Section 111. Liability of abettor when one act abetted and different act done
- A instigates a child to put poison into the food of Z, and gives him poison for that purpose. The child, in consequence of the instigation, by mistake puts the poison into the food of Y, which is by the side of that of Z. Here if the child was acting under the influence of A's instigation, and the act done was under the circumstances a probable consequence of the abetment, A is liable in the same manner and to the same extent as if he had instigated the child to put the poison into the food of Y.
- A instigates B to burn Z's house. B sets fire to the house and at the same time commits theft of property there. A, though guilty of abetting the burning of the house, is not guilty of abetting the theft ; for the theft was a distinct act, and not a probable consequence of the burning.
- A instigates B and C to break into an inhabited house at midnight for the purpose of robbery, and provides them with arms for that purpose. B and C break into the house, and being resisted by Z, one of the inmates, murder Z. Here, if that murder was the probable consequence of the abetment, A is liable to the punishment provided for murder.
Annotations (1)
amendment
[3]
the Central Laws (Statute Reform) Ordinance, 1960 (21 of 1960),s. 3 and 2nd Sch. (w.e.f. 14th October, 1955), for “the Provinces and the Capital of the Federation” which had been subs. by A.O., 1949, Arts. 3(2) and 4, for “British India”. Subs. by the criminal law (Amdt.), Act, 1997 (II of 1997), s. 6 for “fullstop”. Proviso added ibid