IPC Section 111: Liability of Abettor When Different Act Done Than Abetted
1. State the code
Section 111 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) states:
“When a person abets the doing of an illegal act, and the act done by such person is of the same kind, but more serious in its consequences than the act abetted, such person shall be liable for the act done, although the doing of that act was not intended by him.”
2. Explain it
Section 111 deals with the situation where an individual instigates, aids, or encourages another person to commit a specific offense, but the person actually commits a different offense that is more serious than the abetted offense. Even though the instigator did not intend for the more serious offense to be committed, they will still be held liable for it.
In essence, this section ensures that an abettor cannot escape responsibility for the more serious consequences of their instigation, even if the actual act committed deviates from their initial intention.
3. Illustrate it
Example:
A person (A) instigates another person (B) to commit theft of a mobile phone (a less serious offense). However, B, in the course of the act, ends up killing the owner of the phone (a more serious offense). A, despite not intending the murder, can be held liable under Section 111 for the murder committed by B.
4. Common Questions and Answers
Q: What if the act done is less serious than the abetted act?
A: In this case, Section 111 will not apply. The abettor will only be held liable for the less serious act that was actually done.
Q: Can the abettor be held liable even if they were not present at the scene of the crime?
A: Yes, the abettor’s physical presence at the crime scene is not a requirement. As long as the instigation or encouragement is proven, they can be held liable.
Q: What are the defenses available against Section 111?
A: Some possible defenses include proving that the abettor did not intend for the more serious offense to be committed or that the actual act was not of the same kind as the abetted act.
