Indian criminal law | Abetment

IPC Section 114 and BNS Section 54: Abettor Present When Offence Is Committed

An abettor who is present when an offence is committed may be treated in law as having committed the offence, even without personally carrying out the prohibited act. The rule appears in Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and is continued in Section 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Current law: The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) came into force on 1 July 2024. Section 54 is the corresponding provision for the former IPC Section 114. For earlier conduct, the applicable law and statutory saving provisions must be considered.

Text of IPC Section 114

Heading: 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.

Section 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

Heading: Abettor present when offence is committed.

Whenever any person, who is 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 operative effect is substantially the same. Section 54 is in Chapter IV of the BNS, dealing with abetment, criminal conspiracy and attempt.

Meaning and essential ingredients

Abetment generally involves instigating a person to do an act, engaging in a qualifying conspiracy for its doing, or intentionally aiding its doing. The relevant definition is in Section 45 BNS (formerly Section 107 IPC); Section 46 BNS describes an abettor (formerly Section 108 IPC).

Prior liability as an abettor: The person must be liable for abetment even if not physically present at the offence.
Commission of the relevant act or offence: The act or offence must actually be committed in consequence of the abetment.
Presence at the time: The abettor must be present when that act or offence is committed.
Legal consequence: When these requirements are established, the law deems the abettor to have committed that act or offence.

Important distinction: Mere presence at the scene, without proof of abetment, is not by itself sufficient to establish liability under this section. The prosecution must establish the relevant ingredients through admissible evidence.

Practical example

A intentionally instigates B to assault Z. B commits the assault while A is present. If the facts prove that A was already punishable as an abettor and that the assault occurred in consequence of the abetment, Section 54 BNS may deem A to have committed the assault. The legal outcome depends on the proved facts and the precise offence.

Punishment and classification

Section 54 does not prescribe one fixed term of imprisonment for every case. Because the abettor is deemed to have committed the act or offence, the punishment is that applicable to the offence committed. The cognizable or non-cognizable and bailable or non-bailable classification, and the court competent to try the case, depend on the underlying offence and the applicable First Schedule of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Question	Position
Corresponding current section	Section 54, BNS 2023
Earlier provision	Section 114, IPC 1860
Is mere presence enough?	No. Abetment and other statutory conditions must be proved.
Punishment	As for the offence committed, subject to the applicable law.
Bail and cognizability	Depend on the underlying offence and applicable procedural law.

Read Section 45 BNS for the definition of abetment; Section 46 for the definition of an abettor; Section 49 for punishment where the abetted act is committed and no express punishment is provided; and Sections 51 to 53 for liability involving a different act, cumulative punishment or a different resulting effect.

Official legal sources

This article is for general legal information. The applicable law, commencement and saving provisions, facts, evidence and judicial interpretation should be checked before relying on it in a particular case.