Abetment of offence punishable with imprisonment--if offence be not committed
IPC 116 (Abetment of offence punishable with imprisonment--if offence be not committed) corresponds most closely to BNS 56, Abetment of offence punishable with imprisonment, on a text comparison scoring 90 per cent. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 was repealed with effect from 01 Jul 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
Repealed · Indian Penal Code
Section 116 Abetment of offence punishable with imprisonment--if offence be not committed
Whoever abets an offence punishable with imprisonment shall, if that offence be not committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for that offence for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term provided for that offence; or with such fine as is provided for that offence, or with both;
if abettor or person abetted be a public servant whose duty it is to prevent offence.
if abettor or person abetted be a public servant whose duty it is to prevent offence.--and if the abettor or the person abetted is a public servant, whose duty it is to prevent the commission of such offence, the abettor shall be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for that offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the longest term provided for that offence, or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both.
Illustrations
(a) A offers a bribe to B, a public servant, as a reward for showing. A some favour in the exercise of B's official functions. B refuses to accept the bribe. A is punishable under this section.
(b) A instigates B to give false evidence. Here, if B does not give false evidence, A has nevertheless committed the offence defined in this section, and is punishable accordingly.
(c) A, a police-officer, whose duty it is to prevent robbery, abets the commission of robbery. Here, though the robbery be not committed, A is liable to one-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence, and also to fine.
(d) B abets the commission of a robbery by A, a police-officer, whose duty it is to prevent that offence. Here though the robbery be not committed, B is liable to one-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for the offence of robbery, and also to fine.
In force · Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Section 56 Abetment of offence punishable with imprisonment
Whoever abets an offence punishable with imprisonment shall, if that offence be not committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made under this Sanhita for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for that offence for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term provided for that offence; or with such fine as is provided for that offence, or with both; and if the abettor or the person abetted is a public servant, whose duty it is to prevent the commission of such offence, the abettor shall be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for that offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the longest term provided for that offence, or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both.
Illustrations.
(a) A instigates B to give false evidence. Here, if B does not give false evidence, A has nevertheless committed the offence defined in this section, and is punishable accordingly.
(b) A, a police officer, whose duty it is to prevent robbery, abets the commission of robbery. Here, though the robbery be not committed, A is liable to one-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence, and also to fine.
(c) B abets the commission of a robbery by A, a police officer, whose duty it is to prevent that offence. Here, though the robbery be not committed, B is liable to one-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for the offence of robbery, and also to fine.
Other provisions with similar text
The next closest matches, in order. Where a provision was split or merged, the answer is often more than one of these.
How this table was made, and what it is not
There is no official machine-readable correspondence between the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The Ministry published comparison charts for human readers; nothing exists that a computer can check. So this is not an official mapping and we do not present it as one.
What it measures is how alike the text of two provisions is. For each provision of the old enactment we compare its words against every provision of the new one and report the closest, with the score. That works here because the new codes are largely a renumbering rather than a rewrite: where a provision carried over near-verbatim the match is self-evidencing, and you can see it for yourself, because both texts are set out side by side on every entry.
Where the law genuinely changed, the score falls and the entry says no close match found rather than offering a guess. Those entries matter: they are where the reform actually did something.
Check before you cite. A high score means the words are alike, not that a court has held the provisions equivalent. For that, read both texts and the Gazette.
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. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.