By using this site, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Accept
ApniLawApniLawApniLaw
  • Home
  • Law Forum
  • Find Lawyers
  • Legal Services
  • Legal News
  • Legal Jobs
  • Legal Articles
    • Documentation
    • Marriage and Divorce
    • Land Dispute & Will
    • Civil
    • Criminal
    • Supreme Court
    • High Court
  • Bare Acts
    • BNSS
    • BNS
    • BSA
    • CrPC
    • DPDP
    • Hindu Marriage Act
    • IPC
    • POCSO
Reading: Section 53 – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) – Liability Of Abettor For An Effect Caused By Act Abetted Different From That Intended By Abettor.
Share
Notification Show More
Font ResizerAa
ApniLawApniLaw
Font ResizerAa
  • Supreme Court
  • High Court
  • Acts
  • Documentation
  • BNSS
  • Home
  • Law Forum
  • Find Lawyers
  • Legal Services
  • Legal News
  • Legal Jobs
  • Legal Articles
    • Documentation
    • Marriage and Divorce
    • Land Dispute & Will
    • Civil
    • Criminal
    • Supreme Court
    • High Court
  • Bare Acts
    • BNSS
    • BNS
    • BSA
    • CrPC
    • DPDP
    • Hindu Marriage Act
    • IPC
    • POCSO
Have an existing account? Sign In
Follow US
  • Advertise
© 2022 Foxiz News Network. Ruby Design Company. All Rights Reserved.
ApniLaw > Blog > Bare Act > BNS > Section 53 – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) – Liability Of Abettor For An Effect Caused By Act Abetted Different From That Intended By Abettor.
BNS

Section 53 – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) – Liability Of Abettor For An Effect Caused By Act Abetted Different From That Intended By Abettor.

Apni Law
Last updated: March 12, 2025 3:04 pm
Apni Law
6 months ago
Share
Section 53 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) - Liability Of Abettor For An Effect Caused By Act Abetted Different From That Intended By Abettor
Section 53 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) - Liability Of Abettor For An Effect Caused By Act Abetted Different From That Intended By Abettor
SHARE

Code: Exact Text of Section 53 BNS

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.

Explanation of Section 53 BNS

1. Concept of Unintended but Foreseeable Consequences

  • This section deals with situations where an abettor instigates a person to commit an act with a particular intent, but the actual outcome is different from what was intended.
  • The abettor remains liable if they knew that the act they abetted was likely to cause the unintended effect.

2. Key Elements of Liability Under Section 53

  • The abettor had a specific intention regarding the act.
  • The actual result of the act was different from what was intended.
  • The abettor knew that the act was likely to cause that effect.

This ensures that individuals cannot escape liability just because the exact effect of the crime was different from what they planned.

Contents
Code: Exact Text of Section 53 BNSExplanation of Section 53 BNS1. Concept of Unintended but Foreseeable Consequences2. Key Elements of Liability Under Section 53Illustration of Section 53 BNSExample from the LawMore Examples1. Arson Leading to Death2. Road Rage Incident3. Poisoning with Unintended ConsequencesCommon Questions and Answers on Section 53 BNS1. What is the core principle behind Section 53?2. How is this different from Section 51 and Section 52?3. Does this mean an abettor can be punished for murder even if they only intended assault?4. Can an abettor escape punishment by saying they didn’t intend the final consequence?5. How does the court determine if the abettor “knew” about the possible effect?Conclusion

Illustration of Section 53 BNS

Example from the Law

A instigates B to cause grievous hurt to Z.

  • B, following A’s instructions, causes grievous hurt to Z.
  • Z dies as a consequence.
  • If A knew that grievous hurt could lead to death, then A is liable not just for abetment of grievous hurt but also for murder.

More Examples

1. Arson Leading to Death

  • A hires B to set fire to a shop to threaten the owner.
  • The fire spreads and kills a sleeping worker inside.
  • If A knew that the fire could result in death, A is liable for abetment of murder.

2. Road Rage Incident

  • A tells B to push Z forcefully to teach him a lesson.
  • B pushes Z, and Z falls, hitting his head on a sharp object and dying.
  • If A knew the push could lead to serious injury or death, A is liable for abetment of culpable homicide or murder.

3. Poisoning with Unintended Consequences

  • A gives B a mild poison to make Z sick.
  • Z, due to an unknown allergy, dies.
  • If A knew the poison could potentially kill, A is liable for abetment of murder.

Common Questions and Answers on Section 53 BNS

1. What is the core principle behind Section 53?

The law holds abettors responsible for the actual effect of the crime, even if it differs from their original intention, as long as they knew it was likely to happen.

2. How is this different from Section 51 and Section 52?

  • Section 51 BNS: Makes an abettor liable when a different act is done instead of the abetted act.
  • Section 52 BNS: Imposes cumulative punishment if both acts (abetted and actual) are punishable separately.
  • Section 53 BNS: Holds an abettor liable for a different effect if they knew the act was likely to cause it.

3. Does this mean an abettor can be punished for murder even if they only intended assault?

Yes, if the abettor was aware that the assault was likely to cause death, they can be punished for murder.

4. Can an abettor escape punishment by saying they didn’t intend the final consequence?

No. The law applies if the abettor knew the unintended effect was a possible outcome.

5. How does the court determine if the abettor “knew” about the possible effect?

The court considers:

  • The nature of the act abetted.
  • The probability of the effect occurring.
  • The knowledge and awareness of the abettor at the time of abetment.

Conclusion

Section 53 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, ensures that abettors cannot escape liability just because the effect of the crime was different from what they originally intended. If they knew the unintended effect was likely, they will be punished as if they had intended it.

For more legal insights, visit ApniLaw today! 🚀

You Might Also Like

Section 178 – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) – Counterfeiting Coin, Government Stamps, Currency-Notes Or Bank-Notes.

Section 353 – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) – Statements Conducing To Public Mischief.

Section 96 – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) – Procuration Of Child.

Section 203 – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) – Public Servant Unlawfully Buying Or Bidding For Property.

Section 119 – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) – Voluntarily Causing Hurt Or Grievous Hurt To Extort Property, Or To Constrain To An Illegal Act.

Share This Article
Facebook Email Print
Previous Article Madras High Court Questions Central Government’s Repeal Of Criminal Laws, Citing Potential Confusion And Delays Cannot Misuse Press Freedom To Defame A Person Without Verifying Facts: Madras HC
Next Article High Court of Bombay Offence Under Section 498-A IPC Begins From The Last Act Of Cruelty: Bombay High Court
Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Follow US

Find US on Social Medias
FacebookLike
XFollow
InstagramFollow
YoutubeSubscribe

Weekly Newsletter

Subscribe to our newsletter to get our newest articles instantly!
Popular News
Cheque Bounce - Negotiable Instruments Act 1881
ActsNews

An Overview On The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881?

Amna Kabeer
By Amna Kabeer
1 week ago
Sending Obscene WhatsApp Messages Insults Woman’s Modesty, Violates Section 509 of IPC: Mumbai HC
Wife Entitled to Maintenance Despite Past Employment Due To Caregiving Responsibility: Delhi HC
Clarification on Proof of Wills: Section 68 is the Rule, Section 69 is the Exception, Says Kerala High Court
Supreme Court Issues Notice On PIL For Online Access To Digitised Judicial Records
- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -
Ad imageAd image

Your one-stop destination for legal news, articles, queries, and a directory of lawyers in India – all under one roof at ApniLaw.

Stay Updated

  • BNSS
  • News
  • Documentation
  • Acts
  • Supreme Court
  • High Court

Information

  • ApniLaw Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Service

Advertise

  • Advertise with us
  • Newsletters
  • Deal

Find Us on Socials

ApniLawApniLaw
Follow US
© ApniLaw 2025. All Rights Reserved.
bg-n
Join Us!
Subscribe to our newsletter and never miss our latest news, podcasts etc..
Zero spam, Unsubscribe at any time.

More Interesting News

Key Clauses of a Valid Contract

Difference Between Contract and Agreement Under the Indian Contract Act

Key Clauses of a Valid Contract

Performance Of Contracts: What If One Party Fails

login
Welcome Back!

Sign in to your account

Username or Email Address
Password

Lost your password?