Section 50 addresses situations where a person abets a crime, but the person committing the act does so with a different intention or knowledge than the abettor. The abettor is still held responsible - based on their own intention, not the actual result. This provision ensures that the abettor’s liability is based on their mindset, regardless of how the act is carried out by the other party.
Key Provisions:
- When a person abets an offence, but:
- The person abetted acts with a different intention or understanding than that of the abettor,
- Then the abettor will be:
- Punished as if the act had been done with their own intention or knowledge,
- And not according to the intention of the person who actually committed the act.
How It Protects:
- Prevents abettors from escaping liability just because the person they instigated had a different motive.
- Ensures that punishment is based on the mental state of the abettor, not just the outcome.
- Strengthens legal consistency by ensuring accountability based on criminal intent, even if the consequences differ.
Example:
- A abets B to commit theft (dishonestly taking property).
B, instead, takes the property believing it’s his own - a misunderstanding.
B may not be guilty, but A is punished as if theft occurred with A’s intention. - A tells C to assault someone to scare them.
C goes too far and commits grievous hurt.
A is punished for abetment of assault, based on his original intent, not C’s excessive act.