Topic

Stages in Commission of Crime

Introduction:

If a person commits a crime voluntarily or after premeditation the doing of it

involves four stages. Such as 1 Intention 2 Preparation 3 Attempt and 4
Accomplishment or Commission of crime.

In every crime, there is firstly an intention to commit it, secondly,

preparation to commit it and thirdly,attempt to commit it. Thus a culprit first
intends then makes preparation for committing it and therefore attempts to
commit the offence. If the attempt succeeds, he has committed the offence,if
it fails due to reasons beyond his control, he is said to have attempted to
commit the offence. The object of this paper is to deal with the meaning and
concept of crime and the stages involved in the commission of crime.

Intention or Contemplation:

It is the first stage in the commission of the offence and is known as mental
stage. In olden times mere intention was not punishable. According to
Burdick, “The doctrine that a mere intent amounts to a crime passed long
ago in order to constitute an attempt to commit a crime there must be
something more than a intent to commit it”. The obvious reason for not
pursuing the accused at this stage is that it is very difficult for the
prosecution to prove the guilty intention of a man. The courts have also
shown their unwillingnessin punishing a man for mere guilty intention. It
was observed by an English judge that the thought of a man is not triable
because devil himself knoweth not the thought of a man. Therefore so long
as an act of a person rests in his intention no criminal liability arises. But if
his intention is made known to others either by words or conduct, it will give
rise to criminal responsibility.

Under Indian criminal law mere intention to commit an offence is not

punishable. However, law in certain circumstances does take notice of an
intention to commit an offence. For example waging war against state (
Sections 121 to 123), Sedition124 A in the IPC have been considered to be
the serious offences and mere preparation to commit these offences is
punishable as these are to be checked at their earlier stage. Similarly
according to Section 120-A when two or more persons agree to do or cause
to be done an illegal act or an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such
an agreement is designated as criminal conspiracy. But mere act is not
punishable but some act besides the agreement must be done. Parties to such
conspiracy but mere agreement is not punishable as proviso added to the
section requires that some act besides the agreement must be done. Parties to
such conspiracy are however punishable on the basis of agreement between
them. Mere assembly of persons for committing the dacoity without any
further proof of preparation is punishable under Section 402 of the code.

Preparation:

Preparation is the second stage in the commission of a crime.It means to

arrange means or measures necessary for the commission of the intended
criminal act. An act done towards the commission of the offence unless it is
followed by other acts, is merely an act of preparation.Intention alone or
intention followed by preparation is not enough to constitute the
crime.preparation has not been made punishable because in most of the
cases the prosecution has failed to prove that necessary preparations were
made for commission of the offence.If ‘A’ purchases a pistol and keeps the
same in his pocket duly loaded in order to kill his enemy ‘B’ but does
nothing more ‘A’ has not committed any offence as he is still at the stage of
preparation and it will be impossible for the prosecution to prove that ‘A’
was carrying the loaded pistol only for the purpose of killing ‘B’. It is so
since it is not necessary that whosoever makes the preparation will actually
commit the offence also. The law allows a locus poenitantae (opportunity to
repent) and does not punish the person unless he has passed beyond the stage
of preparation. There is lesser degree of determination in preparation as
compared with attempt.

In Noorbibi v. State AIR 1952 J&K 55, the accused without proper
permission was going towards the border with the object of stepping into
Pakistani territory and was arrested before reaching the border. It was held
that there could be no presumption that whosoever moved towards the
border would necessarily cross over. Similarly a jeweller in order to prefer a
false claim to an insurance company pretended that his shop had been
burgled and informed the police accordingly. On investigation when the
truth was made known he was prosecuted but was held not guilty as he was
still preparing to commit the crime. He could have been guilty, had he
submitted the claim to the insurance company.

Under the IPC, mere preparation to commit the following offences is

punishable as there are considered to be grave offences:

1 Preparation to wage war against State (Section 122)

2 Preparation to commit depredation on territories of a power at peace with
Govt. of India (Section 126)

3 Preparation to commit dacoity (Section 399)

4 Preparation for counterfeiting of coins or Govt. stamps (Section s 233 to

235, 255 and 257)

5 Possessing counterfeit coins, false weight or measurement and forged

documents. Mere possession of these is a crime and no possessor can plead
that he was still at the stage of preparation (Sections 242, 243, 259, 266, and
474)

Attempt:

It is also known asthe preliminary crime. Section XXIII of the IPC,

1860 deals with of attempt to commit offences and provides the
punishment for attempt. Park B. in R. V. Eagleton 1855 Dearsly said, “Acts
remotely leading to the commission of offence are not to be considered as
attempts to commit it but acts connected with it are”. There is greater degree
of determination in “attempt’’ as compared with “preparation’’. The
supreme court has observed that the attempt stage is reached when culprit
takes deliberate overt steps to commit the offence and this overt act need not
be penultimate act.

Essentials of Attempt:

When a person wants to commit a crime, he firstly forms an idea, then

makes some preparation and ultimately does something for achieving the
object. If he succeeds in his object he is guilty of completed offence
otherwise only for making an attempt. Thus there are three essentials of
attempt:

1 Guilty intention to commit an offence.

2 Some act done towards the commission of crime.

3 The act must fall short of the completed offence.

The present doctrine that to attempt a crime is itself an offence was clearly
approved by Mansfield, J. In R V. Scofield 1784 Cald 397 there after the
rule that attempt to commit crime is punishable because of universal
application. In R. V. Taylor (1859) 1 F and F 511., the accused purchased
the match box with the intention to set fire to a haystack. He was, however
arrested before he took the matchbox out of his pocket. It was held that he
was not guilty however clearly it might be proved that he intended to set fire
also if he had approached thestack with the matchbox in his pocket all this
would have been mere preparation. He could have been held guilty if he had
lit the match and then extinguished it on finding that he was being watched.

Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab (1969)1 SCC 157 In this case the appellant
was arrested by the Pujab police 32 miles before the Punjab-Delhi border for
exporting poddy to Delhi without licence. It was held that it was mere
preparation. It was quite possible that the appellants might have changed
their minds at any place before reaching the border. The court also observed,
the test for determination whether the act of the appellant constitutes an
attempt or preparation is whether the overt acts already done are such that if
the offender changes his mind and does not proceed further in its progress,
the acts already done would be completely harmless.
In State of Maharastra v. Mohd Yakub (1980 )3 SCC 57three accused
persons were caught alongwith jeep and truck loaded with silver which was
to be smuggled out of India. The court held that their act was proximate
enough to the intended result. The measure of proximity is not in relation to
time and place but in relation to intention.

Under the I.P.C attempt has been described in 3 different ways

1. Completed offences and attempts have been dealt with in the same
section and same punishment isprescribed for both. Such provisions are
contained in Sections121, 124, 124-A, 125, 130, 131, 152, 153-A, 161 163,
165, 239, 240, 241, 251, 385, 387, 389, 391, 395, 397, 459 and 460

2. In case of four grave offences attempts are described separately but side
by side with the offences and specific punishment is prescribed for them
like

a) Murder is punishable under Section 302 and attempt to murder under

Section 307
b) Culpable homicide is punishable under Section 304 and attempt to
commit culpable homicide under Section 308
c) Attempt to commit suicide is punishable under Section 309completed
offence is not punishable and as such no provision for punishment
has been made
d) Section 392 provides for punishment for robbery and attempt to
commit robbery is punishable under Section 393 and if armed with
deadly weapons.
e) Dacoity with murder is punishable under Section 396 and dacoity
with an attempt to cause death is punishable under Section
 397.Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery is punishable
under Section 394 and attempt to cause grievous hurt in committing
the robbery is punishable under Section 397
f) All other cases of attempt are covered under Section 511 which
provides that the accused shall be punished with one-half of the
longest term of imprisonment provided for the offence or with fine or
both.

Impossible Attempt:

It was for some time supposed that it would be no crime if a man

attempted to do that which in fact was impossible to do. This fallacy
was due to the fact that impossible attempts were considered to be a
mere preparation. That is why in R. V. Collins(1864)12 WR886 the
accused could not be convicted for putting his hands into the empty
pocket of another. This decision was based on a case decided in 1857,
where the accused could not be convicted for breaking and entering
the house to steal goods which had been stolen already. The court held
that an attempt must be to do that which if successful, would amount
to the felony charged, but here the attempt never could have
succeeded. In R .V. Brown, where he observed that these cases were
decided on a mistaken view of law and are no longer the law. In this
case the accused was convicted for committing the offence of sodomy
although the complete offence was not possible due to physical
defects. Finally in R. V. Ring (1892) 17 cox 491 settled the whole
controversy. In this case the accused was convicted for thrusting his
hands into the empty pocket of woman while she was entering the
compartment of a train. If such attempts are not punished then even a
 noted pickpocket may pass around in a crowd in full view of
policemen and even in the room of a police station, and thrust his
hand into pocket of another to steal, and yet be not prosecuted until
the police has first ascertained that there was in fact money or
valuables in the pocket.
In State v. Mitchell (1902) 170 mo 633, the accused fired at the
pillow of an empty bed with the intention to kill his enemy who
usually used to sleep there. It was held that the accused was guilty and
the victim being miles away on the particular occasion was
immaterial. The whole controversy has now been set at rest with the
passage of the Criminal Attempt Act 1981, Section 1 deals with such
situationsin Anderson v. Ryan (1985) 2 ALL ER 355 HL where a
lady purchased a video tape recorder believing it to be stolen, where
as it was not so it was held that she was entitled to acquittal. This
case has however, been overruled in R. V. Shivpuri in this case the
accused was arrested by customs officer for possessing a suitcase
containing prohibited drugs. He also told officials that he is dealing
with prohibited drugs but on opening the suitcase no drug was found
therein. Holding him liable the court observed that Sec. 1when truly
construed it reveals that a person is guilty of an attempt merely if he
did an act which was more than merely preparatory to the facts were
such that the actual offence was impossible.

Section 511 of IPC is more specific and following two illustrations clearly
make impossible attempt punishable-

1 ‘A’ makes an attempt to steal jewels from an empty box. ‘A’ is

guilty;
 2 ‘A’ makes an attempt to pick the empty pocket of ‘Z’. ‘A’ is guilty.
In Asgar Ali v. Emperor AIR 1933 Cal 893 the accused suggested to a
lady, whom he caused pregnancy, to take drugs to procure a
miscarriage and when she refused to take the drug he tried to pour the
liquid in her mouth against her will. In the meantime her father and
some neighbours came out and the accused fled. On medical
examination no poison was found in liquid and neither the powder nor
the liquid was found harmful. It was held that the accused could not
be convicted of an attempt to cause miscarriage as what he did was
not an act done towards the commission of the offence of causing
miscarriage.

Illustrative cases

1. The accused persons were seen going towards the Pakistan border
with a tin case in their hands and when they recognised the raiding
party they immediately turned round and ran away. They were chased
into the house of the accused where the raiding party found the
accused persons hiding or concealing the tin box containing currency
notes in the heap of wheat in the house. Court held that the facts are
sufficient to constitute an attempt to smuggle the currency notes.
2. Where a man, having a wife living, caused the banns of marriage to
be published, he could not be punished for an attempt to marry again
during the lifetime of his wife.

Attempt and Preparation Distinguished:

 Preparation is to arrange or devise means or measures and attempt is
direct movement towards the commission of the offence

1- Preparation is usually not punishable but attempt is always

punishable
2- Mere preparation is an indifferent act possessing no definite
indication of criminality. An attempt is an act of such a nature that
it is itself a clear evidence of mensrea.
3- If accused has lost the opportunity to repent he is in the stage of
attempt otherwise he will be in the stage of preparation only.

SECTION 511 AND Section 307, IPC.

Whether Section 511 is wide enough to include cases for attempts

to murder which are punishable under Section 307 of IPC. The
Allahabad High court held that Section 307 of the IPC is
exhaustive and within the four corners of that section. Is to be
found the whole provision of law relating to attempt to murder.
Section 511 is,therefore, inapplicable in cases of attempt to
murder. The Bombay High court took a different and held that in
order to constitute an offence under Section 307 there must be an
act done under such circumstances that the act must be capable of
causing death in the natural and ordinary course of things. If the
act complained of is not of that description, a prisoner cannot be
convicted of attempt to commit murder under Section 307 and will
then be convicted under Section 511
 The correct view seems to be that the offence of attempt has
different meanings in Sections 307 and 511. If specific provisions
for attempt to murder have been made in Section 307 there is no
sense and also it will be against the interest the interest of justice if
attempt to murder is tried under Sections 302/511 IPC. Section 307
is therefore exhaustive and its scope cannot be narrowed down by
Section 511
Limitation in Section 511 relates to such offences as an attempt
to commit murder, or an attempt to commit suicide or an attempt to
obtain illegal gratification which are expressly punishable by other
sections of the code.
The scope of attempt under Indian law is wider than English
law. Pointing out the reason for this Turner, j. Observed, “The
circumstances stated in illustration to Section 511, IPC would not
have constituted an attempt under the English law, they were
introduced in order to show that these provisions were designed to
extend to a much wider range of cases than would be deemed
punishable as offences under the English law”.

Accomplishment:

The last stage in the commission of a crime is its accomplishment.

If the accused succeeds in his attempt to commit the crime, he will
be guilty of the offence. If this attempt is unsuccessful, he will be
guilty for an attempt only. e,g. ‘A’ fires at ‘B’ with the intention to
kill him. If ‘B’ dies, ‘A’ will be guilty for committing the offence
of murder only. If offence is complete, the person will be tried and
punished under the specific provisions of the code.