Stages of a Crime

Anil K Thakur LLC

By: Anil K. Thakur (Asst. Prof.)

(For B.A. LL.B 5th Sem 2021-26)
Lloyd Law College, Last updated: Aug. 2023
Anil K Thakur LLC
 Stages of a Crime
• The law relating to stages of crime in India is marked by
controversies.
• Different and divergent opinions expressed in
various decisions and commentaries of legal
luminaries on the subject, have confounded the legal
Anil K Thakur LLC

position.
• The necessary changes made in English law, on which
Indian Law is based, to present the clear legal
position, are not correctly and clearly outlined.
 Stages of a Crime
• The offences are committed either after premeditation
(planning) or at the spur of the moment.
• It is in relation to the former that it is necessary to consider
different stages of the commission of the offence.
• A culprit first intends to commit an offence, then makes
preparation for committing it and thereafter attempts to
Anil K Thakur LLC

commit it. If the attempt succeeds, he has committed

the offence, if it fails due to circumstances beyond his
control, he is said to have attempted to commit the
offence.*'
• *Abhyanand Mishra v. State of Bihar, AIR 1961 SC 1698; Koppula
Venkat Rao v. State of AP, AIR 2004 SC 1874.
 Stages of a Crime

• Whenever a crime happens and that too intentionally,

there is a full-fledged process or stages behind it.
• If a person commits a crime voluntarily or after
preparation the doing of it involves four different
Anil K Thakur LLC

stages.
 Stages of a Crime
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860, recognizes that a pre-
planned act passes through four successive stages
which are:
1. Intention (entertaining/conceiving the idea) to
commit offence;
Anil K Thakur LLC

2. Preparation to commit offence;

3. Attempt to commit offence; and
4. The actual commission of the offence.
 1. Intention: entertaining/conceiving the idea
to commit offence
Anil K Thakur LLC
 Criminal intention
• Intention is the first stage in the commission of an offence and
known as mental stage. Intention is the direction of conduct
towards the object chosen upon considering the motives which
suggest the choice.
• But the law does not take notice of an intention, mere intention to
Anil K Thakur LLC

commit an offence not followed by any act, cannot constitute an

offence (few exceptions are there discussed later).
• The obvious reason for not prosecuting the accused at this stage
is that it is very difficult for the prosecution to prove the guilty
mind of a person as it is impossible to read the mind of a man or
to understand what someone contemplates to do in future.
 Criminal intention
• The first stage exists when the culprit first entertains the idea or
intention to commit an offence. The law does not take cognizance as
mere entertaining an idea or intention is too early a stage to make a
person punishable given the fact there is enough scope and time for a
person to change his mind and not to give effect to his idea or
intention.
• Intention is defined as the purpose with which an act is done'.
• Intention indicates the position of mind, condition of someone at
Anil K Thakur LLC

particular time of commission of offence and also will of the accused to

see effects of his unlawful conduct.
• Criminal intention does not mean only the specific intention but it
includes the generic intention as well.
• Example: A poisons the food which B was supposed to eat with the
intention of killing B. C eats that food instead of B and is killed. A is
liable for killing C although A never intended it.
 Criminal intention
• Intention means doing any act with one’s will, desire,
voluntariness, mala-fides and for some purpose.
• In the IPC, all these varied expressions find place in the various
sections of the Code.
• For example, if a man drives in a rash and reckless manner
resulting in an accident causing death of a person, the reckless
driver cannot plead innocence by stating that he never intended to
Anil K Thakur LLC

cause the death of the person. It may be true in the strict sense of
term.
• But a reckless driver should know that reckless driving is likely to
result in harm and can even cause death of the persons on the
road.
• So, by virtue of definition of the word ‘voluntarily’ u/s 39 IPC, a
reckless driver who causes death of a person can be presumed or
deemed to have intended to cause the death of the person.
 Criminal intention
• The first stage which is intention to commit offence is not punishable.
It is impossible to prove the mental state of a man and the court cannot
convict a person for that which it cannot know.
• The thought of a man is not triable, for the devil himself knows not the thought of
a man. It means that law does take note of intention which is not followed
by some act of expression.
• Bare intention is not punishable because it is impossible to prove the mental
state of man. Indian Law does not make intention punishable.
Anil K Thakur LLC

• However, Calcutta High Court in Ramesh Banerjee’s Case

[Ramesh Chandra Banerjee v. Emperor I. L. R.(1913) Cal 350] held that dacoity
probably is the only offence in IPC, which is made punishable at all the four
stages of a crime i.e. assembly for dacoity under Section 402; preparation to
commit dacoity under Section 399; attempt to commit dacoity under Section
393 and docoity itself under Section 395 of IPC.
• The offence of criminal conspiracy i.e. agreement to commit crime under
Section 120-A IPC is another example where intention is punishable.
Anil K Thakur LLC

2. Preparation
 Preparation
• Preparation is the second stage in the commission of a crime.
• In the second stage, he makes preparations to commit it. It means
to arrange the necessary measures for the commission of the
intended criminal act.
• Here again law does not take cognizance, except in certain cases
for which provision has been made in the IPC itself making
Anil K Thakur LLC

preparations punishable, as there is still enough time for a person

to change his mind.
• Normally/generally intention alone or the intention followed by a
preparation is not enough to constitute the crime.
• Preparation has not been made punishable (exceptions are there as
already discussed) because in most of the cases the prosecution
has failed to prove that the preparations in the question were made
for the commission of the particular crime.
 Reasons for not making Preparation Punishable
• Without the motive preparation is mostly an harmless act
• In most cases it is difficult to show that preparation was done
for a wrongful end or done with a guilty intention.
• So, if preparations were made punishable then it would lead
to unnecessary harassment to innocent people as the person
might change his mind at the last moment.
Anil K Thakur LLC

• Also, the law is not made to create and multiply offences and
if preparation were to be punished then countless offences
will have to be made.
• Mere preparation does not create a sense of insecurity to a
person and society at large is not affected.
 instances
• If A purchases a pistol and keeps the same in his pocket
duly loaded in order to kill his bitter enemy B, but does
nothing more. A has not committed any offence as still he
is 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.
Anil K Thakur LLC

• Preparation When Punishable- Generally, preparation to

commit any offence is not punishable but in some
exceptional cases preparation is punishable, following
are some examples of such exceptional circumstances-
 instances
• Preparation to wage war against the Government - Section
122, IPC 1860;
• Preparation to commit depredation on territories of a power
at peace with Government of India- Section 126, IPC 1860;
• Preparation to commit dacoity- Section 399, IPC 1860;
Anil K Thakur LLC

• Preparation for counterfeiting of coins or Government

stamps- Sections 233-235, S. 255 and S. 257;
• Possessing counterfeit coins, false weight or measurement
and forged documents. Mere possession of these is a crime
and no possessor can plead that he is still at the stage of
preparation- Sections 242, 243, 259, 266 and 474.
 Exceptional Circumstances when Intention
& Preparation alone are punishable
Anil K Thakur LLC
Anil K Thakur LLC

3. Attempt
 Attempt
• It is only if the third stage is reached when the culprit
takes deliberate overt or covert steps to commit the
offence.
• Such overt act or covert step or action in order to be
‘criminal’ need not be the penultimate act or illegal
Anil K Thakur LLC

omission towards the commission of the offence.

• It is sufficient if such act or acts or illegal omission or
commission were deliberately done, and manifest a
clear intention to commit the offence aimed, being
reasonably proximate to the consummation of the
offence.
 Attempt
• If the forbidden consequence ensues as intended or likely
to be committed the commission of the offence becomes
complete.
• But if the forbidden consequence did not ensue not
because they were not intended or acted upon but
Anil K Thakur LLC

because of some independent factors intervening the

accused is held guilty not for the substantive offence but
for an attempt to commit the substantive offence
because he has done everything which causes insecurity
in the society or endangers security of the members of the
society.
 History
• There was no general crime of attempt in the early
English common law. Historians have uncovered
scattered decisions, dating back as far as the
fourteenth century, in which courts did convict of
felony the perpetrator of an unsuccessful attempt.
Anil K Thakur LLC

• But punishment of attempts was at the most sporadic,

and was limited to cases in which rather serious harm
had occurred in any event.
 History
• The first decision of consequence, Rex v. Scofield, Cald. 397
(1784), held that the defendant was properly charged with a
misdemeanor for an unsuccessful attempt to burn down a house.
• Subsequently, in Rex v. Higgins, 102 Eng. Rep. 269, 275 (K.B.
1801), the court upheld an indictment charging an unsuccessful
attempt to steal and stated in broad terms that "all such acts or
Anil K Thakur LLC

attempts as tend to the prejudice of the community, are

indictable."
• The principle enunciated in Higgins was quickly accepted by
courts and commentators, and it was soon considered settled
rule that an attempt to commit crime was itself indictable as a
crime.
 3 essentials of an attempt
• A person may be guilty of an attempt to commit an
offence if he does an act which is more than merely
preparatory to the commission of the offence; and a
person will be guilty of attempting to commit an offence
even though the facts are such that the commission of
the offence is impossible.
Anil K Thakur LLC

• There are three essentials of an attempt:

1. Guilty mind to commit an offence;
2. Some act done towards the commission of the
offence;
3. The act must fall short of the completed offence
 Attempt under the Indian Penal Code

• The approach of the makers of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 towards attempt is reflected in 4 ways i.e. attempt
has been dealt with in three ways in the Code.
• In the first category, commission of the offence as well as
the attempt to commit it are dealt with in the same section
and the extent of punishment prescribed for the both is the
Anil K Thakur LLC

same. There are 27 such sections in the IPC, namely,

sections 121, 124, 124-A, 125, 130, 131, 152, 153-A,
161, 162, 163, 165 (sections 161-165-A omitted
from IPC and included in Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988) 196, 198, 200, 213, 239, 240, 241, 251, 385,
386, 389, 391, 397, 398 and 460.
 Attempt under the Indian Penal Code
• In the second category, some attempts are treated as separate
offences and punished accordingly. There are five such
offences:
(l) attempt to commit murder (S. 307)
(2) attempt to commit culpable homicide (S. 308)
(3) attempt to commit suicide (S. 309) and
Anil K Thakur LLC

(4) attempt to commit robbery (S. 393)

(5) attempt to throw acid with the intention to cause grievous
hurt(S.326-B)
• In all the above sections of the IPC, attempts for committing
specific offences are dealt with side by side with the offences
themselves but separately, and separate punishments are
provided for the attempts from those of the offences attempted.
 Attempt under the Indian Penal Code
• Thirdly, A particular attempt has been made
punishable. Attempt to commit suicide is punished
under section 309 IPC*(decriminalized now discussed
in detail hereinafter);
Anil K Thakur LLC

• Of course, Section 309 stands as a class by itself as

the completed offence here is not punished as it
cannot be punished in view of the death of the
accused.
 Attempt under the Indian Penal Code
• Fourth, category relates to offences which are not covered by the
above three categories. Such attempts are governed by the
general provisions contained in Section 511 which has been
placed at the end of the IPC.
• Section 511 IPC lays general principles relating to attempts in
India.
Anil K Thakur LLC

• All other cases i.e. attempt in general has been made punishable
[where no specific provisions regarding attempt are made] 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 prescribed fine or with both.
• Sometimes Sec 511 IPC is r/w Section 57 IPC.
 A call for decriminalizing Section 309 IPC

• Suicide is the act of taking one’s own life on

purpose. The person ends his/her life intentionally
to run away from their problems.
• There is a lot of taints attached to suicide.
Anil K Thakur LLC

• It a common mindset and a harsh reality that

whenever a person attempts to commit suicide,
he/she is already drenched mentally and has lost
all hopes and expectations from their lives.
 A call for decriminalizing Section 309 IPC

• Section 309 in The Indian Penal Code was:

• Whoever attempts to commit suicide and does any
act towards the commission of such offense, shall
be punished with simple imprisonment for a term
Anil K Thakur LLC

which may extend to one year 1[or with fine, or with

both].
 Constitutional validity of Section 309 IPC
• The constitutional validity of this section was
challenged many times on the ground that it violated
the Right to Life mentioned under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India which according to many included
the Right of individuals to end their lives.
Anil K Thakur LLC

• In P. Rathnam v. Union of India 1994 SCC (3) 394-SC

held that section 309 was unconstitutional and void for
it violates Article 21. The court also observed that the
provision is cruel as it once again punishes a person
who had already suffered agony and as a result of which
that person attempted suicide
 Constitutional validity of Section 309 IPC
• This judgment was overruled in Smt. Gian Kaur v.
the State of Punjab 1996 SCC (2) 648. The
Supreme Court held that the right to life is a natural
right while suicide is an unnatural extinction of life
and therefore the latter is inconsistent with the
Anil K Thakur LLC

former. The court thus upheld the constitutional

validity of Section 309 (there is one exception to
this rule).
 exception to this
• However, as an exception to this, the Apex Court in Aruna
Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India & Ors (2011) 4
SCC 454
upheld the validity of Passive Euthanasia (assisted
suicide), whereby the life support of a terminally ill patient
is removed or halted.
Anil K Thakur LLC

• So, as far as India is considered, the right to life does not

include the right to die but provides for the “right to die
with dignity” which is facilitated by Passive Euthanasia
only in certain circumstances permitted with the leave of
the Supreme Court.
 What WHO says
• As per the report from WHO; around 8 lakh people die
from suicide every day and almost 25 times as many do
a suicide attempt.
• India contributes to around 34% of the suicides around
the world.
• In recent years, a person died every four minutes due to
Anil K Thakur LLC

suicide.
• Most of these cases were related to mental issues.
Mental health in India is a big taboo. No one wants to
talk about it. People are scared and often dither.
• In 93% of suicide attempts were found that the person
was going through some mental issues.
 Partial decriminalization
• Recently, an attempt to partially decriminalize this
section (Sec 309 IPC) has been made by the
government through the Mental Healthcare Act 2017,
which says that “any person who attempts to commit
Anil K Thakur LLC

suicide shall be thought to suffering through heavy

stress and thus not guilty unless proven otherwise”.
• The most important question that takes place is; what
is the limit of severe stress while deciding the case of
an attempt to suicide?
 Debate over IPC Section 309
• Law is a dynamic concept and it keeps on changing with
the progress in society.
• For more than 150 years, the section dealing with the
offense of attempt to commit suicide had remained
unchanged regardless of being questioned at every
stage of the legal drive.
Anil K Thakur LLC

• India has retained and maintained numerous laws

enacted throughout the British Raj even after
independence in 1947.
• Section 309 is one such which was retained although
the British parliament itself decriminalized attempted
suicide in 1961 through the Suicide Act.
 Mental Healthcare Act, 2017-
Present situation
• The legislature has shifted from a legal outlook to a
more medical point of view by decriminalizing the
attempt to commit suicide.
• The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 which replaced the
previous Mental Health Act of 1987, has revolutionized
Anil K Thakur LLC

the entire concept of law related to an attempt to

suicide in India.
• The Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha passed the bill on 8
August 2016 and 27 March 2017 respectively, in that
order. The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 was given
assent by the President of India on 7 April 2017.
 Mental Healthcare Act, 2017
• The most relevant section of the act regarding the attempt to
commit suicide is Section 115. It provides that:
• 1. Any person who attempts to commit suicide shall be
presumed to be under severe stress and not be tried and
punished under section 309 or any other section of the
Anil K Thakur LLC

Indian Penal Code unless otherwise is proved.

• 2. It is the duty of the appropriate government to take care of,
provide adequate treatment and rehabilitation to anyone
who attempts to commit suicide due to severe stress. The
purpose is to reduce the risk of reoccurrence of an attempt to
commit suicide by the individual.
 Mental Healthcare Act, 2017
• This act is the most important step towards
developing mental and emotional health in India.
The act also grants that any person who is suffering
from mental illness should be treated at the same
Anil K Thakur LLC

level as the physically ill in terms of healthcare

services.
• There shall be no difference based on such illness.
Right to life means the right to an dignified life i.e.
to live with dignity.
 Mental Healthcare Act, 2017
• The major reason behind this immense step was the
realization of the fact that a person who attempts to commit
suicide is already in pain, anguish, and suffering from a
mental health issue,
• punishing that individual leads to just exasperation of the
pain and mental torture which the person is already exposed
to.
Anil K Thakur LLC

• The court believes that for a person who has failed in an

extreme attempt to end their life, the answer is to provide
rehabilitation facilities rather than putting them through a
rough patch of trial and punishment.
• The step has helped the victims to take a second chance at
living life rather than getting stuck in the legal inconvenience.
 partially decriminalized meaning

• In Mental Health Care Act, it is supposed that the

person who attempts to suicide is under extreme
stress unless it is proved otherwise.
• So, the survivor will be provided with treatment and
Anil K Thakur LLC

rehabilitation, by the Government, to avert the

repetition of an attempt to commit suicide.
 But what would be the situation if stress is not proved?
• As the enactment is quiet about what has to be done
when it is proved otherwise.
• Normally, a person commits suicide to flee from the
problems of his/her life and this proves stress.
• But when it is proved that the person had attempted
Anil K Thakur LLC

suicide, not under any stress, section 309 will be

handy to deal with such cases.
• The person will be charged for the offense of the
attempt of suicide and will be punished as per the
provision.
 Re: State vs Deepak Kohli
on 25 August, 2011
• Prosecution established beyond doubt a case U/S 309 IPC
against accused Deepak.
• He was accordingly convicted Under Section 309 IPC.
• Accused Deepak Kohli was brought to hospital by his daughter
with the alleged history of consumption of sleeping pills.
• He allegedly consumed 19 tablets of Calmpose 5 mg.
Anil K Thakur LLC

• the moment accused Deepak consumed 19 tablets his attempt to

commit suicide was complete.
• He is an educated man. As per the qualifications, he is a graduate.
Calmpose is a medicine which is strictly to be taken as prescribed
by the doctor and any dose in excess of the prescription can prove
fatal. Consumption of 19 tablets at one go is itself indicative of the
intention of accused Deepak Kohli which was nothing but to put an
end to his life.
 Criticism
• ‘Not always that a person committing suicide is under
stress’
• It is not always that a person who is committing suicide
is under extreme stress or is of unsound mind.
• Some priests and monks have killed themselves in
protest and they were found to be in complete
Anil K Thakur LLC

calmness of mind.
• the practice of Santhara (a religious ritual of voluntary
death by fasting) among Jains. There are also people
who do Santhara. The intention of Santhara is to not
commit suicide, but to liberate yourself from this
miserable world.
 Criticism
• Two laws IPC & Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 have opposing views
• Mental health experts have been demanding removal of IPC Section 309,
ever since Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 (MHCA) was enforced in July 2018.
MHCA has virtually made suicide attempts punishable only as an
exception.
• The British-era law was promulgated when killing or attempting to kill
oneself was considered a crime against the state.
• The Law Commission has twice, in 1971 and 2008, recommended the
Anil K Thakur LLC

repeal of IPC Section 309. The IPC (Amendment) Bill, 1978, was even
passed by the Rajya Sabha. But the Parliament had dissolved before it
could be passed by the Lok Sabha and the Bill lapsed.
• In March 2011, the Supreme Court also recommended that the Parliament
should consider the feasibility of repealing this Section.
• In 2018 again, a bench headed by Mr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud had
observed that it was inhuman to punish a distressed person who failed to
end her or his life by suicide.
• These two observations (2011 and 2018) came after a 1996 Constitution
bench judgment upheld the validity of Section 309.
 Complete, incomplete and impossible attempts
• Complete, incomplete and impossible attempts are included
under attempt.
• Complete attempts means that the culprit has taken every step
required for the commission of crime but still is not able to
commit it
• whereas an incomplete attempt means that the culprit had taken
Anil K Thakur LLC

steps to commit a crime however, was stopped by some

intervening force that is beyond his control before he was able to
complete the attempt.
• An impossible attempt on the other hand is when the culprit takes
certain steps toward the commission of crime but realizes that
there is something in the way that is making it impossible for the
crime to be completed. An instance of this could be that A was
trying to murder B however B was already dead.
 illustrations
• (a) “A” makes an attempt to steal some jewels by
breaking open a box, and finds after so opening the box
that there is no jewel in it. He has done an act towards
the commission of theft and therefore is guilty for
attempt to commit theft.
Anil K Thakur LLC

• (b) “A” makes an attempt to pick the pocket of “Z” by

thrusting his hand into Z’s pocket. A fails in the attempt
in consequence of Z’s having nothing in his pocket. A is
guilty for attempt to commit theft.
• Both of these illustrations are an example of an attempt
to commit the offence as mentioned under Sec. 511 IPC.
 Why ‘attempt’ is made punishable?
• If the attempt fails, the crime is not complete but the
law punishes the person attempting the act.
• An ‘attempt’ is made punishable, because every
attempt, although fails must create alarm, which, of
itself, is an injury and guilt.
Anil K Thakur LLC

• When a man does an intentional act with a view to

attaining a certain end and fails in his object through
some circumstances independent of his own will, then
that man has attempted to effect the object at which
he aimed.
 The test for determining whether the acts constitute
attempt or preparation
• The test for determining whether the acts constitute
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
Anil K Thakur LLC

done would be completely harmless.

• But where the thing is done is such that if not prevented
by any extraneous cause, would fructify into the
commission of an offence it would amount to an attempt
to commit that offence.
 Conceptualizing Criminal Attempt

• Attempt means to try or make an endeavour.

• There is a precise need to distinguish preparation
from attempt else it would lead to gross miscarriage
of justice.
Anil K Thakur LLC

• Preparation in general is not punishable, while

attempt to commit a crime is punishable under the
Code sans certain provisions.
 Conceptualizing Criminal Attempt
• Thus, an important question baffles the jurist and judges
from time to time is how to draw a dividing line between
an act of preparation and that of an attempt towards a
successful commission of a crime and to ascertain when
an act has crossed the arena of preparation and travelled
ahead to the point of an attempt.
Anil K Thakur LLC

• Also, if mens rea is the cardinal principle of substantive

penal laws upon which brutality of a crime is judged upon
and thereby the punish for the same; in that case why is
there are sudden drop in the severity of sentence where
the mens rea is same but, it is a case of unsuccessful
attempt.
 State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub AIR 1980
SC 1111
• The custom authorities received an information that silver would be
transported in a jeep and truck of particular registration from
Bombay to a coastal place on a particular night.
• On the basis of this information the authorities kept the vigil and
found vehicles of the said registration proceeding towards sea-shore
and they followed them till the jeep and truck halted where the
Anil K Thakur LLC

accused removed some small and heavy bundles from the truck and
placed them aside on the ground.
• The authorities rushed to the spot and accosted the persons present
there. At the same time, the sound of the engine of a mechanized
sea-craft from the side of the creek was heard by the authorities.
• The authorities surrounded the vehicle and found four sliver ingots
and prosecuted the accused for the offence of attempting to smuggle
silver ingots from India.
 State of Maharashtra v. Mohd.Yakub AIR
1980 SC 1111
• The Court held that the intention of the accused to export
the sliver from India by sea was clear from the
circumstances enumerated above.
• They were taking the sliver ingots concealed in the two
Anil K Thakur LLC

vehicles under cover of darkness.

• They had reached close to the sea-shore and had started
unloading the sliver there near a creek from where the
would of engine of a sea-craft was also heard.
 State of Maharashtra v. Mohd.Yakub AIR
1980 SC 1111
• The court held that the accused had gone beyond the stage
of preparation, and most of the steps necessary in the
course of export by sea had been taken.
• The only step that remained to be taken towards the export
of the silver was to load it on a sea-craft for moving out of
Anil K Thakur LLC

the territorial waters of India.

• But for the intervention of the officers of law, the unlawful
export of silver would have been consummated.
• The clandestine disappearance of the sea-craft when the
officers intercepted and rounded up the vehicles and the
accused at the creek, reinforced the inference that the
accused had deliberately attempted to export silver by sea
 State of Maharashtra v. Mohd.Yakub AIR
1980 SC 1111

• The Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v.

Mohd.Yakub, AIR 1980 SC 1111, held that the test
applied in Malkiat Singh’s case (Malkiat Singh & Anr
Anil K Thakur LLC

vs State of Punjab 1968 2SCR 663) should be

understood with reference to the facts of the case.
 Case Study

Malkiat Singh & Anr vs State of Punjab

1968 2SCR 663
Anil K Thakur LLC
 A land mark case
• The Hon’ble Supreme Court was very apt in giving the
judgment.
• This case is a land mark case which distinguished the
“preparation from attempt” and reinforced the fact that no
person can be convicted unless there is mens rea coupled
Anil K Thakur LLC

with actus reus.

• The court while interpreting the def. of attempt given by Sir
James Stephen, in his Digest of Criminal Law, Art.
50, which states “an act done with intent to commit that
crime, and forming part of a series of acts which would
constitute its actual commission if it were not interrupted”.
 Facts
• October 19, 1961 Sub Inspector Banarasi Lal of Food and Supplies
Department’ was present at Smalkha Barrier along with Head
Constable Mr. Badan Singh and others.
• The appellant Malkiat Singh then came driving truck no. P.N.U.
967. Mr. Babu Singh was the cleaner of that truck.
• The truck carried 75 bags of paddy weighing about 140 maunds.
Anil K Thakur LLC

• As the export of paddy was contrary to law, the Sub Inspector took
into possession the truck was also the bags of paddy.
• It is alleged that the consignment of paddy was booked from
Malerkotla on October 18, 1961 by Qimat Rai on behalf of Messrs
Sawan Ram Chiranji Lal. The consignee of the paddy was Messrs
Devi Dayal Brij Lal of Delhi all of whom were prosecuted.
• In the trial court Malkiat Singh admitted that he was driving the
truck which’ was loaded with 75 bags of paddy and the truck was
intercepted at Samalkha Barrier.
 Facts
• According to Malkiat Singh, he was given the paddy by the Transport
Company at Malerkotla for being transported to Delhi. The
Transport Company also gave him a letter assuring him that it was
an authority for transporting the paddy. But it later transpired that it
was a personal letter from Qimat Rai to the Commission agents at
Delhi and that it was not a letter of authority.
• Babu Singh admitted that he was sitting in the truck as a cleaner.
Anil K Thakur LLC

• The trial court convicted all the accused persons, but on appeal the
Additional Sessions Judge set aside the conviction of Sawan Ram
and Chiranji Lal and affirmed the conviction of Qimat Rai and of the
two appellants.
• The appellants took the matter in revision to the High Court but the
revision petition was dismissed on November 4, 1965.
 Issues & Arguments
Issues
• Whether upon the facts found by the lower courts any
offence has been committed by the appellants?
Arguments
• The contention of the Appellants is that the truck with the
loaded paddy was seized at Samalkha well inside the
Anil K Thakur LLC

Punjab boundary. It follows therefore that there was no

export of paddy within the meaning of Para 2(a) of the
Punjab Paddy (Export Control) Order, 1959.
• It was however argued on behalf of the respondent that
there was an attempt on the part of the appellants to
transport paddy to Delhi, and so there was an attempt to
commit the offence of export. Which was an offence under
Section 511 of IPC.
 Held (Ratio Decidendi)
• The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction
of the appellants under sec. 7 of the Essential
Commodities Act and the sentence of fine imposed
upon each of them.
Anil K Thakur LLC

• It also set aside the conviction and sentence of Qimat

Rai and the order of forfeiture passed by the trial
Magistrate with regard to 75 bags of paddy and truck
no. P.N.U. 967.
• The fines, if paid by any of the convicted persons were
to be refunded.
 Observation of the Court
(Orbiter Dicta)
• It is evident that there has been no export of paddy outside
the State of Punjab in this case and there was no attempt
on the part of the appellants to commit the offence of
export.
• It was merely a preparation on the part of the appellants
Anil K Thakur LLC

and as a matter of law a preparation for committing an

offence is different from attempt to commit it.
• The preparation consists in devising or arranging the means
or measures necessary for the commission of the offence.
On the other hand, an attempt to commit the offence is a
direct movement towards the commission after
preparations are made.
 Observation of the Court
(Orbiter Dicta)
• In order that a person may be convicted of an attempt to commit ‘a
crime, he must be shown first to have had an intention to commit the
offence, and secondly to have done an act which constitutes the
actus reus of a criminal attempt.
• The sufficiency of the actus reus is a question of law which had led to
difficulty because of the necessity of distinguishing between acts
Anil K Thakur LLC

which are merely preparatory to the commission of a crime, and

those which are sufficiently proximate to it to amount to an attempt
to commit it.
• For example-If a man buys a box of matches, he cannot be convicted
of attempted, arson, however clearly it may be proved that he
intended to set fire to a haystack at the time of the purchase. Nor can
he be convicted of this offence if he approaches the stack with the
matches in his pocket, but, if he bends down near the stack and
lights a match which he extinguishes on perceiving that he is being
watched, he may be guilty of an attempt to burn it.
 Observation of the Court
(Orbiter Dicta)
• In the present case it is quite possible that the appellants
may have been warned that they had no license to carry the
paddy and they may have changed their mind at any place
between Samalkha Barrier and the Delhi-Punjab boundary
and not have proceeded further in their journey.
Anil K Thakur LLC

• Section 8 of the Essential Commodities Act states that “any

person who attempts to contravene, or abets a contravention
of, any order made under section 3 shall be deemed to have
contravened that order.
• But there is no provision in the Act which makes a
preparation to commit an offence punishable. It follows
therefore that the appellants should not have been convicted
under s. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.
 Abhayanand Mishra v. State of Bihar
AIR 1961 SC 1968
• In Abhayanand Mishra’s Case the appellant intended to
deceive the University and obtain necessary permission
and admission card to enable him to seek admission and
sit at the examination. He not only sent an application for
permission to sit in the University examinations, but also
followed it up, on getting the necessary permission, by
Anil K Thakur LLC

remitting the necessary fees and editing the copies of his

photograph, on the receipt of which the University did
issue the admission card.
• The court held that there was hardly any scope for saying
that what the appellant had actually done did not amount
to his attempting to commit offence of cheating and had
not gone beyond the stage of preparation.
 Abhayanand Mishra v. State of Bihar
AIR 1961 SC 1968
• The court held that the preparation was complete when he had
prepared the application for the purposes of submission to the
University in which he had made false representation about his
qualification and about his experience that he was an experienced
teacher when he was neither qualified to apply for the admission nor
had he the requisite teaching experience to entitle him consideration
for admission to B.Ed. course.
Anil K Thakur LLC

• The court held that the moment he dispatched it, he entered the realm
of attempting to commit the offence of "cheating". He did succeed in
deceiving the University and induced it to issue the admission card. He
just failed to get it and sit for the examination because something
beyond his control took place inasmuch as the University was informed
about his being neither a graduate nor a teacher.
• The court accordingly held that he had been rightly convicted of the
offence under Section 420, read with Section 511 of the IPC.
 Om Parkash v. State of Punjab
AIR 1961 SC 1782
• In this case the husband and the mother-in-law of the
victim had subjected her to acts of cruelty and they had
intention to kill her by starvation.
• The girl had become a bonny skeleton by their willful
omission to provide food to her. She had managed to run
away and thus was saved.
Anil K Thakur LLC

• The court nonetheless held that the accused having guilty

mind by subjecting her to starvation by providing her
occasionally only the morsel of food, had not only prepared
to commit an offence of murder but had illegally been
omitting their duty to provide her food and, therefore, had
attempted to commit her murder and, therefore, were liable
to punishment under Section 307.
 Om Parkash v. State of Punjab
AIR 1961 SC 1782
• In this case the Supreme Court held that the principles which
govern the liability under Sec 511 also govern attempt to commit
murder under Section 307.
• The court held that a person commits an offence under Section
511, when he intends to commit that particular offence and,
having made preparations and with the intention to commit that
Anil K Thakur LLC

offence does an act towards its commission and that such an act
need not be penultimate act towards the commission of that
offence, but must be an act during the course of committing such
offence. It follows, therefore, that a person commits an offence
under Section 308 when he has an intention to commit culpable
homicide not amount to murder and in pursuance of that intention
does an act towards the commission of that offence whether that
act be the penultimate act or not.
 Om Parkash v. State of Punjab
AIR 1961 SC 1782

• The court further observed that Sections 308 and 511

are expressed in similar language and, therefore, on
parity of reasoning, a person commits an offence of
culpable homicide amounting to murder under Section
Anil K Thakur LLC

307 when he has an intention to commit murder and in

pursuance of that intention does an act towards its
commission irrespective of the fact whether that act is
the penultimate act or not.
 ACT NOT PUNISHABLE IF INTRINSICALLY DEFECTIVE

• Act of the accused not punishable for attempt to commit an offence where the act
is intrinsically useless or defective:
• In Asgarali Pradhania v. Emperors AIR 1933 Cal 893, the accused was not held
guilty of attempting to cause a miscarriage of the woman with whom he had illicit
relations and who had become pregnant.
• The Court held that although he had brought mixture which he tried to administer
with intent to cause miscarriage, the substance that he administered was
innocuous and was not capable of causing miscarriage and, therefore, the
preparation was defective and the act done by him was a useless act which could
Anil K Thakur LLC

not be said to be an act towards the commission of an offence of causing

miscarriage.
• The court held that there is a distinction between acts which are capable of
producing forbidden consequences but the consequence do not result in one
because of some supervening circumstance intervening independent of the
accused and an act which is intrinsically useless and incapable of producing
forbidden consequence because impossibility lies with the accused. In the former
case he is while as in the latter he is not liable for an attempt to commit the
offence.
 The Beginning & Culmination of Attempt:
• A very challenging part in the theory of attempt is identification
of the specific point at which the offender crosses the stage of
Preparation and steps into the stage of Attempt.
• In other words, although we understand that attempt refers to
an action or a course of action which is more than preparatory,
at what point of time does the offender do something which can
be labelled as ‘more than preparatory’?
Anil K Thakur LLC

• Further, there may be situations where attempt and preparation

may appear to blend into each other, and then the issue
becomes even more complicated.
• Whether an act has reached the stage of attempt or was ‘merely
preparatory’ becomes a greater debate in cases where an
attempt has been interrupted at some level.
 Preparation & Attempt: Demarcation
• The difficulty in certain cases arises in determining
culpability of a person whose act is a borderline case
between preparation and attempt.
• If such case is treated as preparation to commit crime,
he is not liable. But if it is considered as an attempt, he
Anil K Thakur LLC

would be liable. It means an attempt to commit

offence begins when the state of preparation ends.
• Courts in India, in many cases have stressed that there
is a thin line between the preparation for and attempt
to commit an offence.
 Preparation & Attempt: Demarcation
• No universal test/rule can be laid down to determine
whether a particular act amounts to preparation or whether
it actually amounts to an attempt to commit an offence.
• Courts have held repeatedly whether the act is at the stage
of preparation or it has reached the stage of attempt
depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.
Anil K Thakur LLC

However, some tests/principles can be deducted from judicial

decisions to determine whether a particular act or series of acts
has crossed the stage of preparation to enter into the area of
attempt to commit an offence.
• Various prominent tests which have been developed and
applied by the Courts in India for distinguishing between attempt
and preparation are given hereunder.
 Distinguishing Preparation & Attempt
• It is simple to say that an attempt to commit offences
begins where preparation to commit it ends, but it is
difficult to find out where one ends and the other
begins.
• To solve this riddle, various tests have been laid down
Anil K Thakur LLC

by the courts over a period of time, courts have tried to

come up with various tests to determine whether a
particular act amounts only to preparation or attempt.
• Some of the important tests are as follows:
 But mind one test doesn't fit all situations
• Commentators are almost unanimous in disapproving
attempt tests that offer a single formula applicable to
all attempt situation thus negating the one size fits all
situation and rightly so for which in depth analysis of
other tests like the Locus Poenitentiae, Social Danger
Anil K Thakur LLC

Test, Equivocality, Impossibility, Substantial Step, etc.

 intended crime may fail
• An intended crime may fail of accomplishment -
(1) because accused abandoned the idea after preparation on
his own;
(2) because the means used are inadequate;
Anil K Thakur LLC

(3) because an unforeseen obstacle intervenes; or

(4) because the object upon which it is intended to be
committed is not present.
• In the first three cases, since there is no doubt as to the
criminal intent, the only point to be considered is whether
the act done is of sufficient importance for the law to notice
it whether it is such as to cause alarm to society.
 Tests laid down by courts
• The Proximity test
• The Locus Poenitentiae test
• The Impossibility test
Anil K Thakur LLC

• The Social Danger test

• The Unequivocality test
 1st rule is known by various names
• PROXIMITY RULE
or
• LAST STEP TEST
Anil K Thakur LLC

or
• CLOSELY CONNECT RULE
or
• Determine Attempt
 The Proximity Rule
or
Determine Attempt
• The test of proximity was developed on the premise that an act
will qualify as an attempt if it is found to be proximate to the
commission of the complete offence.
• Proximity commonly suggests nearness or closeness to
Anil K Thakur LLC

something.
• On several occasions, this test has been used to identify whether
a course of action or conduct will qualify as an attempt.
• An illustration of this principle can be found in the case of Regina
v. Taylor (175 Eng. Rep. 831 (1859). In this case, the court fixed
liability on the offender who had lighted the matchstick to set fire
to a stack of hay but extinguished it as soon as he realized that he
was being watched.
 The Proximity Rule or Determine Attempt
• This test states that all the essential steps that
constitute the crime have been committed and the only
consequence of the crime has not taken place.
• The act of attempt should be sufficiently proximate to
the crime. It should not be a remote act to the crime.
Anil K Thakur LLC

• This theory originates from the case of Regina v John

Eagleton [1854] Eng R 34 where Justice Baron Parke
commented that a criminal attempt begins when the
offender loses all control over the situation/crime by
doing that last act.
 Regina v John Eagleton [1854] EngR 34
• The baker in the parish of Great Yarmouth, Mr. Eagleton
(Eagleton, 1855), signed a contract to supply bread to give
to the poor.
• He got a ticket from a needy person for each loaf of bread.
• Then he reported the number of loaves supplied with
collected tickets to an officer who would credit his account
Anil K Thakur LLC

and pay him later.

• Before the first payment it was found that Mr. Eagleton had
given bread loaves to the poor weighting much less than the
contracted specification.
• Hence, he was convicted for attempting to obtain money by
false pretenses.
 The Proximity Rule or Determine Attempt
• According to this test/rule an act or series of acts
constitute an attempt if the offender has completed
all or at any rate all the more important steps
necessary to constitute the offence, but the
consequence which is the essential ingredient of the
Anil K Thakur LLC

offence has not taken place.

• In order to designate an act or series of acts as
attempt to commit an offence, the act or series of
acts must be sufficiently proximate to the
accomplishment of the intended substantive
offence.
 The Proximity Rule or Determine Attempt
• In other words, an act or series of acts must be sufficiently
proximate and not remotely connected, to the crime
intended.
• An act of the accused is considered proximate, even
though it is not the last that he intended to do, is the last
act that was legally necessary for him to do, if the
contemplated result is afterwards brought about without
Anil K Thakur LLC

further conduct on his part.

• For instance A shoots at B intending to kill him but misses
the mark for want of skill or any other defect in the gun and
the like, he would be liable for attempt to kill. The
proximate test was the basis of the Supreme Court
decision in Abhyanand Mishra, Md.Yakub & Sudhir Kumar
Mukherjee’s Case.
 Abhyanand Mishra v. State of Bihar
AIR 1961 SC 1698
• In Abhyanand Mishra’s case the accused prepared false
experience certificate for appearing in M.A. examination
of Patna University Roll Number was issued to him.
• On complaint against him and consequent holding of
Anil K Thakur LLC

inquiry, his candidature was cancelled and criminal case

of attempt to cheat was registered against.
• He pleaded that his act was only preparation but the
Apex Court held that act to be an attempt. In order to cheat
the university he did everything whatever he could do, but
he could not cheat the university due to circumstances
beyond his control.
 State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub AIR
1980 SC 1111
• In Mohd. Yaktib’s case, the accused were arrested by
officials of Central Excise for attempting to smuggle silver
out of India Custom officials arrested them when they
had brought silver ingots in a truck.
• The accused were found to have kept some small and
Anil K Thakur LLC

heavy parcels on the ground. At the same time, the

sound of a mechanised sea/craft was also heard.
• The trial court convicted the accused of attempting to
smuggle silver out of India.
• Under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and the
Customs Act the court of Additional Sessions Judge,
acquitted them as their act did not go beyond preparation.
• The High Court dismissed State appeal against acquittal.
 State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub AIR
1980 SC 1111
• The Supreme Court on appeal by the State, however’, set aside the
acquittal by holding that the accused had committed the offence of
attempting to export silver out of India by sea in contravention of
Law.
• Two different but concurrent judgments were given by Justice Sarkaria
and Justice Chinappa Reddy. The main contention of Justice Chinappa
Reddy's regarding proximity rule is in relation to intention but not in
Anil K Thakur LLC

relation to time and action, whereas Justice Sarkaria considered

proximity in terms of the actual physical proximity rather than the
intention oriented proximity, the objective of the intended crime.
• He observed: Broadly speaking . . . Overt act or step in order to be
‘criminal’ need not be the penultimate act towards the commission of
the offence. It is sufficient if such an act or acts manifest a clear
intention to commit the offence aimed, being reasonably proximate
to the consummation of the offence.
 State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub
AIR 1980 SC 1111
• Therefore, the determination of proximity rule, as per Justice
Chinappa Reddy, relates with the proximity of ‘State of mind’
or intention of the doer with the intended crime.
• Justice Sarkaria considers its determination in terms of
‘physical proximity’ of the doer with the commission of the
intended crime.
Anil K Thakur LLC

• The line of reasoning, in the backdrop of the requisite of

committing an act towards the commission of the offence’
advanced by Justice Sarkaria appears to be more logical than
that of Justice Reddy's as proximity generally, refers to the
sequence of acts leading to and closely connected with the
commission of the contemplated offence.
• The view that an attempted crime should be punished as there is
mens rea in the attempt, is gaining ground in modern times, both in
England as well as in our own country.
 Doctrine of Locus Poenitentiae
• This test means that the law provided time to every
offender before he is in the grips of the law.
• If he is still in the stages where he can undo his crime
and does not follow up with his crime, then the law
will not punish him.
Anil K Thakur LLC

• If he follows through with his criminal design, it will

be said he has crossed the stage of preparation.
 The Locus Poenitentiate test
• The Latin expression speaks about time for
repentance.
• In Locus Poenitentiae the word Locus means, a place,
a word frequently used to denote the place in or at
which some material act or even such as crime or
Anil K Thakur LLC

breach of contract took place.

• Locus Poenitentiae means the opportunity to withdraw
from a bargain before it has become fully Constituted
and become binding.
 The Locus Poenitentiate test
• In simple language an act will amount to a mere
preparation if a man on his own accord, before the
criminal act is carried out, gives it up.
• It is, thus, possible that he might of its own accord, or
because of the fear of unpleasant consequence that
Anil K Thakur LLC

might follow, desists from attempt.

• If this happens, he does not go beyond the limits of
preparation and does not enter the arena of attempt.
• He is, at the stage of preparation which can not be
punished.
 Regina v. Padala Venkatasami
(1881) I.L.R. 3 Mad. 4
• In a case of Regina v. Padala Venkatasami, the preparation
of a copy of an intended false document, together with the
purchase of stamped paper for the purpose of writing that
false document and the securing of information about the
facts to be inserted in the document, were held not to
Anil K Thakur LLC

amount to an attempt to commit forgery, because the

accused had not, in doing these acts, proceeded to do an act
towards the commission of the offence of forgery.
• The court did not punish the accused of attempt despite him
having procured all the material and information for forgery
because he was not beyond the stage of preparation and the
law allows locus poenitentiae.
 Doctrine of Locus Poenitentiae
• The doctrine of locus poenitentiae denotes the
possibility of person who, having made preparations
to commit an offence actually backs out of
committing it, due to change of heart or out of any
other type of compulsion or fear.
Anil K Thakur LLC

• Therefore, an act will amount to a mere preparation

and not an attempt, if the person of his own accord,
drops the idea of committing a crime before the
doing of a criminal act.
 Doctrine of Locus Poenitentiae
• In other words, as long as the steps taken by the
person leave opportunity for a reasonable expectation
that he might, either of his own because of fear of
consequences that he might face or for whatever reason,
desist from going further for the contemplated act, then in
Anil K Thakur LLC

law, he will be treated at the stage of preparation and

criminal liability will not be fastened on him.
• However, if he stops from moving further due to his being
detected or because the police officer was at his
elbow, then he ceases to be a beneficiary of the
doctrine of locus poenitentiae, because thereafter he
has no time for repentance.
 Doctrine of Locus Poenitentiae
• The doctrine of locus poenitentiae is also one of the
modalities to determine whether an act can qualify as
attempt.
• The doctrine is based on the idea that it is possible for a
person to make preparation to commit a crime and then
Anil K Thakur LLC

back out from actual commission due to various

reasons, psychological or circumstantial.
 Doctrine of Locus Poenitentiae
• The Supreme Court of India applied this doctrine in the case of
Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1970 SC 713.
• In this case conviction of appellants was set aside by the Supreme
Court on the ground that their acts were only at the stage of
preparation.
• The Court observed that in order to determine whether an overt
act amounted to attempt or preparation it was necessary to figure
Anil K Thakur LLC

out whether or not the nature of acts was such that if the appellant
changed his mind, the act will be completely harmless.
• If harm does not ensue, then the act will qualify as preparation
only and in a case where the actions have the potential to lead to
harmful consequences, the act will qualify as Attempt.
• In State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub AIR 1980 1111
(Mohd.Yakub’s case) the Supreme Court held that the test of
locus poenitentiae, is not to be treated as a general rule and
should be limited to a particular context.
 Malkit Singh v. State of Punjab
AIR 1970 SC 713
• The Supreme Court applying this doctrine, in Malkit Singh v. State of Punjab
ordered acquittal of truck driver and helper of a truck convicted by a lower court
of attempting to smuggle paddy out of Punjab.
• In this case the accused, driver and cleaner were intercepted at Smalkha,
barrier post in Punjab, which was 14 miles from the Punjab-Delhi border, driving a
truck containing 75 bags of paddy.
• A letter written by the consigner in Punjab to the consignee in Delhi was also
recovered from the possession of the driver.
Anil K Thakur LLC

• They were charged with the offence of attempting to (smuggle) export paddy
in violation of the Punjab Paddy (Export Control) Order 1959. The Apex Court
quashed the conviction of the accused by holding that their acts were still at
the stage of preparation.
• It observed: The test for determination whether the act of the appellants
constituted 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 act already done would be completely harmless.
 different view followed by SC thereafter
• However, due to subsequent changes in substantive law
relating especially to socio- economic offences, a
different view than that of Malltit Singh’s case was
followed thereafter.
• Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, was
amended in 1967 by the Parliament. After amendment,
Anil K Thakur LLC

if any person contravenes, whether knowingly or

intentionally or otherwise, any order made under
Section 3 (Prohibiting Export of Fertilizer), then he
would be liable for punishment. The changed law came
to be considered by the Supreme Court in the case of
State of M.P. v. Narayan Singh AIR 1989 SC 1789.
 State of M.P. v. Narayan Singh
AIR 1989 SC 1789
• The issue in this case was whether the lorry and cleaner of two lorries
carrying fertilizer without license, and intercepted on the highway between
Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh would be liable for contravention of the
Fertilizer (Movement Control) Order 1973 read with Sec 3 and 7 of the
Essential Commodities Act, 1955, for attempting to smuggle fertilizers.
• The trial court acquitted the accused in both cases on the ground that the
prosecution had failed to prove that the accused were attempting to smuggle
fertilizer.
Anil K Thakur LLC

• Since, the High Court refused to intervene, the State went in appeal to
Supreme Court. The Apex Court held that it was not a case of mere
preparation, viz., the respondents trying to procure fertilizer bags from
someone or trying to engage a lorry for taking these bags to Maharashtra.
• It is difficult to say that the respondents were taking the lorries with
fertilizer bags in them for innocuous purposes or for the mere thrill or
amusement and they would have stopped well ahead of the border and
taken back the lorries and fertilizer bags to the original place of dispatch or
to some other place in M.P. State itself.
• Therefore, these were clear cases of attempted unlawful export of the fertilizer
bags and not case of mere preparation alone.
 Mallkit Singh cannot be accepted as a general rule
• The doctrine of locus poenitentiea as propounded in Malkit Singh
cannot be accepted as a general rule and it is to be confined to the
particular facts of the case.
• While explaining the logic of the observation regarding the rule in
Mallkit Singh’s case, the Apex Court opined:
“We think...that the test propounded should be understood
with reference to the facts of the case............. the test is propounded
with reference to the particular facts of the case and not as a general
Anil K Thakur LLC

rule. Otherwise, in every case where an accused is interrupted

interrupted he was about to change his mind. However, the logic about
change of mind in Malkit Singh’s case and holding the act at the stage
of preparation seems to be against probabilities. When truck was
loaded and was to be taken to a particular distance, the truck driver
or cleaner, who were just carrying the goods, could not be
expected to change their mind.”
• In such a situation, they have done act towards commission of the
offence but fail due to the circumstances beyond their control.
Such act is not preparation but attempt.
 Unequivocality Test
(Unambiguous/Leaving no Doubt:
Clear and unambiguous from the intention of the accused)

• The test of Equivocality suggests that an act will qualify

as an attempt only if it unequivocally indicates that the
offender intended to commit the offence.
• The test dwells on the theme that only when one’s
Anil K Thakur LLC

actions clearly reflect his intention can he be held liable

for attempt.
• There should not be any room for doubt in such cases.
 Unequivocality Test (Unambiguous/Leaving no Doubt)
• The unequivocality test, suggests, that an act done
towards the commission of the offence would amount
to an attempt to commit an offence, if and only if, it
indicates beyond reasonable doubt what is the end
towards which it is directed’ i.e. if it unequivocally
indicates the intention of the doer to accomplish the
Anil K Thakur LLC

criminal object.
• The actus reus of an attempt to commit a specific
crime is constituted when the accused does an act which
is a step towards the commission of that specific offence
and the doing of such act cannot reasonably be
regarded as having any other purpose than the
commission of the specific crime.
 State v. Parasmal AIR 1969 Raj 65
• In the case of State v. Parasmal the accused received an order on
buying diesel of good quality and they asked the customer to
come the next day. That night the accused were seen mixing the
diesel with kerosene and were charged with the offence by the
next day.
• The accused claimed that what they did was mere preparation.
Then the court observed that when they knew that the customer
Anil K Thakur LLC

was going to come the next day and in furtherance, the accused
tried to add diesel and kerosene night itself so that they are not
caught or seen by the customer. And they did so to act in a way to
cheat that diesel was of good quality.
• Hence this shows how equivocally they acted in furtherance of
their intention. Thus, the test was observed to be useful in
determining the equivocality.
 Unequivocality Test (Unambiguous/Leaving no Doubt)
• A criminal attempt bears criminal intent upon its face.
• In other words, if what is done indicates unequivocally
and beyond reasonable doubt the intention to commit
the offence, it is an attempt, or else it is a mere
preparation.
Anil K Thakur LLC
 Om Parkash v. State of Punjab
AIR 1961 SC 1872
• Bimla got married to appellant but after some time their relation
got strained as she was ill-treated and her health deteriorated
because of maltreatment and malnourishment. Hence, she left
her husband’s house.
• Her husband’s maternal uncle convinced him to come back home
with the assurance that she’ll not be again maltreated.
Anil K Thakur LLC

• After coming back to her husband’s home, she was again

maltreated and was locked in a room, but somehow she tried to
escape from there and reached a civil hospital in Ludhiana.
• Before Dying she made a statement which is known as a dying
declaration in front of the magistrate. On that behalf case was
registered against the appellant.
• High court concluded that the statement made by the victim was
correct and her condition was all because of the maltreatment.
 ISSUES FRAMED:
Whether the act committed by the accused fall under
Section 307 or not?
JUDGEMENT:
• Court held that the facts and circumstances show that
the appellants have done an act knowing that this act
Anil K Thakur LLC

can lead to the death of the victim. Court quoted a line

that “Beginning of attempt is in itself an attempt”.
• Therefore, the appellant was held liable under section
307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as he has done a
series of acts that can be considered as an attempt.
Hence, the appeal was rejected.
 Nature of act is important

• For instance, in case of attempt to commit murder

by fire arms, the act amounting to commit an
attempt to commit murder is bound to be the only and
the last act to be done by the culprit.
Anil K Thakur LLC

• Till he fires, he does not do any act towards the

commission of the offence and once he fires, and
something happens to prevent the shot taking effect,
the offence of attempt to commit murder is made
out.
 CONCLUSION
The two key ingredients of section 307
are intention or knowledge and an act. The act includes
any or both particular acts and a series of acts.
Therefore, the appellant has done a series of acts that
can be considered as an attempt and also has a
Anil K Thakur LLC

knowledge of the offence that he was committing.

Hence, the appellant was held liable under section 307.
 The Impossibility test
• An interesting question arises for consideration,
namely, does a step forward in the direction of
committing an impossible act amount to an offence to
commit offence i.e. can there be an attempt to commit an
act which is impossible?
• Under the English Law, the earlier law that a person
Anil K Thakur LLC

could not be convicted for an attempt to do the

impossible was finally overruled in R v. Ring (1892) 17, 491
where it was held that impossibility of performance does
not per se render the attempt guiltless.
• In R. v. Ring, the accused was convicted for an attempt to
steal from a woman’s coat although the coat was empty.
 The Impossibility test
• Yes, the law does not leave the attempter of crimes
which is impossible to achieve as an innocent.
• This is evident from the illustrations (a) & (b) provided
by the makers of IPC in sec 511.
• Because even though the act has become impossible
Anil K Thakur LLC

due to any reason the fact that the accused had the
intention to commit it, a preparation made for it and
had taken a step ahead towards the completion of the
crime is what was punishable under IPC.
 The Impossibility test
• Under Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code also, an attempt is
possible . . .even when the offence attempted cannot be
committed…….. It is possible to attempt to commit impossible theft
and offend against the Code.
• Though the legal frame work relating to law of attempt in the Penal
Code does not specifically deal with impossible attempts yet a
careful reading of illustrations (a) and (b) appended to Section 511
shows that a person can be held guilty of attempting to steal some
Anil K Thakur LLC

jewels from empty jewel box or something from empty pocket.

• These two illustrations, by necessary implication, lay down a rule
that a person becomes liable for attempting to commit an
impossible act (stealing jewels from empty jewel box or something
from empty pocket), if he with intent to commit the intended offence,
has done everything within his reach to commit the intended
offence but his criminal objective could not be achieved due to
circumstances unknown to him or beyond his control.
 The Impossibility test
• Under Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code also, an attempt is possible even
when the offence attempted cannot be committed. It is possible to
attempt to commit impossible theft and offend against the Code.
• Though the legal frame work relating to law of attempt in the Penal Code
does not specifically deal with impossible attempts yet a careful reading
of illustrations (a) and (b) appended to Section 511 shows that a person
can be held guilty of attempting to steal some jewels from empty jewel box or
something from empty pocket.
• These two illustrations, by necessary implication, lay down a rule that a
Anil K Thakur LLC

person becomes liable for attempting to commit an impossible act

(stealing jewels from empty jewel box or something from empty pocket), if
he with intent to commit the intended offence, has done everything within
his reach to commit the intended offence but his criminal objective could
not be achieved due to circumstances unknown to him or beyond his
control.
 The Impossibility test
• If a person attempts to commit a crime which is
impossible, then also it will be punishable under the
Indian Penal Code.
• If a person attempts to kill someone by empty gun, or
steal something from an empty pocket, or steal jewels
Anil K Thakur LLC

from empty jewel box. Then it is considered as an

impossible attempt of committing that crime but here
intention to commit the crime is present and also a step
is taken towards completion of that crime.
• Thus it is considered as ‘attempt to crime’ under Section
511 of the IPC.
 Madan Lal v. State of J & K
AIR 1998 SC 386
• In case of sexual offences especially of rape, the
person who with the intention to commit rape,
disrobes the woman, lie her flat and then tries to
have sex with her but before he could penetrate, he
Anil K Thakur LLC

ejaculates, he would be liable for attempt to

commit rape and not under Section 354 IPC
 The Social Danger test
• In order to distinguished and differentiate an act of
attempt from an act of preparation the following
factors are contributed under this test:
Anil K Thakur LLC

a. The seriousness of the crime attempted;

b. The apprehension of the social danger involved.
 The Social Danger test
• In this test the accused's conduct is not examined only
partially but the consequence of the circumstances and
the fullness of the facts are taken into consideration.
• For example, X administers some pills to a pregnant
woman in order to procure abortion.
Anil K Thakur LLC

• However, since the pills are innocuous they do not produce

the result. In spite of this X would be held liable for an
attempt from the view point of the social danger test, as
his act would cause as alarm to society causing social
repercussions.
 The Social Danger test
• The social danger test states that any attempt to do a
crime does not proceed until the offender has
committed an act which should be punished in order to
protect society.
• Certain factors such as the gravity of the offence, how
Anil K Thakur LLC

near the act was to completion of the crime and the

probability that the conduct will result in the crime is
considered.
• This test is based on the principle that punishment is
meant to deter people from acting in a way that is
harmful to society.
 The Social Danger test
• Supreme Court on November 20, 2019 in a latest
judgment titled Chaitu Lal vs State of Uttarakhand in
Criminal Appeal No. 2127 of 2019 has upheld the
conviction of a man under Section 376 read with
Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code for attempt of
Anil K Thakur LLC

rape of a woman.
• The Apex Court has made it clear that the attempt to
commit an offence begins when the accused
commences to do an act with the necessary intention.
 Chaitu Lal vs State of Uttarakhand
2019 SCC OnLine SC 1496
• The brief facts are that the complainant-victim is the
aunt of the accused-appellant. The accused-appellant
had earlier also committed indecent behavior with the
complainant-victim, which is the subject matter of
another criminal proceeding. On 12.01.1991, the
Anil K Thakur LLC

accused-appellant after seeing the complainant-victim

alone took advantage of the same and attempted to
molest her.
• On the same date at around 10:00 P.M while the
complainant-victim along with her daughters was
sleeping in her house, the accused-appellant entered
into the house of the victim.
 Chaitu Lal vs State of Uttarakhand
2019 SCC OnLine SC 1496
• While the complainant-victim was getting up from her bed,
the accused-appellant pounced upon her making her fall into
the bed. The accused-appellant thereafter lifted her
petticoat, sat upon her and attempted to commit rape.
• Upon hearing the noise, the daughter of the complainant-
Anil K Thakur LLC

victim (P.W.2) got up and beseeched the accused-appellant

to let go of her mother. Upon hearing the commotion, certain
other villagers interfered, accused-appellant ran away after
threatening the complainant-victim.
• Thereafter, the complainant-victim narrated the entire
incident to her husband, pursuant to which they approached
the Court of the CJM to file the complaint on 16.01.1991
 Chaitu Lal vs State of Uttarakhand
2019 SCC OnLine SC 1496
• The counsel on behalf of the accused-appellant submitted that
accused-appellant has been framed by the complainant-victim
pursuant to certain existing enmity. Further, it was pleaded that
the FIR was registered with a delay of 3 days and the prosecution
has failed to explain the same.
• Lastly, the evidence of the witnesses does not suggest any liability
Anil K Thakur LLC

for offence under Section 511 read with Section 376 of IPC.“
• On the contrary, the counsel for the State has supported the
concurrent judgments of conviction passed against the accused-
appellant.
• Considering the facts and circumstances, the guilt of the accused-
appellant has been established beyond doubt. In our opinion,
therefore, the courts below have rightly convicted and sentenced
the accused.
 Judicial View
(Cases already discussed)
Anil K Thakur LLC
 Abhayanand Mishra vs The State Of Bihar
AIR 1961 SC 1698
• In this case, the accused falsely showed he was a
graduate. He tried to appear as a private candidate in
an M.A examination through a permission letter but
was debarred from appearing and prosecuted.
• In this case, the court held that the attempt to commit
Anil K Thakur LLC

an offence begins when all the preparations are

complete and he takes a step towards the commission
of the offence.
• It does not matter if this direction towards the
commencement fails due to external factors, it is still
an attempt.
 Malkiat Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab AIR
1970 SC 713
• In this case,a truck carrying paddy from Punjab was stopped by a sub-
inspector and was taken into possession 18 miles from Delhi. He was
accused of violating the Punjab Paddy order. The driver admitted he was
transporting the paddy towards Delhi.
• The court held the driver was not guilty of violating Section 7 of the Essential
Commodities Act and Paddy Export Control Order as he has not crossed the
Anil K Thakur LLC

stage of preparation and still had time to change his mind.

• The court commented that preparation consists of arranging the means
necessary for the commencement of the offence. On the other hand,
attempt is a direct movement towards the commission after preparations
have been made.
• The test that the court set down to demarcate the two is that if the act in
question is such that if the offender changes his mind, the act and the
previous acts would be rendered harmless.
 State Of Maharashtra vs Mohd. Yakub S/O Abdul Hamid & Ors
AIR 1980 SC 1111
• In this case, the accused tried to smuggle silver out of India. They
were convicted for the violation of the Foreign Exchange Regulation
Act, Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947 and Customs Act, 1962.
While the appellate court acquitted them, the Supreme Court
convicted them for an attempt to export silver.
• The court held that for an act to be considered an attempt, there
must be three ingredients. First, there must be an intention to do
Anil K Thakur LLC

the act. Second, some act must have been done which would have
been done towards the commission of the act and third, the act
must be proximate to the crime.
• Proximity is not with regards to time and place but with regards to
intention. The act must show an intention that is distinguished from
mere desire or object to commit the particular offence. It must be
seen in conjunction with other facts and circumstances and not
necessarily in isolation. They also established that what constitutes
an attempt depends largely on the facts of the case.
 4. Accomplishment Or Completion
Anil K Thakur LLC
 Accomplishment Or Completion
• The last stage in the commission of an offence is its
accomplishment or completion.
• If the accused succeeds in his attempt to commit the crime, he will
be guilty of the complete offence and
• if his attempt is unsuccessful he will be guilty of an attempt only.
Anil K Thakur LLC

• For instance, ‘X’ fires at ‘Z’ with the intention to kill him. If he dies in
it, ‘X’ will be liable for the offence of 'Murder' under Section 302 of
IPC and if he is only injured, ‘X’ will be liable for the Offence of
under Section 307 of IPC that is attempt to murder.
• It means in case of completion of offence, the offender shall be
liable to be punished under the specific provisions of the code.
Anil K Thakur LLC

online-pdf-no-copy.com