IPC 107-109 vs BNS 45-49: Abetment Changes Explained (2026)

In India, Sections 45 to 49 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) replaced Sections 107, 108, 108A and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) on 1 July 2024. Instigation, conspiracy and intentional aid remain the three modes of abetment, and Section 49 keeps the punishment of the offence abetted. Section 48, covering abetment from outside India of an offence in India, is new.

At a glance

IPC	BNS	Provision	Punishment	Classification (BNSS First Schedule)	Change
107	45	Abetment of a thing — instigation, conspiracy, intentional aid	— (definition)	—	Minor edit
108	46	Abettor — who abets an offence; Explanations 1-5	— (definition)	—	Minor edit
108A	47	Abetment in India of an act outside India that would be an offence in India	— (definition)	—	Minor edit
—	48	Abetment outside India of an act in India that would be an offence in India	— (definition)	—	New
109	49	Abetment where the act abetted is committed in consequence and no express provision punishes it	Same as for the offence abetted	Cognizable or not, and bailable or not, according as the offence abetted is; triable by the court that tries the offence abetted	Minor edit

The CrPC First Schedule row for Section 109 IPC was in the same terms as the BNSS row for Section 49.

What changed

Minor edit — Section 45 (IPC 107): the three modes are unchanged in substance. "First.—Instigates", "Secondly.—Engages" and "Thirdly.—Intentionally aids" become clauses (a), (b) and (c) in lower case. In the Illustration to Explanation 1, "a warrant from a Court of Justice" becomes "a warrant from a Court". Explanations 1 and 2 are word for word the same.
Minor edit — Section 46 (IPC 108): the definition and Explanations 1, 2, 4 and 5 repeat Section 108. Explanation 3 adds a comma ("that of the abettor, or any guilty intention"). Illustration (a) to Explanation 3 reads "a child or a person of unsound mind" for "a child or a lunatic", and Illustration (c) reads "in consequence of his unsoundness of mind" for "in consequence of the unsoundness of his mind".
Minor edit — Section 47 (IPC 108A): "within the meaning of this Code" becomes "this Sanhita"; the Illustration reads "a foreigner in country X, to commit a murder in that country" for "a foreigner in Goa, to commit a murder in Goa".
New — Section 48: "A person abets an offence within the meaning of this Sanhita who, without and beyond India, abets the commission of any act in India which would constitute an offence if committed in India." Illustration: "A, in country X, instigates B, to commit a murder in India, A is guilty of abetting murder." A whitespace-normalised search of the IPC text finds the words "without and beyond India" only in Section 4 and Section 108A, which runs the other way.
Minor edit — Section 49 (IPC 109): "no express provision is made by this Code" becomes "by this Sanhita". The Explanation is the same. IPC Illustration (a) — a bribe offered to and accepted by a public servant, described as abetting "the offence defined in section 161" — is not carried over; IPC Illustrations (b) (false evidence) and (c) (conspiracy to poison) become BNS Illustrations (a) and (b).
Identical — classification; minor edit — compounding: the BNSS row for Section 49 matches the CrPC row for Section 109. Section 359(3) BNSS, like Section 320(3) CrPC, lets the abetment of a compoundable offence be compounded "in like manner"; its cross-references to Sections 34 and 149 IPC become Section 3(5) and Section 190 BNS.

Statutory text (relevant extract)

Extract, Section 107 IPC (repealed from 1 July 2024):

A person abets the doing of a thing, who— First.—Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly.— … ; or Thirdly.—Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Extract, Sections 45 and 49 BNS:

A person abets the doing of a thing, who— (a) instigates any person to do that thing; or (b) engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or (c) intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Sanhita for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence.

How it works — the ingredients

Step 1 — a mode of abetment (Section 45).

Instigation — Explanation 1 extends it to a person who, "by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose", causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done. Illustration: B tells an officer holding a warrant for Z that C is Z, so that the officer arrests C; B abets the arrest of C by instigation.
Conspiracy — engaging with others in a conspiracy for doing the thing, but only "if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy". Explanation 5 to Section 46 adds that the abettor need not concert the offence with the person who commits it; engaging in the conspiracy is enough.
Intentional aid — Explanation 2: whoever, before or at the time of an act, "does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof".

Step 2 — the thing abetted is an offence, or would be (Section 46). A person abets an offence if he abets its commission, or the commission of an act that would be an offence if done by a person capable by law of committing it with the abettor's intention or knowledge. Explanation 2: the act abetted need not be committed (Illustration (a): A instigates B to murder C; B refuses; A is guilty of abetting murder). Explanation 3: the person abetted need not be capable of committing an offence or share the abettor's intent (Illustration (b): a child under seven used to cause death). Explanation 4: abetting an abetment is an offence.

Step 3 — where (Sections 47 and 48). Abetment in India of an act outside India (Section 47), and abetment from outside India of an act in India (Section 48), are each abetment of an offence "within the meaning of this Sanhita".

Step 4 — the punishment. Section 49 applies where the act abetted "is committed in consequence of the abetment" — that is, in consequence of the instigation, in pursuance of the conspiracy, or with the aid (Explanation) — and no express provision punishes that abetment. The abettor then faces "the punishment provided for the offence". Where the offence is not committed, Section 55 BNS (offence punishable with death or life: up to seven years and fine, or up to fourteen years and fine if hurt is caused) or Section 56 BNS (offence punishable with imprisonment: up to one-fourth of the longest term, or one-half where the abettor or person abetted is a public servant whose duty is to prevent it) applies.

Neighbouring provisions (not covered in full here). IPC 110 to 120 are now BNS 50 to 60, covering different intention, act or effect (50 to 53), the abettor present (54), offences not committed (55, 56), abetting the public or more than ten persons (57, maximum raised from three to seven years with fine) and concealing a design (58 to 60). Specific abetment offences have their own sections, including abetment of suicide (Section 108 BNS) and of the suicide of a child or person of unsound mind (Section 107 BNS).

What this means in practice

For the prosecutor and investigating officer

Frame the charge by mode (instigation, conspiracy or aid), with Section 49 read with the offence abetted. Jamuna Singh holds that a charge of abetment by intentional aid would be expected to fail if the principal is acquitted, while instigation and conspiracy do not depend on the principal's conviction.
Where the principal did not commit the offence in consequence of the abetment, the charge should be under Section 55 or 56, not Section 49 (Jamuna Singh: the conviction was altered from Section 436 read with Section 109 IPC to Section 436 read with Section 115 IPC).
For conduct directed from abroad at an act in India, Section 48 now names that case expressly.

For the accused and defence advocate

Instigation requires more than words in anger. In Ramesh Kumar, the Supreme Court held that "A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation."
Test the link: under the Explanation to Section 49, the offence must be committed "in consequence of" the instigation, conspiracy or aid. An act by someone else, not in consequence of the abetment, does not attract Section 49.
Bail, cognizability and the trial court all follow the offence abetted (BNSS First Schedule, row 49).

Judgments that still matter

Faguna Kanta Nath v. State of Assam, [1959] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 1 — 13 January 1959. J.L. Kapur and K.N. Wanchoo JJ. (judgment by Kapur J.) set aside a conviction for abetting a public servant's acceptance of a bribe (Section 165A read with Section 161 IPC), where the public servant himself had been acquitted. It held that the prosecution had set up neither instigation nor conspiracy; the appellant had only received and counted the money at the officer's instance. Once the officer was acquitted and the offence under Section 161 held not committed, "no question of intentionally aiding by any act or omission the commission of the offence arises." The report does not show paragraph numbers.

Jamuna Singh v. State of Bihar — Supreme Court, 22 September 1966. A three-Judge Bench (V. Ramaswami, V. Bhargava and Raghubar Dayal JJ.; judgment by Raghubar Dayal J.) held that "It cannot be held in law that a person cannot ever be convicted of abetting a certain offence when the person alleged to have committed that offence in consequence of the abetment has been acquitted." A person who instigates or conspires abets the offence even if it is not committed; it is "only in the case of a person abetting an offence by intentionally aiding" that the charge would be expected to fail on the principal's acquittal. Because the co-accused had been acquitted of setting fire to the hut, the fire was not shown to be set in consequence of the appellant's instigation, so the conviction under Section 436 read with Section 109 IPC was altered to Section 436 read with Section 115 IPC and the sentence reduced to four years' rigorous imprisonment. The report does not show paragraph numbers. Sections 107, 108 and 109 IPC are now Sections 45, 46 and 49 BNS, and Section 115 is now Section 55.

Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, [2001] Supp. 4 S.C.R. 247 (2001 INSC 515) — 17 October 2001. A three-Judge Bench (A.S. Anand CJ, R.C. Lahoti and K.G. Balakrishnan JJ.; judgment by Lahoti J.) considered a husband's conviction under Section 306 IPC. Deciding the case under the first clause of Section 107 (instigation), the Court held that instigation "is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do 'an act'"; actual words need not be used, but "a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out." The conviction under Section 306 was set aside; the conviction under Section 498A was maintained. The report does not show paragraph numbers.

Kishori Lal v. State of M.P., [2007] 7 S.C.R. 1051 (2007 INSC 702) — 19 June 2007. Arijit Pasayat and D.K. Jain JJ. (judgment by Pasayat J.) set out the three modes in Section 107 and held that "instigate" "literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do any thing" (para 6). On Section 109, it held that "'Abetted' in Section 109 means the specific offence abetted", so the offence charged as abetted is normally linked with the proved offence (para 6). Finding no proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to suicide (para 7), it allowed the appeal against the conviction under Section 306 IPC (para 8).

Using older case law under Sections 45 to 49. The operative words of Sections 45, 46 and 49 repeat Sections 107, 108 and 109 IPC, so, on a reading of the text, judgments construing "instigates", "intentionally aids" and "in consequence of the abetment" remain relevant.

Which law applies to your case

Section 358(2) BNS provides that the repeal of the IPC does not affect any penalty or punishment incurred under it, and that proceedings may be instituted, continued or enforced "as if that Code had not been repealed"; on a reading of that provision, abetment committed before 1 July 2024 is charged under Sections 107 to 109 IPC with the offence abetted. Article 20(1) of the Constitution provides that no person shall be convicted "except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the Act charged as an offence"; on a reading of that Article, Section 48 BNS cannot reach abetment from outside India completed before 1 July 2024 unless it was already an offence under the law then in force. See which law applies to an offence before 1 July 2024.

Frequently asked questions

What is the BNS equivalent of Sections 107 to 109 IPC? Section 45 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 replaces Section 107 IPC (abetment of a thing), Section 46 replaces Section 108 (abettor), Section 47 replaces Section 108A (abetment in India of offences outside India) and Section 49 replaces Section 109 (punishment where the act abetted is committed). Section 48 BNS, abetment outside India for an offence in India, is new.

What are the three ways of abetting under Section 45 BNS? Section 45 BNS says a person abets the doing of a thing who (a) instigates any person to do it, (b) engages with one or more persons in a conspiracy for doing it, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of the conspiracy, or (c) intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of it. These are the same three modes that Section 107 IPC listed as First, Secondly and Thirdly.

What is the punishment for abetment under Section 49 BNS? Where the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment and the BNS makes no express provision for punishing that abetment, Section 49 BNS applies the punishment provided for the offence abetted. Section 109 IPC was in the same terms. Where the offence is not committed, Sections 55 and 56 BNS set lower maximums.

Can a person be guilty of abetment if the offence was never committed? Yes. Explanation 2 to Section 46 BNS says it is not necessary that the act abetted should be committed. In Jamuna Singh v. State of Bihar (Supreme Court, 22 September 1966), the Supreme Court held that a person who instigates or conspires abets the offence even if it is not committed, and that only a charge of abetment by intentional aid would be expected to fail when the principal is acquitted.

What is new in Section 48 BNS? Section 48 BNS provides that a person who, without and beyond India, abets the commission of any act in India which would constitute an offence if committed in India abets an offence within the meaning of the Sanhita. Its Illustration is a person in country X instigating B to commit a murder in India. Section 108A IPC, now Section 47 BNS, covered only the reverse case of abetment in India of an act outside India.

Which law applies to abetment before 1 July 2024? Section 358(2) BNS saves any penalty or punishment incurred under the IPC and lets proceedings continue as if the IPC had not been repealed, so on a reading of that provision abetment before 1 July 2024 is charged under Sections 107 to 109 IPC with the offence abetted. Section 48 BNS is new, and on a reading of Article 20(1) of the Constitution it cannot make earlier conduct an offence that was not one when committed.

Sources

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette text): Sections 45 to 60, 107, 108 and 358.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (India Code text): Sections 4, 107, 108, 108A and 109 with footnotes.
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette text): Section 359(3) and the First Schedule entries for Sections 49 to 60 BNS.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 320(3) and the First Schedule entries for Sections 109 to 120 IPC.
Constitution of India: Article 20(1).
Judgments read in full text: Faguna Kanta Nath v. State of Assam (S_1959_2_1_7_EN.md); Jamuna Singh v. State of Bihar (1967_1_469_474_EN.md); Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (S_2001_4_247_262_EN.md); Kishori Lal v. State of M.P. (2007_7_1051_1054_EN.md).

This page explains the statutory text and the judgments cited as they stand. It is not legal advice; for a specific case, consult an advocate.

Sections 107-109 IPC vs Sections 45-49 BNS — Abetment