Section 111

The provision comes from the original framers of the Indian Penal Code (1860), who wanted abetment law to cover real-world situations where instructions given to another person do not go exactly as planned. Rather than letting an abettor escape liability simply because the outcome differed slightly from the plan, the law extends responsibility to the actual act committed, so long as it flows from the abetment.

Indian courts have generally read Section 111 alongside the related provisos (not included in this text) which limit liability to acts that are a 'probable consequence' of the abetment. Courts have held that the abettor cannot be blamed for an act that is entirely unconnected to what was actually planned, but if the different act done is closely linked or a foreseeable outgrowth of the abetted act, liability attaches. This has been applied in cases involving group crimes where the specific victim or method differed from what was originally planned.

• Myth: The abettor is only responsible for exactly what they asked for, word for word.
  Fact: Courts read this section (along with related provisos) to mean the abettor is liable for the different act actually done, as long as it is closely connected to or a probable outcome of what was abetted.
• Myth: This section means an abettor is liable for absolutely anything the other person does, no matter how unrelated.
  Fact: (simplified) Related provisions and case law limit this to acts that are a probable consequence of the abetment, not any random act completely disconnected from the plan.