Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Section 56
Abetment of offence punishable with imprisonment
Whoever abets an offence punishable with imprisonment shall, if that offence be not committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made under this Sanhita for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for that offence for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term provided for that offence; or with such fine as is provided for that offence, or with both; and if the abettor or the person abetted is a public servant, whose duty it is to prevent the commission of such offence, the abettor shall be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for that offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the longest term provided for that offence, or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both. Illustrations.
(a) A instigates B to give false evidence. Here, if B does not give false evidence, A has nevertheless committed the offence defined in this section, and is punishable accordingly.
(b) A, a police officer, whose duty it is to prevent robbery, abets the commission of robbery. Here, though the robbery be not committed, A is liable to one-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence, and also to fine.
(c) B abets the commission of a robbery by A, a police officer, whose duty it is to prevent that offence. Here, though the robbery be not committed, B is liable to one-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for the offence of robbery, and also to fine.
Why this exists
Criminal law generally punishes completed harm, but abetment provisions exist because encouraging or conspiring toward a crime is itself dangerous — it shows intent and can easily tip into actual harm. This section (carried forward from Section 116 of the old Indian Penal Code) closes a gap: even when the planned offence is never carried out, the person who tried to make it happen shouldn't escape punishment entirely. The enhanced punishment for public servants reflects a policy that those entrusted with preventing crime — like police officers — betray a special trust when they abet the very offences they are duty-bound to stop, and so deserve harsher consequences.
How courts read it
Under the identical predecessor provision (Section 116 IPC), courts have consistently held that abetment is punishable as an independent, inchoate offence — the prosecution need not prove the substantive crime occurred, only that abetment (instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid) took place and that the offence was not committed as a result. Courts have also emphasized that the enhanced punishment for public servants applies only when the duty to prevent that specific offence is clearly attached to their role, not merely because they hold public office generally.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: If the crime never actually happens, no one can be punished.
Fact: The law specifically punishes abetment even when the planned offence is never carried out, as long as abetment (instigation, help, or conspiracy) is proven. - Myth: Public servants get special leniency because of their position.
Fact: The opposite is true here — if the public servant's duty was to prevent that offence, the law imposes a harsher punishment, not a lighter one, for abetting it. - Myth: This section applies to all abetment cases.
Fact: It only applies when the offence is not committed and no other specific provision in the Sanhita already punishes that particular abetment.