IPC Section 116 and BNS Section 56: Abetment When Offence Is Not Committed
Abetment may be punishable even when the offence encouraged, assisted or planned is never committed. Section 116 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), historically addressed abetment of an offence punishable with imprisonment where the offence was not committed. The corresponding provision under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), is Section 56.
Meaning of abetment and the relevant provisions
Abetment generally involves instigating another person to do an act, engaging in a conspiracy for doing that act where the statutory requirements are met, or intentionally aiding its commission. See BNS Section 45 for the current definition and Section 46 for the meaning of an abettor. IPC Sections 107 and 108 contained the earlier definitions.
IPC Section 116 was headed "Abetment of offence punishable with imprisonment - if offence be not committed." BNS Section 56 is headed "Abetment of offence punishable with imprisonment." Both address specified cases where the offence abetted is not committed in consequence of the abetment and there is no express provision otherwise prescribing punishment for that abetment.
Punishment under BNS Section 56 and former IPC Section 116
| Situation | Maximum imprisonment | Fine |
|---|---|---|
| Ordinary abetment where the offence punishable with imprisonment is not committed | One-fourth of the longest imprisonment term prescribed for the offence abetted | Fine prescribed for the underlying offence, or both imprisonment and fine |
| Abettor or person abetted is a public servant whose duty is to prevent that offence | One-half of the longest imprisonment term prescribed for the offence abetted | Fine prescribed for the underlying offence, or both imprisonment and fine |
The imprisonment must be of a description permitted for the underlying offence. These are statutory upper limits, not automatic sentences. The specific offence, facts, applicable special legislation and sentencing provisions remain relevant.
Essential conditions for liability
- There must be legally established abetment of an identifiable offence punishable with imprisonment.
- The offence must not have been committed in consequence of that abetment.
- No express provision of the applicable criminal law must separately prescribe the punishment for that particular abetment.
- For the enhanced punishment, the abettor or the person abetted must be a public servant whose duty includes preventing the offence in question.
Illustrations from IPC Section 116
The following four examples preserve the substance of the original IPC illustrations. They explain how the former provision operated; the BNS contains three illustrations, omitting the former bribery example.
(a) Offer of a bribe refused
A offers a bribe to B, a public servant, as a reward for showing A favour in the exercise of B's official functions. B refuses the bribe. Under the original IPC illustration, A was punishable under Section 116. Current-law caution: bribery is also governed by specific anti-corruption legislation, including the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as amended. This historical illustration should not be used alone to determine a present-day charge.
(b) Instigation to give false evidence
A instigates B to give false evidence. B does not give false evidence. A may nevertheless be punishable for the abetment, subject to the statutory conditions. This example is also retained in BNS Section 56.
(c) Police officer abetting robbery
A, a police officer whose duty is to prevent robbery, abets a robbery. Even though the robbery does not take place, the enhanced ceiling of one-half of the maximum imprisonment for robbery can apply. The BNS retains this example.
(d) Another person abetting a police officer
B abets a robbery by A, a police officer whose duty is to prevent robbery. Although the robbery is not committed, the enhanced rule can apply because the person abetted is a public servant charged with preventing the offence. The BNS retains this example.
IPC Section 116 and BNS Section 56: Key differences
The central punishment formula remains substantially the same. The BNS consolidates the rule in Section 56, updates references from "Code" to "Sanhita," and retains three statutory illustrations rather than all four found under IPC Section 116. The earlier bribery illustration should be read in its historical context.
Practical examples of calculating the maximum term
If the underlying offence carries a maximum of four years' imprisonment, the ordinary ceiling under Section 56 would be one year. Where the public-servant condition applies, the ceiling would be two years. These are examples of the statutory fractions only, not conclusions about any specific charge or sentence.
Frequently asked questions
Can someone be punished for abetment even if the offence never occurs?
Yes. Section 56 expressly covers qualifying abetment when the offence is not committed, provided no more specific punishment provision applies.
Is the punishment always one-fourth of the underlying maximum?
No. One-fourth is the ordinary upper limit. The enhanced public-servant rule permits up to one-half; special provisions may also apply.
Does IPC Section 116 still apply?
It can remain relevant to conduct governed by the former IPC and transitional rules. For conduct governed by the BNS from 1 July 2024, consult Section 56.
Official statutory sources
- India Code - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (official PDF), Sections 45, 46 and 56
- National Crime Records Bureau - BNS chapter-wise text
- Bureau of Police Research and Development - BNS reference text and IPC correspondence
- India Code - official repository of central legislation
This article provides general legal information. Statutory provisions, amendments, savings clauses and relevant judicial decisions should be checked for the facts and date of a particular case.