Core Legal Answer & Context: The doctrine of 'constructive criminality' in abetment holds an abettor liable not only for the specific act they instigated or aided but also for any other act that is a probable consequence of the abetment. This principle expands criminal liability, ensuring that individuals who facilitate or encourage a crime are held accountable for foreseeable outcomes, even if those outcomes were not precisely their primary intention. It prevents abettors from escaping responsibility by claiming a lack of specific intent for the ultimate, perhaps more severe, crime.

Relevant Statutes and Sections: This doctrine is primarily embodied in the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Important Landmark Cases: In Phool Kumar v. Delhi Administration (1992), the Supreme Court applied Section 111, holding an abettor liable for murder when they had only abetted robbery, as murder was a probable consequence of the armed robbery. Similarly, State of Punjab v. Sucha Singh (2003) reiterated that the 'probable consequence' test under Section 111 is crucial for determining the abettor's extended liability.

Clear Conclusion: Section 111 IPC effectively incorporates the doctrine of constructive criminality, ensuring that abettors bear responsibility for the foreseeable consequences of their actions. This principle is vital for deterring criminal instigation and ensuring justice, as it prevents abettors from evading liability for the full scope of harm resulting from their involvement in a criminal enterprise.