Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 112
repealedAbettor when liable to cumulative punishment for act abetted and for act done
If the act for which the abettor is liable under the last preceding section is committed in addition to the act abetted, and constitute a distinct offence, the abettor is liable to punishment for each of the offences.
Why this exists
The Indian Penal Code's drafters, led by Macaulay, built a chain of provisions (Sections 108-120) covering abetment in detail. Section 111 makes an abettor liable for a different act than the one planned, if it was a 'probable consequence' of the abetment. Section 112 clarifies what happens when that different act doesn't replace the planned act but occurs alongside it — both offences actually take place. The provision ensures the abettor doesn't get a 'discount' just because two crimes flowed from one abetment; each distinct offence attracts its own punishment.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: The abettor is only punished for the crime they actually planned, since the extra crime wasn't their idea.
Fact: Section 112, read with Section 111, says that if the extra act was a foreseeable consequence of the abetment and it happened alongside the planned act, the abettor is liable for both offences separately. - Myth: Punishing for both offences means double punishment for the same act.
Fact: The section only applies when the two acts are distinct offences that both actually occurred — it's not double punishment for one act, but separate punishment for two different acts.