Last Updated: May 2026
BNS 2023 — Abetment and Criminal Conspiracy (Sections 49-72)
For Judiciary Exam 2027 BNS abetment and criminal conspiracy, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 retains the doctrinal core of IPC sections 107-120B but renumbers them and modernises drafting. Mastering sections 49-72 is essential for both Mains theory and Viva-Voce; abetment + conspiracy together feature in roughly 8% of judicial-services criminal-law questions.
Section-by-Section Map
| BNS Section | Topic | IPC Counterpart |
|---|---|---|
| 49 | Abetment of a thing — definition | IPC § 107 |
| 50 | Abetment in India of offences outside | IPC § 108A |
| 51 | Abettor | IPC § 108 |
| 52 | Punishment of abetment if act abetted is committed | IPC § 109 |
| 53 | Punishment when person abetted does act with different intention | IPC § 110 |
| 54 | Liability for an act different from intended | IPC § 111 |
| 55 | Cumulative punishment | IPC § 112 |
| 56 | Different effects from intended act | IPC § 113 |
| 57 | Abettor present when offence committed | IPC § 114 |
| 58 | Abetment of offence punishable with death/life imprisonment | IPC § 115 |
| 59 | Abetment of offence punishable with imprisonment | IPC § 116 |
| 60 | Abetting commission of offence by public | IPC § 117 |
| 61 | Criminal conspiracy | IPC § 120A |
| 62 | Punishment of criminal conspiracy | IPC § 120B |
| 63 onwards | General exceptions — judicial acts, mistake, accident | IPC § 76 onwards (re-organised) |
Abetment — Three Modes (BNS § 49)
A person abets the doing of a thing who:
- Instigates any person to do that thing.
- Engages with one or more 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.
- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Mens Rea in Abetment
- Faguna Kanta Nath v. State of Assam (1959) — mere advice or letter is not abetment unless it is “active suggestion”.
- Praveen Pradhan v. State of Uttaranchal (2012) — repeated harassment leading to suicide may constitute abetment.
- Knowledge that the act abetted constitutes offence is required.
Criminal Conspiracy (BNS § 61)
“When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done — (a) an illegal act, or (b) an act which is not illegal but by illegal means — such agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy.”
Proviso: No agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
Ingredients of Criminal Conspiracy
- Two or more persons
- An agreement (express or implied)
- To do or cause to be done — (a) an illegal act, OR (b) a legal act by illegal means
- Mens rea — meeting of minds
Punishment for Criminal Conspiracy (BNS § 62)
- If conspiracy is to commit an offence punishable with death, life imprisonment, or rigorous imprisonment ≥ 2 years — punishment as if abetted that offence.
- Other conspiracies — imprisonment up to 6 months, or fine, or both.
Landmark Cases on Conspiracy
- Kehar Singh v. State (Indira Gandhi Assassination, 1988) — circumstantial evidence sufficient to prove conspiracy.
- State v. Nalini (Rajiv Gandhi Assassination, 1999) — direct evidence rare; circumstantial chain of events admissible.
- Yakub Memon v. State of Maharashtra (2013) — Mumbai 1993 blasts; conspiracy upheld on circumstantial basis.
- Mohd. Khalid v. State of W.B. (2002) — silent presence at planning meeting not enough; active concurrence required.
Abetment vs Criminal Conspiracy — Key Distinctions
| Aspect | Abetment (§ 49) | Conspiracy (§ 61) |
|---|---|---|
| Persons | Single abettor possible (one instigator) | Two or more persons mandatory |
| Agreement | Not required (instigation/aid alone enough) | Agreement is the gist |
| Overt Act Required | Yes (in mode 2 — conspiracy abetment) | Required only for non-offence agreements |
| Inchoate Liability | Yes — punishable even if main offence not committed (§§ 58-59) | Yes — agreement itself is criminal |
25 Practice MCQs
- BNS § 49 deals with — (A) Murder (B) Abetment (C) Conspiracy (D) Theft
- Modes of abetment in § 49 are — (A) 2 (B) 3 (C) 4 (D) 5
- BNS § 61 corresponds to — (A) IPC § 120A (B) IPC § 109 (C) IPC § 107 (D) IPC § 302
- BNS § 62 prescribes punishment for — (A) Abetment (B) Criminal conspiracy (C) Murder (D) Theft
- Minimum number of persons in criminal conspiracy — (A) 1 (B) 2 (C) 3 (D) 4
- An agreement to commit an offence is — (A) per se conspiracy (B) only if act done (C) only if profit motive (D) never an offence
- An agreement to do legal act by illegal means is conspiracy under — (A) BNS § 61(b) (B) BNS § 49 (C) BNS § 109 (D) BNS § 124
- “Instigation” was discussed in — (A) Faguna Kanta Nath (B) Kesavananda Bharati (C) Maneka Gandhi (D) Anwar Ali Sarkar
- Mere mental concurrence in conspiracy is — (A) Sufficient (B) Insufficient — overt act needed (C) Always punishable (D) Innocent
- Kehar Singh v. State dealt with — (A) Indira Gandhi assassination (B) Rajiv Gandhi (C) Mumbai blasts (D) Bofors
- Abetment of an offence punishable with death — (A) BNS § 58 (B) BNS § 49 (C) BNS § 102 (D) BNS § 113
- If abetted offence is committed, abettor liable — (A) Same punishment as principal (B) Half punishment (C) No punishment (D) Acquittal
- Conspiracy to commit offence punishable with ≥2 years RI — (A) Same as if abetted (B) Less punishment (C) No punishment (D) Mandatory life
- Conspiracy to do non-criminal act by illegal means — (A) Punishable up to 6 months (B) Up to 2 years (C) No punishment (D) 7 years
- Mumbai 1993 blasts case dealt with — (A) Yakub Memon (B) Kehar Singh (C) Nalini (D) Khalid
- “Meeting of minds” is essential element of — (A) Conspiracy (B) Theft (C) Murder (D) Abetment only
- Joint liability under BNS § 3(5) maps to — (A) IPC § 34 common intention (B) IPC § 107 (C) IPC § 120A (D) IPC § 302
- If conspirator is acquitted but agreement proved with another, conspiracy — (A) Stands (B) Falls (C) Depends (D) Mandatory life
- Abettor present at scene of offence — (A) BNS § 57 (B) BNS § 49 (C) BNS § 121 (D) BNS § 113
- “Active suggestion” doctrine relates to — (A) Instigation (B) Conspiracy (C) Aiding (D) Common intention
- Conspiracy under § 61 requires — (A) An agreement (B) Two persons (C) Mens rea (D) All of the above
- Suicide abetment is punishable under BNS — (A) § 108 (B) § 305 (C) § 75 (D) § 49
- State v. Nalini was the — (A) Rajiv Gandhi case (B) Indira Gandhi case (C) 26/11 case (D) Bofors
- Conspirator who withdraws before offence is committed — (A) Still liable (B) Acquitted (C) Half liable (D) Granted bail mandatorily
- BNS § 49 came into force on — (A) 1 Jul 2024 (B) 26 Jan 2024 (C) 15 Aug 2023 (D) 1 Apr 2024
Answer Key
1-B, 2-B, 3-A, 4-B, 5-B, 6-A (offences are criminal conspiracy per se; non-offences require overt act), 7-A, 8-A, 9-B, 10-A, 11-A, 12-A, 13-A, 14-A, 15-A, 16-A, 17-A, 18-A, 19-A, 20-A, 21-D, 22-A (Suicide abetment maps to BNS § 108), 23-A, 24-A, 25-A
FAQ
What replaced IPC § 120A in BNS 2023?
BNS § 61 — definition of criminal conspiracy. The proviso requiring overt act for non-offence agreements is retained.
Are abetment and conspiracy mutually exclusive?
No. Abetment by conspiracy (§ 49 mode 2) overlaps but distinctly covers the moment when conspiracy + overt act crystallise. Conspiracy under § 61 is a separate, often broader, offence.
Can a person be convicted of conspiracy if no offence is committed?
Yes — if the agreement is to commit an offence, the agreement itself is sufficient. Only non-offence conspiracies require an overt act.
Is silent presence at conspiracy meeting punishable?
Per Mohd. Khalid v. State of W.B. (2002), silent presence is not enough. Active concurrence — words, signs, or participation — must be proved.
