Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment
Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with punishment of abetment if the 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 Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence. 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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.
Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code 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.
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 accepts the bribe. A has abetted the offence defined in section 161.
(b) 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.
(c) 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 109, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 49 Punishment of abetment if 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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
This section refers to
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
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: s.109 abetment — woman abettor of rape where intentional aiding proved
-
Manickam @ Poonga Manickam vs The State Rep. by the Deputy Commissioner of Police
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
-
Jaleshwar Singh vs State of Bihar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the evidence shows that the accused gave exhortation to commit an act with weapons that is likely to cause death, but does not explicitly exhort to cause death, the appropriate conviction is under Section 307 read with Section 110 IPC (abetment of attempt to cause death) rather than Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC (abetment of murder). The distinction between exhortation to kill and exhortation to cause grievous injury using deadly weapons is significant in determining the charge and sentence. Where the exact words of exhortation are ambiguous or disputed in evidence, and where words allegedly added later create doubt about specific intent to kill, the court should lean towards the more conservative interpretation that reflects the abetment of an act likely to cause death rather than direct abetment of murder. A custodial sentence of 7 years is appropriate for such modified conviction.
On this section: Punishment for abetment - initially applied to Jaleshwar Singh for abetting murder, but later distinguished and modified to Section 110
-
Somasundaram @ Somu vs The State Rep. by the Deputy Commissioner of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The case presents a divergent opinion on the reliability of accomplice evidence and the legal distinction between criminal conspiracy and abetment. Justice V. Gopala Gowda's ratio is that accomplice evidence requires independent corroboration in material particulars connecting the accused with the crime, and absent such corroboration, conviction cannot be sustained. Furthermore, acquittal under Section 120-B IPC is fatal to conviction under Section 109 IPC as the latter requires proof of specific overt acts in pursuance of conspiracy. Justice Arun Mishra's ratio is that accomplice evidence, when corroborated by multiple independent sources including eyewitness testimony, confessional statements, and recovery of articles, can sustain conviction even without formal designation as accomplice. Additionally, acquittal under Section 120-B does not affect conviction under Section 109 as these are separate offences with distinct ingredients, and the presumption under Section 106 Evidence Act applies when abductors cannot explain the fate of the abducted person.
On this section: Punishment for abetment; applied to convict appellants for abetting murder and abduction
-
Shankar Ganesh @ Shankar vs State Rep by the Dy Commisssioner of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The case presents a split decision with no single ratio decidendi. Justice V. Gopala Gowda's ratio is that accomplice evidence requires independent corroboration in material particulars connecting the accused with the crime, and when such corroboration is absent and the accused are acquitted of conspiracy, conviction under abetment provisions cannot be sustained. Justice Arun Mishra's ratio is that accomplice evidence can be relied upon when sufficiently corroborated by confessional statements and recovery of articles, and acquittal under Section 120-B does not preclude conviction under Section 109 as these are separate offences with distinct legal requirements.
On this section: Prescribes punishment for abetment; abettor liable to same punishment as principal if act committed in consequence of abetment
-
Shankar Ganesh @ Shankar vs State Rep by the Dy Commisssioner of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The case presents a split verdict with two divergent ratios: (1) Per Justice Gopala Gowda: Acquittal under Section 120-B IPC (criminal conspiracy) is fatal to conviction under Section 109 IPC (abetment by conspiracy) because the latter requires proof of conspiracy as a prerequisite. Accomplice evidence, even if corroborated, cannot sustain conviction when independent evidence fails to place accused at scene of crime or establish their specific role. (2) Per Justice Arun Mishra: Acquittal under Section 120-B does not affect conviction under Section 109 as these are separate and distinct offences with different ingredients. Accomplice evidence, when corroborated by multiple independent sources including confessions, recoveries, and circumstantial evidence, can sustain conviction. The presumption under Section 106 Evidence Act applies to abductors regarding victim's fate.
On this section: Punishment for abetment; application when conspiracy charge fails
-
Iruthayaraj@iruthi& ORS. vs Home Ministry State Rep. by the Deputy Commissioner of Police Cbcid Metro Wing Chennai
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The ratio decidendi is split between the two judges. Justice Gopala Gowda's ratio: Accomplice evidence, even if corroborated by other accomplices, cannot sustain conviction without independent corroboration in material particulars connecting the accused to the crime. When the charge under Section 120-B (criminal conspiracy) is not proved, conviction under Section 109 (abetment by conspiracy) cannot be sustained as it requires proof of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. The burden remains on the prosecution to prove each accused's individual involvement in the crime beyond reasonable doubt through independent evidence, not merely through accomplice testimony. Justice Arun Mishra's ratio: Accomplice evidence, when corroborated by confessions of co-accused, recovery of material objects, and circumstantial evidence, can sustain conviction even without direct evidence of the accused's presence at the scene of crime. Acquittal under Section 120-B does not affect conviction under Section 109 as these are separate and distinct offences with different ingredients. The presumption that an abductor is a murderer when the victim is found dead soon after abduction can be applied to sustain conviction when circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.
On this section: Punishment for abetment; liability of abettor same as principal offender
-
Balamurugan @ Bala and Anr. Etc vs The State of Tamil Nadu Home Department Deputy Commissioner of Police Cbcid Metro Wing
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The case resulted in divergent opinions. Justice V. Gopala Gowda held that accomplice evidence requires independent corroboration in material particulars connecting the accused with the crime, and absent such corroboration, conviction cannot be sustained even if the accomplice evidence is otherwise reliable. Justice Arun Mishra held that accomplice evidence can be relied upon if corroborated by confessional statements of other accused, recovery of articles, and circumstantial evidence, and that acquittal under Section 120-B does not preclude conviction under Section 109 when the ingredients of abetment are satisfied.
On this section: Punishment for abetment; liability of abettor same as principal offender
-
State of U. P vs Shyam Veer
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving retaliatory acts committed in the immediate aftermath of a grave provocation (such as the death of a family member), a time gap of 15 minutes between the initial provocation and the retaliatory act may be insufficient to establish that the accused had regained self-control. Where the provocation is both grave and sudden, and the retaliatory act follows within a very short time frame without intervening cooling-off period, Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC (sudden grave provocation) can apply, reducing culpability from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-I IPC. Additionally, criminal liability under abetment provisions (Section 109 IPC) requires proof that the alleged accomplice was present and aided or encouraged the principal offender; mere alleged prevention of others from extinguishing a fire is insufficient to establish accomplice liability if the person was not present when the offence was committed or the conspiracy was formed.
On this section: Abetment; used to determine criminal liability of respondents 6 to 13 as alleged accomplices
-
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: Provides punishment for abetment. Applied to convict the appellant for abetting her husband's corruption offence.
-
Babita Lila vs Union of India
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
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
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
-
Shashi Kumar Unnikrishnan vs Republic of India(c.b.i.)
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
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
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.
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.
-
… Leave granted. - 2. The appellant before this Court, who was working as an Assistant Superintendent in the Chennai Port Trust assails the judgment and order dated 10.01.2018 passed by the High Court of Madras (hereinafter 'High Court') which has sustained her conviction and sentence under section 109 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter 'IPC') read with Section 13(2) and Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (hereinafter '1988 Act'). The co-accused (husband of the appellant, at the time) was also convicted and sentenced by Digitally signed by Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2025.05.13 17:54:38 IST …
-
… of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for acquiring properties and pecuniary resources which were disproportionate to his known sources of income to the extent of Rs.38,72,545/-, which he had not satisfactorily accounted for. Whereas, P. Nallamal was tried for offence under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC') read with Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) of the Act for abetting the offence by permitting the 1st Accused to acquire a substantial portion of 3 the properties in her name and in the names of her minor children and for holding such …
-
… of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for acquiring properties and pecuniary resources which were disproportionate to his known sources of income to the extent of Rs.38,72,545/-, which he had not satisfactorily accounted for. Whereas, P. Nallamal was tried for offence under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC') read with Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) of the Act for abetting the offence by permitting the 1st Accused to acquire a substantial portion of 3 the properties in her name and in the names of her minor children and for holding such …
Questions about Section 109
What have the courts held on Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code?
Kartar Singh v. State of Haryana (14 Oct 2014) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.109 abetment — woman abettor of rape where intentional aiding proved. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 13 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2005 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 109 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 109, section 109 IPC, section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 109 1 in hindi. 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 109 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 161, so none of them can safely be read on its own. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 49 (Punishment of abetment if act abetted is committed in consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 109, 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
- 108. Abettor745 words
- 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property727 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.