Abettor
Section 108 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with abettor. A person abets an offence, who abets either the commission of an offence, or the commission of an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence with the same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor. The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1862. Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
A person abets an offence, who abets either the commission of an offence, or the commission of an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence with the same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor.
Explanation 1.-The abetment of the illegal omission of an act may amount to an offence although the abettor may not himself be bound to do that act.
Explanation 2.-To constitute the offence of abetment it is not necessary that the act abetted should be committed, or that the effect requisite to constitute the offence should be caused.
Illustrations
(a) A instigates B to murder C. B refuses to do so. A is guilty of abetting B to commit murder.
(b) A instigates B to murder D. B in pursuance of the instigation
stabs D. D recovers from the wound. A is guilty of instigating B to commit murder.
Explanation 3.-It is not necessary that the person abetted should be capable by law of committing an offence, or that he should have the same guilty intention or knowledge as that of the abettor, or any guilty intention or knowledge.
Illustrations
(a) A, with a guilty intention, abets a child or a lunatic to commit an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence, and having the same intention as A. Here A, whether the act be committed or not, is guilty of abetting an offence.
(b) A, with the intention of murdering Z, instigates B, a child under seven years of age, to do an act which causes Z's death. B, in consequence of the abetment, does the act in the absence of A and thereby causes Z's death. Here, though B was not capable by law of committing an offence, A is liable to be punished in the same manner as if B had been capable by law of committing an offence, and had committed murder, and he is therefore subject to the punishment of death.
(c) A instigates B to set fire to a dwelling-house. B, in consequence of the unsoundness of his mind, being incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is wrong or contrary to law, sets fire to the house in consequence of A's instigation. B has committed no offence, but A is guilty of abetting the offence of setting fire to a dwelling-house, and is liable to the punishment provided for that offence.
(d) A, intending to cause a theft to be committed, instigates B to take property belonging to Z out of Z's possession. A induces B to believe that the property belongs to A. B takes the property out of Z's possession, in good faith, believing it to be A's property. B, acting under this misconception, does not take dishonestly, and therefore does not commit theft. But A is guilty of abetting theft, and is liable to the same punishment as if B had committed theft.
Explanation 4.-The abetment of an offence being an offence, the abetment of such an abetment is also an offence.
Illustration
A instigates B to instigate C to murder Z. B accordingly instigates C to murder Z, and C commits that offence in consequence of B's instigation. B is liable to be punished for his offence with the punishment for murder; and, as A instigated B to commit the offence, A is also liable to the same punishment.
Explanation 5.-It is not necessary to the commission of the offence of abetment by conspiracy that the abettor should concert the offence with the person who commits it. It is sufficient if he engages in the conspiracy in pursuance of which the offence is committed.
Illustration
A concerts with B a plan for poisoning Z. It is agreed that A
shall administer the poison. B then explains the plan to C mentioning that a third person is to administer the poison, but without mentioning A's name. C agrees to procure the poison, and procures and delivers it to B for the purpose of its being used in the manner explained. A administers the poison; Z dies in consequence. Here, though A and C have not conspired together, yet C has been engaged in the conspiracy in pursuance of which Z has been murdered. C has therefore committed the offence defined in this section and is liable to the punishment for murder.
Section 108, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 46 Abettor Text carried over almost unchanged 99%
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.
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.
-
P. Shanthi Pugazhenthi vs State Represented By The Inspector Of Police SPE/CBI/ACB/ Chennai
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: Defines an abettor and provides explanations and illustrations on how abetment can be committed. Applied to establish that the appellant can be convicted as an abettor even though she is not a public servant.
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.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… (ii) An abettor has to be an abettor of an offence, and in the context of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act,2002, a scheduled offence. Reference in this regard may be made to Section 108, Indian Penal Code, 1860. (iii) If it is an admitted position that none of the offences are scheduled offences, even if recourse is made to Section 120 -B (2) then the maximum punishment is 6months. Thus, if the case of the ED is taken as correct, that in the context of Section 120 -B it is a substantive offence …
Questions about Section 108
What have the courts held on Section 108 of the Indian Penal Code?
P. Shanthi Pugazhenthi vs State Represented By The Inspector Of Police SPE/CBI/ACB/ Chennai (26 Apr 2018) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Defines an abettor and provides explanations and illustrations on how abetment can be committed. Applied to establish that the appellant can be convicted as an abettor even though she is not a public servant.
How do I find court cases under Section 108 of the Indian Penal Code?
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: IPC 108, section 108 IPC, section 108 of the Indian Penal Code. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 1 reported judgment on this section is set out on this page, beginning with P. Shanthi Pugazhenthi vs State Represented By The Inspector Of Police SPE/CBI/ACB/ Chennai (26 Apr 2018).
What should I read with Section 108 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 46 (Abettor), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 108 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 108 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 108, came into force on 01 Jan 1862, having been enacted on 06 Oct 1860. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 499. Defamation1512 words
- 464. Making a false document1223 words
- 300. Murder1172 words
- 378. Theft980 words
- 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property727 words
- 350. Criminal force667 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. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 7b7d4fe6-206b-4e33-81f1-b98b018acaf6). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.