eCourtsIndia
IndiaCode Laws
Section111
The Indian Penal Code, 1860

Liability of abettor when one act abetted and different act done

Repealed From 01 Jan 1862 Act 45 of 1860 As on 14 Oct 2026

Act 45 of 1860 Ministry Home Affairs Enacted 06 Oct 1860 In force 01 Jan 1862

This provision is repealed. Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024. It is reproduced because conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.

Section 111 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with liability of abettor when one act abetted and different act done. When an Act is abetted and a different act is done, the abettor is liable for the act done, in the same manner and to the same extent as if he had directly abetted it: Proviso. 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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.

When an Act is abetted and a different act is done, the abettor is liable for the act done, in the same manner and to the same extent as if he had directly abetted it:

Proviso.

Proviso.--Provided the act done was a probable consequence of the abetment, and was committed under the influence of the instigation, or with the aid or in pursuance of the conspiracy which constituted the abetment.

Illustrations

(a) A instigates a child to put poison into the food of Z, and gives him poison for that purpose. The child, in consequence of the instigation, by mistake puts the poison into the food of Y, which is by the side of that of Z. Here if the child was acting under the influence of A's instigation, and the act done was under the circumstances a probable consequence of the abetment, A is liable in the same manner and to the same extent as if he had instigated the child to put the poison into the food of Y.

(b) A instigates B to burn Z's house. B sets fire to the house and at the same time commits theft of property there. A, though guilty of abetting the burning of the house, is not guilty of abetting the theft; for the theft was a distinct act, and not a probable consequence of the burning.

(c) A instigates B and C to break into an inhabited house at midnight for the purpose of robbery, and provides them with arms for

that purpose. B and C break into the house, and being resisted by Z, one of the inmates, murder Z. Here, if that murder was the probable consequence of the abetment, A is liable to the punishment provided for murder.

Section 111, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).

Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

BNS 51 Liability of abettor when one act abetted and different act done Text carried over almost unchanged 98%

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.

  1. Nirma Patel vs State of U.p.

    High Court 25 Jul 2023 Persuasive (Other HC)

    Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

    A writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR becomes infructuous when the prosecution files a charge-sheet with substantially modified charges, including exoneration of some petitioners and deletion of original serious charges, thereby altering the legal foundation upon which the writ petition was based.

    On this section: Liability of abettor when act is committed in consequence of abetment - added in charge-sheet

    Read the full order on eCourts India

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 111

What have the courts held on Section 111 of the Indian Penal Code?

Nirma Patel vs State of U.p. (25 Jul 2023) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Liability of abettor when act is committed in consequence of abetment - added in charge-sheet.

How do I find court cases under Section 111 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 111, section 111 IPC, section 111 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 Nirma Patel vs State of U.p. (25 Jul 2023).

What should I read with Section 111 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?

For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 51 (Liability of abettor when one act abetted and different act done), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.

When did Section 111 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?

Section 111 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 111, 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

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.