Abettor present when offence is committed
Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with abettor present when offence is committed. Whenever any person who if absent would be liable to be punished as an abettor, is present when the act or offence for which he would be punishable in consequence of the abetment is committed, he shall be deemed to have committed such act or 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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.
Whenever any person who if absent would be liable to be punished as an abettor, is present when the act or offence for which he would be punishable in consequence of the abetment is committed, he shall be deemed to have committed such act or offence.
Section 114, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 54 Abettor present when offence is committed 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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
-
Sondabhai Hanubhai Bharwad vs State of Gujarat
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the same act constitutes an offence both under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and under the Indian Penal Code, specifically where minerals are dishonestly removed from government land without consent (theft under IPC), the two offences are distinct in their ingredients and ingredients are different. Therefore, Section 22 of the MMDR Act, which restricts cognizance of offences under the Act to complaints by authorized officers, does not bar prosecution under the IPC for the distinct offence of theft. The police can register FIR for theft, investigate, and submit report to Magistrate for cognizance under Section 190(1)(d) CrPC, while simultaneously the authorized officer can file complaint for MMDR Act violation requiring different procedure for Magistrate cognizance. Both prosecutions can proceed as the offences are distinct and the bar against double jeopardy applies only to identical offences.
On this section: Abetment; applied in mining cases where multiple persons involved in illegal extraction
-
Kalubhai Dulabhai Khachar vs State of Gujarat
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where conduct constitutes an offence under both the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 and the Indian Penal Code, the provisions of the MMDR Act do not impliedly or explicitly exclude prosecution under the IPC. Police can register FIR, investigate and submit charge sheets for theft of minerals under IPC Sections 378-379 based on discovery of unauthorized removal of minerals from government land. Magistrates can take cognizance of theft offences on police reports under Section 190(1)(d) CrPC without awaiting complaint from authorized MMDR officer. However, for offences constituting breach of mining lease or unauthorized mining specifically under MMDR Act Section 21, cognizance by Magistrate can only be taken upon complaint in writing by person authorized by Central or State Government as required by MMDR Act Section 22. These are distinct offences with different ingredients and prosecution for both does not violate Article 20(2) protection against double jeopardy provided person is not punished twice for identical offence. The Public Trust Doctrine establishes that natural resources are national assets requiring protection through multiple enforcement mechanisms. Police duty under Sections 149-152 CrPC to prevent cognizable offences includes authority and responsibility to investigate illegal mining even without prior authorization from mining authorities.
On this section: Abetment and criminal conspiracy provisions cited in FIRs for mining cases
-
Patel Maheshbhai Ranchobhai vs State of Gujarat
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a trial court abandons its prime duty to appreciate evidence for search of truth and disposes of a criminal case hastily without properly examining all available evidence, an appellate court can reverse the acquittal and convict the accused based on a proper re-appreciation of the evidence on record, particularly when the dying declaration of the victim is corroborated by circumstances and the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act applies. The courts have a constitutional duty to ensure justice and cannot remain passive when the prosecuting agency fails to present complete evidence or when there is evidence of collusion between the prosecution and the trial court. Both the prosecutor and the trial court have a duty to ensure that full and material facts are brought on record to prevent miscarriage of justice.
On this section: Abetment by conspiracy. Applied to establish joint liability of all three appellants in abetting the suicide.
-
Gambhirsinh R. Dekare vs Falgunbhai Chimanbhai Patel
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An Editor whose name is printed on a newspaper is presumed under Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, to be responsible for the selection of matter published in every portion of the newspaper, including editions published from different locations with separate resident editors, unless the Editor proves to the contrary. At the stage of cognizance and issuance of process on a complaint, allegations of knowledge and involvement of the Editor in the publication of defamatory content must be accepted as true; the High Court cannot quash the prosecution based on an assumption that the Editor lacked knowledge when specific allegations establishing such knowledge are pleaded in the complaint. The presumption of editorial responsibility is rebuttable, but the burden to rebut it arises only after the allegation is established or at trial, not at the stage of cognizance.
On this section: Abettment - applied to allege that both editors conspired to publish the defamatory content
-
Sunil Mehta vs State of Gujarat
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Evidence recorded during preliminary inquiry under Section 202 CrPC before the accused appears in court cannot be used to frame charges against the accused under Section 246 CrPC without fresh evidence being produced and recorded under Section 244 CrPC in the presence and with the opportunity of cross-examination by the accused. The accused has a fundamental right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses before charges are framed, as this right is essential for the accused to demonstrate that allegations are groundless and no case exists warranting framing of charges. The scheme and procedure of Chapter XV (dealing with complaints and preliminary inquiry) is distinct from Chapter XIX Part B (dealing with trial of warrant cases on private complaint), and evidence recorded at the preliminary stage cannot substitute for evidence properly recorded under Section 244 in the presence of the accused.
On this section: Abetment - originally alleged offence
-
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 when offence committed as consequence of abetment - cited in charges but ultimately not sustained due to lack of proof of common object
-
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: Abetment by conspiracy - Additional charge against Anand Mohan, Lovely Anand and Arun Kumar Singh for abetting murder by conspiracy
-
C. Muniappan vs State of Tamil Nadu
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The ratio decidendi of this judgment is multi-faceted: (1) Charges under Section 188 IPC cannot be framed without written complaint by competent public servant as mandated by Section 195 CrPC, and absence of such complaint renders those charges void ab initio. However, such procedural defect does not vitiate the entire prosecution case or other charges if sufficient evidence exists for those charges. (2) Test identification parade is primarily an investigative tool and corroborative evidence, not substantive evidence. Actual evidence is the court testimony of witnesses. Identification parade is reliable when conducted properly without prior exposure of accused to witnesses, and when witnesses have direct observation opportunity. (3) Evidence of hostile witnesses cannot be rejected in toto; relevant parts consistent with prosecution or defence case can be relied upon after close scrutiny. (4) Defective investigation does not automatically lead to acquittal; court must examine evidence independently of investigation lapses to determine reliability. (5) Death sentence is warranted in rarest of rare cases involving planned, brutal crimes with exceptional depravity targeting helpless victims, where collective conscience is shocked, and no mitigating circumstances exist. Life imprisonment is the rule; death penalty is exception. (6) Two separate FIRs arising from same incident can be clubbed into one charge sheet if they are part of continuous sequence of events.
On this section: Abetment - applied to convict C. Muniappan for aiding and abetting the murder by providing motorcycle for escape
-
Mohmed Amin @ Amin C. R. M. Shaikh vs C. B. I Tr. Its Director
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When confessions are recorded by police officers of Superintendent of Police rank or above in accordance with Section 15 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 and Rule 15 of the TADA Rules, 1987, such confessions are substantive evidence admissible against the maker as well as co-accused, abettors, or conspirators charged and tried in the same case. Even if an accused is acquitted of charges under the TADA Act, such confessions can be used for convicting him for offences under the Indian Penal Code or other enactments, provided the accused was tried jointly with TADA offences. The voluntary nature of confessions depends on the Court being satisfied that the requirements of Section 15 and Rule 15 were complied with, and when challenged by the accused, the initial burden is on the prosecution to prove such compliance. Once the prosecution discharges this burden, the burden shifts to the accused to prove through evidence that the confession was not made voluntarily or was not truthful. Confessions do not require independent corroboration for conviction of the maker, though as a matter of prudence, courts may seek general corroboration for use against co-accused unless satisfied of the confession's probative value. Mere retraction of confession is not sufficient to reject it; the crucial question is whether the accused was subjected to coercion, threat, or undue influence at the time of confession-making. Guidelines laid down in earlier judgments like Kartar Singh, while advisable, are not mandatory legal requirements unless incorporated into the statutory Act or Rules.
On this section: Applicable to show abetment of murder by some accused
-
Asrafkhan Kalandar Khan Pathan vs State of Gujarat
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In an appeal against acquittal based on circumstantial evidence, the appellate court must not merely substitute its view for that of the Trial Court. The appellate court must identify a gross error or significant mistake in the Trial Court's reasoning before interfering with an acquittal. Double presumption of innocence applies: the general presumption that every person is innocent unless proved guilty, and the reinforced presumption that arises once the Trial Court has acquitted. When medical and ballistic evidence are consistent with accidental death and no clear motive is established, homicidal death has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Statements made by the accused under Section 313 CrPC cannot be treated as evidence against him unless properly put to him during examination.
On this section: Constructive liability when act is committed with knowledge that it is likely to be committed. High Court found accused no. 2 guilty under this section, but Supreme Court set aside this conviction.
-
Surajsinh Alias Sonu Surajsinh Collectorsinh Alias Sevaram Rajput vs State of Gujarat
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases of kidnapping for ransom, conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence where the core facts—kidnapping of the victim, recovery of the victim in custody of the accused, and proof of ransom demand through telephone records and witness testimony—are established. Minor discrepancies and inconsistencies in witness statements, particularly those arising from the passage of time or the tender age of a child witness, must be ignored if the essential elements of the crime and the identity of the accused are proved through reliable and corroborating evidence. Non-recovery of a specific item (such as a SIM card) does not materially affect the proof of the act alleged to have been committed using that item when the act itself is proved through independent witness testimony and documentary records such as call details. An acquittal in related but distinct criminal charges does not operate to overturn a conviction in a separate and distinct charge arising from the same transaction if the evidence for the latter charge stands independently proved.
On this section: Abetment. The court considered whether the appellant abetted the commission of kidnapping by the co-accused Kamlesh.
-
Ushaben vs Kishorbhai Chunilal Talpada
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a complaint alleges offences under both Section 498A IPC (cruelty - Chapter XXA) and Section 494 IPC (bigamy - Chapter XX), police can legally investigate the complaint as a whole without being fettered by the requirement of complaint by aggrieved person under Section 198 CrPC. This requirement applies only to the stage of court cognizance, not to police investigation. The requirement of complaint by aggrieved person under Section 198 CrPC is a procedural requirement for court cognizance under Section 190(1)(a), but does not restrict police investigation when the complaint alleges cognizable offences like Section 498A which can be investigated on police report under Section 198-A.
On this section: Vicarious liability - persons acting in concert. Applied to hold family members liable for aiding and abetting offences.
-
Sanjay Babubhai Patel vs State of Gujarat
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In a revision application against an acquittal order, the High Court cannot reappreciate evidence. The revision court can only examine whether the trial court committed any error in law or procedure, or acted illegally. If the trial court's appreciation of evidence is legal and based on proper consideration of admissible evidence without procedural flaw, the revision application cannot be allowed merely because the revision court might have appreciated the evidence differently. The High Court will not interfere with an acquittal order when it agrees with the trial court's reasoning.
On this section: Abetment of an offence
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.
-
… No. 33 of 2011 registered on 12.05.2011 <span id="page-0-0"></span>1 In short "FIR" SLP(CRL.) NO. 354 OF 2019 ETC. Page 1 of 16 with Tankara Police Station, Rajkot (Rural), Gujarat for offences under Sections 409, 219 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860[2]( page-1-0). - 3. Appeal arising from SLP (Crl.) No. 354 of 2019 has been preferred against the judgment dated 12.12.2018 passed by the High Court of Gujarat in R/Criminal Misc. Application No. 7960 of 2011, dismissing the appellant's prayer for quashing of the above-mentioned …
-
… Aforesaid complaint lodged by PW-1, the father of the deceased, was registered vide I-C.R.No. 341 of 1997 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 17. A perusal of evidence of PW-1, Mustufa Chhotubhai Ghori, the father of the deceased would establish that deceased was married to appellant no. 1, eight months prior to the alleged incident. He stated in his testimony that the married life of the two was smooth for initial two months, …
-
… of 2017, SLP(Criminal) No. 5309 of 2017 and SLP(Criminal) No. 5321 of 2017. 2) One, Amit Jethwa, stated to be an activist, who was complaining against the illegal mining in and around Gir Forest Sanctuary, was murdered. FIR being I-C.R. No. 163 of 2010 was registered on July 20, 2010 at Sola Police Station under Sections 302 and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) read with Section 25(1) of Arms Act, 1959. In this FIR, amongst others, Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki (for short 'Mr. Solanki') and his nephew were also implicated. As per the father of Amit Jethwa (who was the complainant), State's Police showed slackness in investigating the said …
Questions about Section 114
What have the courts held on Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code?
Sondabhai Hanubhai Bharwad vs State of Gujarat (04 Sep 2014) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Abetment; applied in mining cases where multiple persons involved in illegal extraction. Another 12 judgments on this section are set out below, 12 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2001 to 2017.
How do I find court cases under Section 114 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 114, section 114 IPC, section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 114 in bns and ipc 114 punishment. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 13 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Sondabhai Hanubhai Bharwad vs State of Gujarat (04 Sep 2014).
What should I read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 54 (Abettor present when offence is committed), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 114, 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.