Liability of abettor for an effect caused by the act abetted different from that intended by the abettor
Section 113 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with liability of abettor for an effect caused by the act abetted different from that intended by the abettor. When an act is abetted with the intention on the part of the abettor of causing a particular effect, and an act for which the abettor is liable in consequence of the abetment, causes a different effect from that intended by the abettor, the abettor is liable for the effect caused, in the same manner 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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 with the intention on the part of the abettor of causing a particular effect, and an act for which the abettor is liable in consequence of the abetment, causes a different effect from that intended by the abettor, the abettor is liable for the effect caused, in the same manner and to the same extent as if he had abetted the act with the intention of causing that effect, provided he knew that the act abetted was likely to cause that effect.
Illustration
A instigates B to cause grievous hurt to Z. B, in consequence of the instigation, causes grievous hurt to Z. Z dies in consequence. Here, if A knew that the grievous hurt abetted was likely to cause death, A is liable to be punished with the punishment provided for murder.
Section 113, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 53 Liability of abettor for an effect caused by act abetted different from that intended by abettor 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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
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.
-
Kuldeep Kaur vs State of Uttarakhand
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the trial and appellate courts have acquitted the accused of charges under Sections 304B and 498A IPC (dowry harassment and dowry death), based on the finding that there was no demand of dowry or cruelty committed in connection with dowry, a conviction under Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide) cannot be sustained against the same accused based on the same set of facts without direct, specific, and cogent evidence establishing a reasonable nexus between the alleged cruelty by the accused and the suicide. Mere presumptions, general allegations, or inferences drawn from isolated diary entries cannot substitute for concrete evidence demonstrating that the specific actions of the accused directly led to the suicide.
On this section: Presumption clause in dowry death cases; Court noted that trial court did not invoke this presumption as it found no dowry demand or cruelty, thereby distinguishing between acquittal on substantive dowry charges and potential conviction on Section 306.
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 113
What have the courts held on Section 113 of the Indian Penal Code?
Kuldeep Kaur vs State of Uttarakhand (17 Oct 2014) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Presumption clause in dowry death cases; Court noted that trial court did not invoke this presumption as it found no dowry demand or cruelty, thereby distinguishing between acquittal on substantive dowry charges and potential conviction on Section 306.
How do I find court cases under Section 113 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 113, section 113 IPC, section 113 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 Kuldeep Kaur vs State of Uttarakhand (17 Oct 2014).
What should I read with Section 113 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 53 (Liability of abettor for an effect caused by act abetted different from that intended by abettor), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 113 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 113 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 113, 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.