Indian Penal Code, 1860 · Chapter V: Of Abetment
Section 109: Punishment of a abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence and whe re no express provision is made for its punishment
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to matters and proceedings from before that date, as the repealing law provides.
In plain words
If the abetted act is committed as a result of the abetment, and the Code has no express provision for punishing that abetment, the abettor gets the punishment provided for the offence itself.
- An act is committed as a result of abetment if it follows from the instigation, conspiracy or aid that makes up the abetment.
A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.
Official text
Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence.
Explanation.—An act or offence is said to be committed in consequence of abetment, when it is committed in consequence of the instigation, or in pursuance of the conspiracy, or with the aid which constitutes the abetment.
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 109
-
P. Shanthi Pugazhenthi v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police Spe/Cbi/Acb/Chennai
Whether the appellant was rightly convicted for abetment of offence u/s.13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
-
P. Nallammal v. State By The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and
Matter pertains to appeal challenging the conviction and sentence of the appellant u/s.109 IPC r/w ss.13(1)(e) and 13(2) of PC Act; appeal challenging the attachment Order as modified by the High Court; and the appeal…
-
Tr. A. Babu v. State of Tamil Nadu
Matter pertains to the quantum of sentence imposed on the appellant and his release on bail on deposit of enhanced amount of fine.
-
C. Kamalakkannan v. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Inspector of Police C.B.C.I.D., Chennai
Whether a handwriting expert’s testimony has to be corroborated; whether in the absence of primary evidence, i.e. the original postal cover, a copy of the document is admissible.
-
Laxmi Das v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Whether the appellant, can be charged with abetment of suicide of the deceased, under Section 306 of the Penal Code (IPC).
- Mohd. Tahir Hussain v. State of NCT Delhi & Anr
- Irshad Ali v. State NCT of Delhi
- Pranav Kuckreja (In Police Custody) v. State (Nct of Delhi)
- Lokesh @Machchhar v. State of NCT of Delhi
- Mohd. Jalaluddin v. State (Nct of Delhi)
- Mohd. Wasim @ Bablu v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr
- Vaibhav Jain v. Directorate of Enforcement
- Saheb Khan & Anr v. State( Govt Ofnct of Delhi) & Ors
- Ravi v. State of NCT of Delhi
- Aman v. The State of Delhi and Anr
- Aayush Singhal & Ors v. The State NCT of Delhi and Anr
- Ankush Jain v. Directorate of Enforcement
- Vaibhav Jain v. Directorata of Enforcementre
- Dr. Tarun Kothari v. The State of NCT of Delhi, Through Chief Secretary & Anr
- Danish & Ors v. The State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr
- Sunil Kumar Gandhi v. State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr
- Shri Pradeep Koneru v. Directorate of Enforcement & Anr
- S.K.Aggarwal v. State National Capital Territory of Delhi
- Sattar v. State Govt. of NCT Delhi
- Than Singh Dahiya & Anr v. The State (Govt of NCT Delhi)
- Salim Malik @ Munna v. State (Nct of Delhi)
- Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement
- Mukesh v. The State & Anr
- Sonu@Sam v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
- Rahul @ Ganni v. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
-
Puneet Sabharwal v. CBI
The charges were framed against the appellants. While the charge against the appellant-P was u/s. 109 IPC r/w. s.13(1) (e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the charge against appellant-R was u/s.…
-
Periyasamy v. The State Represented by the Inspector of Police
Whether the High Court justified in affirming the judgment of trial court convicting and sentencing the accused appellant, (A-1), for the offence punishable under sections 302 & 307 of Penal Code, 1860 and accused…
- Amanatullah Khan v. Directorate of Enforcement
- Utkirbek Khalilov Alias Ali v. The State NCT of Delhi
- Sudhir Jain & Anr v. The State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr
- Abhay @ Kaku v. State
- Vikas Malu v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr
- Vineet Malu v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr
- Sajim Khan v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr
- Dr Harshita Malu & Anr v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr
- Jeena v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
- Devi @ Jarina v. State and Ors
- Mohit Pilania v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr
-
Nara Chandrababu Naidu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.
Interpretation of s.17A, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 incorporated by the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 26 of 2018 and its applicability to the facts of the present case.
- Pooja Sharma Bajaj v. Ashok Bajaj & Ors
- Pooja Sharma Bajaj v. Kunal Bajaj & Ors
- Pushpendra Kumar and Ors v. The State and Another
-
Sivamani v. State Represented by Inspector of Police,
Victims sustained simple injuries. Whether Courts below were justified in convicting appellants u/s. 307 IPC.
- Parvez Ahmed Sheikh v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
- State NCT of Delhi v. Devender & Ors
- Ashu Chaudhary v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
- Jitender @ Sonu v. State (N.C.T. of Delhi) & Anr
- Gaurav Singal v. Central Bureau of Investigation
- A. Srinivasulu v. The State Rep. by the Inspector of
- Y. Balaji v. Karthik Desari & Anr. Etc.
- State Through Central Bureau of Investigation v. Hemendhra Reddy & Another. Etc.
- Vaibhav Jain v. Directorate of Enforcement
- Ankush Jain v. Directorate of Enforcement
- Satyendar Kumar Jain v. Directorate of Enforcement
- Swararaj @ Raj Shrikant Thackeray v. State & Ors
- Sudhir Kumar v. CBI
- Gireesan Nair & Ors. Etc. v. State of Kerala
- P. Ponnusamy v. The State of Tamil Nadu
- Vijay Rajmohan v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police, Cbi, Acb, Chennai, Tamil Nadu
- State Through Deputy Superintendent of Police v. R. Soundirarasu Etc.
- Zakir Abdul Mirajkar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
- Pushpendra Kumar Sinha v. State of Jharkhand
- Jarnail Singh & Anr v. State of Punjab
- S.P. Velumani v. Arappor Iyakkam and Ors.
- Sabitri Samantaray v. State of Odisha
- Imran v. Mr. Mohammed Bhava & Anr
- Mohd. Firoz v. State of Madhya Pradesh
- Devadassan v. The Second Class Executive Magistrate, Ramanathapuram & Ors.
- The State by S.P. Through the Spe CBI v. Uttamchand Bohra
- Kavitha Lankesh v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
- Bureau of Investigation (Cbi) and Anr. v. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi @ T. H. Vijayalakshmi and Anr.
- Saranya v. Bharathi and Another
- Nimay Sah v. State of Jharkhand
- State of Gujarat v. Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah
- K. Virupaksha & Anr. v. The State of Karnataka & Anr.
- Samta Naidu & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
- Raja v. State by the Inspector of Police
- Javed Abdul Rajjaq Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra
- Samsul Haque v. The State of Assam
- Guruviah v. The State Represented by the Inspector of Police
- Sukumaran v. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police
- Joseph v. State, Rep. by Inspector of Police .
- State Represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police v. K. N. Nehru Etc.
- Seeni Nainar Mohammed v. State Rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police
- State of Karnataka v. Selvi J. Jayalalitha & Ors.
- Somasundaram @ Somu v. State Rep. by Dy. Comm. of Police
- Punjab State Warehousing Corp. v. Bhushan Chander & Anr.
- Mohd. Feroz Khan@ Feroz v. State of Andhra Pradesh
- State of Kerala and Others v. S. Unnikrishnan Nair and Others
- K. Anbazhagan v. State of Karnatakaand Others
- Vinod Kumar v. State of Haryana
- Selvaraj @ Chinnapaiyan v. State Represented by Inspector of Police
- P.S. Meherhomji v. K.T. Vijay Kumar & Ors.
- Om Prakash v. State of Haryana
- Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India and Others