Stage of crime under IPC, 1860

 Stage of crime under IPC, 1860

INTRODUCTION

STAGES OF CRIME Under IPC, 1860 If a person commits a crime than the doing of it involves four different stages.

1.  Intention
2. Preparation 
3. Attempt  
4. Commission

Intention

First stage in commission of crime and known as mental stage.It is the desire to commit an act. Intention is the direction of conduct towards the object. Mere intention to commit an offence not followed by any act, cannot constitute an offence.The accused is not prosecuted at this stage because it is very difficult for the prosecution to prove the guilt mind of the person.

 Preparation

Preparation means to arrange the necessary measures for the commission of the intended criminal act. Intention followed by a 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 the preparations in the question were made for the commission of a particular crime.

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 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.

Preparation when Punishable

In some exceptional cases preparation is punishable, following are some examples of such exceptional circumstances:

1. Preparation to wage war against the Government -Section 122.
2. Preparation to commit depredation on territories of a power at peace with Government of India- Section 126.
3. Preparation to commit dacoity- Section 399.
4. Preparation for counterfeiting of coins or Government stamps- Sections 233-235, S. 255 and S. 257.

Attempt

An attempt to commit a crime is 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. Attempt is the direct movement towards the commission of a crime. The act is more than mere preparation to the commission of an offence. An attempt creates alarm which of itself is an injury. The act may be sufficiently harmful to the society by reason of its close proximity to the completed offence. So criminal law takes into consideration the attempt and punishes it accordingly.

There are three essentials of an attempt:-

1. Guilty intention to commit an offence.
2. Some act done towards the commission of the offence.
3. The act must fall short of the completed offence.

Attempts under IPC

The Indian Penal Code has dealt with attempt in the following four different ways-

1. Completed offences and attempts have been dealt with in the same section and same punishment is prescribed for both. For instance, Section 121, 124-A, 391.

2.Attempts to commit offences and commission of specific offences have been dealt with separately and separate punishment is provided. For instance, murder is punished under section 302 and attempt to murder under Section 307.

3. Attempt to commit suicide is punished under section 309.

4. All other cases 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.

Test to Identify Attempt

It is easy to say that an attempt to commit offence begins where preparation ends, but it is very difficult to find out where one ends and other begins. To determine this various tests has been laid down by the court.

1. Proximity test: This test states that if an act is near to the accomplishment of the offence than it amounts to an attempt. It measures the defendant’s progress by examining how close the defendant is to completing the offence.

Abhayanand Mishra vs State of Bihar, AIR 1961 SC 1698.

In this case, the accused applied to Patna University for M.A. examination on the basis that he has obtained a B.A. degree. Relying on the accused, the University issued admit card to accused. After enquiry the University found that the accused was not a graduate and he had been debarred from taking university examination due to corrupt practices. He was charged with attempt to commit cheating. The court upholding the conviction stated that when a person makes preparation with intention and does an act towards its commission than it is an attempt to commit offence.

2. Locus Poenitentiae Test: It is a Latin phrase, which means opportunity to withdraw. So long as the steps taken by the accused leaves room for a reasonable expectation that he might befall or for whatsoever reason, desist from going ahead with the contemplated act, then he will be treated in law, as only being in preparation.

Malkait Singh vs State of Punjab (AIR 1970 SC 713)

Here the appellant was arrested by Punjab Police 32 Miles before the Punjab –Delhi border for exporting rice to Delhi without license. The court held that it was mere preparation. It was quite possible that the appellant might have change their mind at any place before reaching the border and would not have proceeded further in their journey.

3. The Unequivocality Test: It is based on the maxim, “Res ipsa loquitur” which means things speaks of itself. When a person's conduct, in itself, shows that the person unequivocally and without reasonable doubt, actually intends to carry out a crime, then the conduct is a criminal attempt to commit that crime. According to this test, the act of accused unequivocally indicates his intention to accomplish the criminal object.

State of Maharashtra vs Mohd. Yakub (AIR 1980 sc 1111)

On receiving some secret information that silver would be transported in Jeep and Truck from Bombay, police staff proceeded in two vehicles to keep a watch. The officers followed the truck and the jeep which, after travelling some distance, both vehicle took halt near a bridge and the accused removed some small and heavy bundles from the truck and placed them aside on the ground. The Customs Officers rushed to the spot and arrested and searched the persons present there. At the same time, the sound of the engine of a mechanised sea-craft from the side of the creek was heard by the officers. The officers surrounded the vehicles and found four silver ingots near the footpath leading to the creek. Accused were questioned about their identity, and they falsely gave their name and address. From the personal search, a pistol, knife and some currency notes were found. Fifteen silver ingots concealed in a shawl were found in the rear side of the jeep and twenty-four silver ingots were found lying under saw-dust bags in the truck.

The accused were charged for illegal export and violating custom rules. On appeal when the case reached Supreme Court, than the Court held that the intention of the accused to export the silver from India by sea was clear from the circumstances enumerated above. They were taking the silver ingots concealed in the two vehicles under cover of darkness. They had reached close to the sea-shore and had started unloading the silver there near a creek from which the sound of the engine of a sea-craft was also heard. Beyond the stage of preparation, most of the steps necessary in the course of export by sea, had been taken. The act of the accused, itself shows the intention. So the court convicted the accused.

Pandharinath vs. State of Maharashtra, (AIR 2010 SC 1453)

In this case, the victim was appointed as maid servant. On the very first day of her work, at around mid- night, at about 2.30 - 3.00 a.m. the complainant felt that somebody is touching her body so she got up. She found that the accused was sitting near her bed whereupon she shouted. Immediately, the accused gagged her mouth and tried to lift her cloth. On hearing her cries, a person came into the room and when he came to know about incident he gave a slap on the face of accused.

Here, the court held that the offence under Section 376 is  not proved in the instant case on the basis of the evidence on record, but it is definitely a case of commission of the offence of attempting to rape.

Impossible Attempt

An attempt is called as impossible attempt when the following conditions are met.

He or she intended to commit the offence;

He or she did everything that was required for the completion of the offence; and

The completion of the offence was made impossible by facts not known to him or her or because of circumstances beyond his or her control.

Eg: A person who, believing in witchcraft burns an effigy with the intention of causing him hurt. Here the conduct of accused was not physically capable of completing the offence, so not liable for punishment.

Impossibility is sometimes pleaded in answer to a charge of attempt, with the accused contending that the facts were such that it was impossible for him or her to complete the offence no matter how hard he or she tried.

Eg: A who, with intent to hurt B, prepares a glass filled with poison. Unnoticed by A, C pours away the poison and refills the glass with water which A, in ignorance of what C has done, serves to B. Here A was liable for attempting to cause hurt by administering poison.

The concept of impossibility has been categorised into two parts namely physical and legal impossibility.

In cases of physical impossibility, some extraneous factual circumstance makes it impossible for an accused to achieve the result, whatever means he or she adopts.

The consequence of physical impossibility is that the accused is liable for the attempted offence.

Eg: A makes an attempt to pick the pocket of Z by thrusting his hand into Z’s pocket. Z is having nothing in his pocket than also A is liable for attempt to commit theft.

In legal impossibility, the result the accused intends, if achieved, will not be the crime he or she believed would be committed. In case of legal impossibility the person is under a mistaken belief that his act is a crime but in fact his act does not amounts to crime.

An example is where the accused had taken his own umbrella from a stand thinking that it belongs to another person.

Asagarali Pradhania v Emperor, [(1933) ILR 61 Cal.]

The accused had given the complainant certain substances to procure a miscarriage. The miscarriage could not be accomplished because the substances were harmless. The court held that the accused was not liable for the offence of attempting to cause a woman to have a miscarriage under s 312 read with s 511 of the Penal Code.

Here the accused had not done everything that was required for the completion of the offence. For that condition to be satisfied, the accused would have had to give the woman a substance which would have procured the miscarriage.

So the Court acquitted the accused.

Commission or Accomplishment

It is the final stage of crime. If the accused succeeds in his attempt to commit the crime, he will be guilty of the offence and if his attempt is unsuccessful he will be guilty of an attempt only.

Eg: A fires at B with the intention of killing him, if B dies than A is guilty of murder. If B is injured than A is guilty of attempt to murder.

Cases

R. vs. Scofield, Cald. 397 (1784) 

In this case, the accused lighted a candle and placed it into flammable material in a house with the intent to burn it down, but the larger fire never happened.

Here the court held the accused guilty of attempt to commit mischief.

Emperor vs Vasudeo Balwant Gogte (1932) 34 Bom LR 571.

In this case, the accused fired two shots on the victim but due to defect in the ammunition or some other reason the victim escaped from the attack. Here the court held that S. 307 IPC means that the accused must do an act with such a guilty intention and knowledge and in such circumstances that but for some intervening fact that act would have amounted to murder in the normal course of events.