acted illegally. If the trial court's appreciation of evidence is legal and based on proper consideration of admissible evidence without procedural flaw, the revision application cannot be allowed merely because the revision court might have appreciated the evidence differently. The High Court will not interfere with an acquittal order when it agrees with the trial court's reasoning.
On this section: Abetment of an offence
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 54
What have the courts held on Section 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Sondabhai Hanubhai Bharwad vs State of Gujarat (04 Sep 2014) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 114, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Abetment; applied in mining cases where multiple persons involved in illegal extraction. Another 12 judgments on this section are set out below, 12 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2001 to 2017.
Is Section 54 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 54 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 54 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 54, section 54 BNS, section 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 54 punishment and bns 54 in ipc. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 13 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Sondabhai Hanubhai Bharwad vs State of Gujarat (04 Sep 2014).
What should I read with Section 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it. It carries forward IPC 114 (Abettor present when offence is committed), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 54, 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.