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
4 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 296 – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) – Obscene Acts And Songs.

Section 65 – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) – Punishment For Rape In Certain Cases.

Section 276 – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) – Adulteration Of Drugs.

Section 134 – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) – Assault Or Criminal Force In Attempt To Commit Theft Of Property Carried By A Person.

Section 143 – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) – Trafficking Of Person.

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
High Court of Karnataka
Karnataka High CourtNews

Proton Mail Not Blocked in India, Union Govt Informs Karnataka HC

Amna Kabeer
By Amna Kabeer
3 months ago
Supreme Court Emphasises Settlement Over Punishment In Cheque Bounce Cases
Court Has Power To Confiscate Vehicle Even If Owner Is Not Prosecuted: Punjab & Haryana HC
Delhi Court Grants Bail To Activist Medha Patkar In Defamation Case Filed By Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena
No Need to Prove Negligence for Compensation Under Section 163-A: Punjab & Haryana High Court
- 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

All About The Consumer Protection Act, 2019

What Are Consumer Rights Under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019? (Section 2(9))

NDPS - Health Issues - Activities Banned

Prohibition of E-Cigarettes Act: Key Definitions You Should Know (Section 2)

login
Welcome Back!

Sign in to your account

Username or Email Address
Password

Lost your password?