The field of law that deals with crimes is known as criminal law, in contrast to civil law which focuses on dispute resolution rather than punishment. Criminal law encompasses substantive criminal laws, which establish crimes and their corresponding penalties. In contrast, Criminal Procedure refers to the process through which these criminal laws are enforced. A specific example of a substantive criminal law is the prohibition of murder, while the gathering of evidence and prosecution involved in enforcing this law is considered a procedural matter. The commission of a crime involves four stages: intention, preparation, attempt, and accomplishment. This research project aims to examine these stages and their significance in determining whether an act qualifies as a crime under the Indian Penal Code.
Objectives of Study The primary aim of this project is to investigate the different stages of Crime in relation to the Indian Penal Code and English laws, and critically evaluate the situation through various case laws. It also seeks to analyze each stage of crime with regards to examples and case laws.
Methodology The research is primarily based on secondary and electronic sources of data. Books, case laws, journals, and other references recommended by the faculty of EPIC are essential for the successful completion of this project.
I. INTENTION Intention, also referred to as the mental stage, is the initial phase in the commission of an offense.
Intention is the direction of conduct towards the object chosen, considering the motives that indicate the choice. However, the law disregards intention alone as it cannot constitute an offense without any accompanying actions. The difficulty in proving a person’s guilty mind is a substantial reason for not prosecuting the accused at this stage. This stage signifies a significant progression from contemplation to the actual commission of the crime. It is at this point that the person has decided to implement their deceitful plans.
Despite the presence of malevolent intention, no concrete action has been taken to manifest this intention. Additionally, proving an individual’s intention is unfeasible as even the devil lacks the ability to perceive thoughts. Consequently, this lack of evidence prevents categorizing it as a crime. For instance, harboring the desire to end someone’s life does not inherently constitute criminal behavior. However, the presence of intent to inflict harm serves as a crucial component in defining a crime since without it, no illicit action can occur. Conversely, even an impulsive act lacking premeditation can be deemed criminal if there exists an intent to cause harm.
During this stage, an individual is gathering their evil thoughts and forming plans to carry them out. Currently, no action or harm is being done to anyone. Having malicious intent indicates a significant advancement from simply thinking about causing harm, although there has been no actual action taken to make these intentions a reality. Therefore, it does not qualify as a criminal offense on its own. However, it plays a vital role in the commission of a crime because without the desire to cause harm or engage in wrongdoing, there can be no illegal activity.
Lord Bridge’s ruling in R v Maloney states that an act can still be deemed criminal, regardless of spontaneity or lack of premeditation, as long as there exists an intention to commit the crime. It is crucial to differentiate between intention and motive or desire. Thus, even if an individual possesses good motives for relieving a terminally ill loved one from pain and suffering through killing, they cannot evade accountability for intending to cause death, exemplified by Rev English’s case. There are two categories of intention: direct intent and oblique intent. Cases involving direct intent usually present a clearer distinction.
Direct intent is when the defendant purposely takes actions to achieve a desired outcome that actually happens. For instance, if D plans to murder his wife, he might obtain a knife, sharpen it, and then proceed to stab her, causing her death. In this scenario, the intended result is attained through the defendant’s behavior. However, oblique intent is more intricate. It arises when the defendant engages in conduct with the intention of achieving a particular outcome while also acknowledging that their actions will cause another consequence.
Egg D plans to commit murder by placing a bomb on an airplane that his wife will be boarding. Despite not intending harm towards other passengers and crew, he acknowledges that their deaths will result from his actions. As a result, D shares equal responsibility for the fatalities of both the passengers and crew members, as well as his wife. II. PREPARATION This stage involves the manifestation of harmful intent through physical actions.
Preparation involves organizing or constructing items necessary for carrying out a crime, such as buying poison. Generally, preparation is not considered criminal since it cannot be definitively proven the intention behind the preparation. For instance, purchasing a knife with the intent to harm someone is not criminal, as it is uncertain whether it was bought for that purpose or for cutting vegetables. Preparation refers to arranging the required measures for the planned criminal act.
Intent alone or intent followed by preparation is not sufficient to constitute a crime. Preparation is not punishable in most cases because the prosecution often fails to prove that the preparations were made for committing the specific crime. Example – If A buys a loaded pistol and carries it in his pocket with the intention to kill his bitter enemy B, but takes no further action.
A has not committed any offence as he is still in the preparation stage and it will be difficult for the prosecution to prove that A intended to use the loaded pistol to kill B. Preparation involves organizing or constructing necessary items for committing the crime. During this stage, the desire to cause harm begins to manifest through physical actions. However, at this point, the individual still has the option to abandon their planned actions without causing harm to anyone.
Generally, preparation is not considered a crime because it can’t be proven beyond doubt that the intent of preparation is criminal. For example, buying a matchbox and kerosene oil to burn a house cannot be determined as an offense by itself. Generally, the law does not take into account acts of preparation. It only intervenes when such preparation eliminates the possibility of an innocent intent. Only preparations that exclude innocence are punished. Preparation is generally not punishable because, without considering its motive, it is usually a harmless act.
Demonstrating wrongful intent or malicious intentions during preparation can be difficult in many instances. Furthermore, the legal system does not aim to establish offenses that are difficult to attribute to a particular individual or may result in innocent people being harassed. Additionally, mere preparation by itself typically does not endanger the safety of the intended target or cause disruption within society. Moreover, it lacks the ability to generate a strong urge for revenge due to its seemingly innocuous nature. To illustrate this point, let us examine an example concerning murder.
Purchasing a gun is not punishable as it is seen as preparation. However, if a man uses the gun to chase his enemy but fails to apprehend him, or if he gets arrested before carrying out the crime, or if he fires the gun without success, then these situations would be considered attempts. In such cases, the reasons for excluding preparation from the offense no longer apply. There are uncommon exceptions to preparation being non-punishable under EPIC (the acronym for a specific law). Here are some instances of these exceptional circumstances:
The concept of “attempt” encompasses various actions, including collecting weapons to wage war against the government of India (sec-122), preparing for aggression on territories of any power in alliance or at peace with the Government of India (Sec-126), engaging in counterfeiting operations for currency (Sec-235), and getting ready to commit audacity (Sec-399). Chief Justice Cookbook defines “attempt” as the act that would have resulted in the charged offense if successful. In simpler terms, it refers to taking direct action towards committing an offense after necessary preparations have been made.
Under English law, attempting to commit a crime involves performing an act that goes beyond mere preparation. Despite the impossibility of carrying out the crime under certain circumstances, individuals can still be charged and convicted of attempted crime. When an act is recognized as an attempt, the offender becomes criminally accountable as it brings them nearer to successfully completing the offense. Consequently, attempt is subject to legal punishment just like a completed offense.
Attempting to commit a crime is considered an offense because it causes distress, which is a form of harm. The offender bears the same moral responsibility as someone who successfully carries out the crime. Even if the actual act does not result in significant harm to society, its close connection to a completed offense categorizes it as a criminal act. Unlike civil law, criminal law recognizes and penalizes attempts to commit punishable wrongs based on the nature and severity of the attempted offense. If the attempt succeeds, the crime is deemed complete and the accused will be held responsible for their intended offense.
Therefore, in order for an act to be deemed criminal, it is not required to be the ultimate action. Legally speaking, it is enough for there to be intentional and observable ongoing activity. Some legal systems go a step further by imposing penalties during the preparatory phase as they prioritize crime prevention. These systems classify certain acts as criminal and enforce punishments even during the planning stage. This stage involves taking physical actions that could potentially inflict harm if not intervened.
The clear demonstration of a person’s intentions through their actions creates the possibility for criminal behavior. Therefore, it is equally important to prioritize crime prevention for the well-being of society. For example, Section 307 states that individuals who purposefully take actions with the intention of killing another person but fail can still be legally held responsible for attempted murder. However, it is crucial that these actions have the capability to cause death. Moreover, it is apparent that individuals can be liable under this section even if no harm is done to anyone.
However, if harm is caused, the consequences become more severe. This idea emerged from the cases of mm Parka’s vs.. State of Punjab and State of Maharajah’s vs.. Balsam Ban Patti. In simpler terms, this stage is reached by engaging in physical actions that, if not stopped, will lead to or are likely to lead to harm to someone. These actions clearly indicate the person’s absolute unwillingness to abandon their plan, and if left unchecked, they will effectively carry out the offense.
The Indian Penal Code views the commission of a crime as an act that is classified as criminal. This classification stems from the belief that if crimes go unpunished, it increases the likelihood of further offenses. Ensuring crime prevention is crucial for sustaining a prosperous society. Although the code does not offer a precise explanation for attempting to commit a crime, it tackles this matter through different provisions. In certain cases, both the actual perpetration of an offense and the attempt are addressed within the same section of the code and entail equivalent punishments.
The Code contains 27 sections covering various offenses, including 121, 124, 131, 52, 62, 0, 241, 251, and 460. Both the actual commission and attempted commission of these offenses are punishable. However, attempts are treated as separate offenses with their own penalties in certain cases. These specific offenses include: I) Attempted murder (section 307), II) Attempted culpable homicide (section 308), III) Attempted suicide (section 309), IV) Attempted robbery (section 393).
The argument states that an attempt to commit a crime occurs when a prisoner takes immediate action towards committing a specific crime. This action must be directly connected to the crime and solely intended for its commission. It is important to note that Attempt and Preparation have different punishments: attempting to commit a crime is punishable while preparation is not. This distinction exists because preparation is generally harmless, but attempting to commit murder causes disturbance and insecurity in society.
As per the Indian Penal Code, an “attempt” is defined as a continuous process that becomes criminal at one stage. In the case of Shudder Kumar Muckraker v. State of W.B., the Supreme Court clarified that an attempt to commit an offense begins when preparations are complete and the culprit starts taking steps closer towards its actual commission with the intention of committing the offense.
In the case of Bandanna Mishear v. State of Briar, the Supreme Court ruled that when a guilty party starts taking action with the necessary intention, they are initiating their attempt to commit a crime. This action does not have to be the final step in actually committing the offense, but it must occur while carrying out the offense. The courts have established five tests to distinguish between preparation and attempt. Therefore, it can be said that an attempt to commit an offense begins after preparation is completed, although it is challenging to pinpoint exactly where preparation ends and attempt begins.
To solve this riddle, the courts have established various tests: the Toothed Proximity test, the Cited locus penitential test, the Impossibility test, the Toothed social danger test, and the Cited equivocal test. 1. The Proximity Test- Proximity cause, as explained, is the causal factor that is closest, not necessarily in time or space, but in efficacy to some harmful consequences; in other words, it must be sufficiently near the accomplishment of the substantive offence.
The Supreme Court has provided clarification on the concept of attempt in relation to committing a crime through two cases: Sudsier Kumar Musketeer and Abandon Mishears. The court’s ruling states that an individual can be charged with attempted commission of a specific offense if they possess both the intention to commit that offense and have taken preparatory steps towards its execution. These preparatory actions do not necessarily need to be the final act, but must take place during the course of attempting to commit the offense.
Conversely, the Locus penitential test concerns an individual’s ability or opportunity to withdraw from a contract or agreement before it becomes legally binding. Essentially, if someone voluntarily decides not to proceed with carrying out a criminal act before it is actually carried out, their actions will be considered mere preparations rather than a full-fledged attempt.
It is possible that he might voluntarily or out of fear of negative consequences, refrain from completing the attempt. In this scenario, he does not go beyond preparation and does not engage in the act itself. Therefore, he is at the stage of preparation, which is not punishable. The case of Malaria Sings illustrates this second test. In this particular case, a truck transporting a payday was intercepted at Kamala Barrier, which is located 32 miles away from Delhi.
The Court concluded that there was no export of payday under Para 2(a) f of the Punjab payday (Export Control) Order, 1959. Therefore, it was determined that there was no attempt to commit the offense of export. Instead, it was considered to be mere preparation. The Supreme Court made a distinction between attempt and preparation by establishing that the key factor is whether the overt acts already performed would be completely harmless if the offender decides not to proceed further.
In this circumstance, it is plausible that the appellants were possibly warned about lacking a license to carry the payday. They may have reconsidered their decision anywhere between Kamala Barrier and the Delhi-Punjab boundary, potentially choosing not to continue their journey. The Impossibility Test was established in the case of Queen Express v. Manages Jive, where the Bombay high court determined that an attempt can exist under section 511 of EPIC, even if the intended offense cannot be carried out. Similarly, in Agrarian Preordain v. Emperor, the appellant’s actions did not qualify as a “step towards the commission of an offense”, resulting in an inability to convict.
In a Malaysian case, the accused was found liable for attempting to cause an abortion even though the woman was not pregnant. This act is inherently impossible to carry out, yet it is still considered a criminal offense of attempted crime. The English Law held a similar view before the Houghton v. Smith case. In Rev. Shippers case, it was determined that if the accused had the intention to commit the act but failed, their liability for attempt would be assessed based on their perception of the facts (putative facts).
