Section 47: Liability of Abettor When Effect Caused is Different from Intended

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita • Chapter IV: Of Abetment, Criminal Conspiracy & Attempt • Official Statutory Text & Legal Guide

Chapter IV: Of Abetment, Criminal Conspiracy & Attempt
Court by which offence triable
According as offence is bailable
According as offence is cognizable
Formerly Sec 113 IPC

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 47

Section 47 regulates the liability of an abettor when an effect is caused by the act abetted different from that intended by the abettor, holding the abettor liable if they knew the effect caused was likely to occur.

  • Divergence in Criminal Effect: Applies where the physical act abetted results in an unexpected, unintended physical consequence (e.g. instigating assault which causes death).
  • Knowledge of Likelihood Test: The abettor is liable for the resulting effect IF they knew that the act abetted was likely to cause that specific effect.
  • Same Liability as Principal: Treated as if they had abetted the act with the intention of causing that effect, provided the consequence was reasonably foreseeable.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • State of U.P. v. Madan Mohan (1989) Supp (2) SCC 584: The Supreme Court held that under Section 113 IPC (Section 47 BNS), an abettor is liable for the ultimate consequence only if it was a probable and natural consequence of the instigation within their knowledge.
  • Girja Prasad v. State of M.P. (2007) 7 SCC 625: Affirmed that liability for different effects requires demonstrating that the abettor contemplated the escalated violence.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

In trials where an instigation to 'slap' or 'beat' resulted in the victim's death, defense counsel must establish that your client had no knowledge that the principal was carrying a concealed firearm or knife, excluding Section 47 BNS liability.