Section 49 states that if a person abets an offence, and the offence is actually committed as a result of that abetment, then the abettor will be punished with the same penalty as the principal offender - even if no separate provision exists in the law for punishing the abetment. This ensures that abetment is not left unpunished due to technical gaps in the Sanhita.
Key Provisions:
- If a person abets an offence, and the offence is committed as a consequence of that abetment:
- The abettor shall be punished with the same punishment as the main offence.
- This applies when the Sanhita does not have an express provision for that particular type of abetment.
- Explanation:
An offence is considered committed in consequence of abetment when it results from:- Instigation
- Conspiracy
- Aid which constitutes the abetment.
Illustration (a):
A instigates B to give false evidence.
B commits the offence.
A is guilty of abetment and will receive the same punishment as B.
Illustration (b):
A and B conspire to poison Z.
A gives poison to B, and B administers it and Z dies.
B is guilty of murder.
A is guilty of abetting murder by conspiracy, and is also liable to punishment for murder.
How It Protects:
- Ensures that those who cause or encourage crimes face the same legal consequences as the person who commits the act.
- Prevents legal loopholes where abetment goes unpunished due to technical absence of specific provisions.
- Strengthens the legal framework by ensuring accountability for indirect involvement.
Example:
- A tells B to set fire to a building. B does it. Even if no specific law punishes this particular act of abetment, A will receive the same punishment as B for arson.
- C helps D plan a robbery. D commits the robbery. If the law doesn’t separately mention the abetment of robbery, C is still punishable for robbery.