Abettor Must Be Physically Present to Invoke Section 114 IPC

Source: Karnataka High Court

Why in News?

Justice HP Sandesh of the Karnataka High Court decided Purushothama G.M. v. State & Another (2026). The Court allowed a criminal petition by a police constable and quashed the criminal proceedings against him. 

The Court also held: 

• To attract Section 114 IPC (Now Section 54 of BNS), the abettor must be physically present at the scene of the crime when the offence is committed. 
• A person cannot be prosecuted under Section 114 merely on an allegation that an incident happened at their instigation, if their presence at the spot is not established. 
• A blanket allegation that a police officer is “responsible” for an incident, simply because he works at the local police station, cannot sustain a criminal prosecution.

What was the Background of the Purushothama G.M. v. State (2026) Case? 

• The petitioner: Purushothama G.M., a police constable, was named as Accused No. 5 in a criminal case. 
• The charges: He was charged under Sections 143, 504, 323, 324, 448, 506 and 114, read with Section 149 of the IPC. 
• The allegation against him: The complaint only said that he worked as a police constable at the same police station and was responsible for the incident. 

What the petitioner argued: 

• On the day of the incident, he was on beat and patrol duty across Huluvadi, Mankunda, Hosurudoddi, Devarahalli and Valagerehalli villages. 
• Relying on a coordinate bench order in Crl.P. No. 1294/2020, he argued that physical presence at the scene of the crime is a mandatory statutory requirement for invoking Section 114 IPC. 

Questions before the High Court: 

• Can Section 114 IPC be invoked against a person whose presence at the scene of the crime is not established? 
• Is a general allegation that a person is “responsible” for an incident enough to prosecute him?

What were the Court’s Observations? 

On Section 114 IPC: 

• Section 114 punishes an abettor who is present when the offence is committed. 
• Physical presence at the scene is therefore essential to invoke it. 
• Neither the complainant’s witnesses nor the complaint showed that the petitioner was present at the spot. 
• The complaint only said that he worked as a police constable at the same police station and was responsible for the act. 

On the blanket allegation: 

• A blanket allegation that a police officer is “responsible” for an incident, simply because he works at the local police station, is not enough to sustain a criminal prosecution. 
• None of the ingredients of Section 114 were made out against the petitioner. 
• Merely adding the words that he was responsible for the incident did not justify prosecuting him. 
• He need not face the ordeal of a criminal trial only because he works at the same police station. 

On the other offences: 

• The offences under Sections 143, 504, 323, 324, 448 and 506, read with Section 149, were also not attracted against the petitioner.

Decision: 

• To invoke Section 114 IPC, the abettor must be physically present at the scene when the offence is committed. 
• None of the ingredients of the offences charged were made out against the petitioner. 
• The criminal petition was allowed, and the criminal proceedings against the petitioner were quashed.

What is Section 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023? 

About: 

• Section 54 deals with an abettor who is present when the offence is committed. 
• It falls under Chapter IV of the BNS, “Of Abetment, Criminal Conspiracy and Attempt”. 
• It corresponds to Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 

Provision: 

• Whenever a person who would be liable to be punished as an abettor even if absent is present when the act or offence is committed, he is deemed to have committed that act or offence. 

Essential ingredients: 

• Prior abetment: The abetment must be complete beforehand, so that the person would be liable as an abettor even if absent. 
• Presence: The abettor must be present when the offence is committed. 

Effect: 

• The abettor is treated as the principal offender, and is punished as if they had committed the offence themselves. 

Key precedent: 

• In Shri Ram v. State of U.P. (1975), the Supreme Court held that this provision applies only when the abetment is already complete independently of the person’s presence. Their presence at the commission of the offence then makes them liable as a principal.