Essential Elements of Crime and Stages (Essay Type Questions)

Law and You > Criminal Laws > Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 > Essential Elements of Crime and its Stages (Essay Type Answers 12/13/16 Marks)

Q1. Explain Different Ingredients of Crime.

Legally, a crime is an act made punishable by law. A criminal is one who has committed such a legally forbidden act. For any act to be considered a crime, certain essential elements must be present. These typically include a guilty mind (mens rea) and a guilty act (actus reus), along with the existence of a prohibited act defined by law. Together, these elements ensure that a person is held criminally liable only when there is both intention and conduct that violates legal provisions. Understanding these ingredients helps in distinguishing between innocent actions and punishable offences, forming the basis for fair justice and legal accountability.

Essential Elements of Crime:

Human Being:

The first essential element of the crime is a ‘Human being’. It requires an act to be a crime, it is necessary that the act must be committed by a human being. The artificial persons like company, trusts, associations, etc. are also liable for the breach of the statutory duty imposed on them.

Guilty Mind (Mens Rea):

‘Mens rea’ is the second and important essential elements of crime. It is also known as ‘evil intent’. A Latin maxim “Actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit” means the act itself does not constitute guilt unless done with a guilty intent.

Mens rea may, however, be direct or implied. Mens rea implies that there must be a state of mind with respect to an actus reus, that is, an intention to act in the prescribed fashion. It is, however, important to distinguish mens rea from motive. Thus, if a person steals away a few loaves of bread from someone’s kitchen to feed a child who is dying of hunger, the motive here may be honourable and understandable, nevertheless the mens rea being to commit the theft, the person would be convicted for theft. His motive may, however, be taken into account in sentencing and he may be less severely punished because of his good motive. If the offender has been found guilty of wrongful intentions, he shall be prosecuted by the court of law. Absence of Guilty intentions may save him from punishment.

Act (actus reus):

‘Actus Reus’ is the third and important essential element of crime. It is the Latin term used to describe a criminal activity and is defined as a criminal activity that was the result of voluntarily bodily movement. This describes a physical Activity that harms another person or damages property. Only a human being and evil intent are not enough to constitute a crime because you can’t know the intentions of a man. The only intent of a person is not punishable. Intention or mens-rea alone shall not constitute a crime unless it is followed by some external or overt act which is forbidden by some prevailing law. Generally, omitting to do something will not amount to actus resus of an offence. The criminal law usually punishes individuals for positive conduct and not for inaction. There are, however, some notable exceptions. For example, a police officer may have a duty to act to prevent an assault and if he does not, he will be liable to be punished under the law.

When the criminal actions are involuntary the concept of actus reus is not applied. This includes acts that occur as a result of a spasm, any movement made while a person is asleep or unconscious, or activities participated in while an individual is under a hypnotic trance. In these scenarios a criminal deed may be done, but it is not intentional and the responsible person will not even know about it until after the fact.

Injury to Victim of Crime:

The fourth essential of crime is the ‘Injury’ to another person or to society at large. Such injury must be illegally caused to a person. To constitute a crime, there must always be result brought about human conduct, a physical event which the law prohibits.

Whenever the crimes are committed, the loss to the person (injury) is stated as a public wrong. The victim’s loss is not that essential to commit a crime, as there are certain crimes on the basis of culture, morality or decency e.g. Adultery.

Prohibited Act:

An offence when committed, ought to have been prohibited under some prevailing law unless specifically mentioned. It is a general rule of criminal law that no offence can be punished retrospectively if the said act did not constitute an offence at the time the said act was committed. The prosecution must prove that the accused party was responsible for a deed prohibited by criminal law. Note that an act, howsoever immoral shall not be an offence unless it is prohibited by law of the land.

No crime is committed when a person exercising his lawful right of private defence cause harm to another. Likewise, if an onlooker who happens to be a good swimmer does not rescue a child about to be drowned in a pond he is not liable for any offence because there was no legal duty on his part to rescue a person.

Punishment:

The act in order to constitute a crime should not only be prohibited by the law but should also be punishable by the State. The punishment is usually set out in terms of a maximum and the actual punishment in any particular case is left to the discretion of the judge. The punishment ranges from capital punishment to paltry fine. Similarly, it should be ensured that the offender is not subjected to ‘double jeopardy’ i.e. being subjected to double punishment for the same crime. Both, the defence and the prosecution have a right to appeal against the quantum of sentence.

Relativity:

An activity which is termed as a crime (e.g. alcohol consumption, gambling, etc.) at one place (say public places) may not be crime at the other place.

Conclusion:

The foundational principles of criminal liability—actus reus (the guilty act) and mens rea (the guilty mind)—remain central to determining culpability, ensuring continuity in the administration of justice while aligning the law with contemporary societal needs. the emphasis on these ingredients safeguards individuals against arbitrary prosecution and upholds the principle that liability must be based on both conduct and intent. It also assists courts in fairly assessing evidence and delivering reasoned judgments.

Q2. ‘Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit ria’. Explain the doctrine with illustrations and exceptions to the same if any OR Explain the concept of ‘mens rea’ with respect to crime?

There is a Latin maxim “actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea” which means an act does not make one guilty unless there is criminal intent. This maxim can be considered as a cardinal rule of criminal law. There are two necessary elements in a crime, namely, a physical element i.e “actus reus” and secondly, a mental element “mens rea”. The actus reus may be an act of omission or an act of commission’ but in order that the actus reus may be punishable, it must jointly be accompanied by a guilty mind i.e. mens rea. The existence of the mental element or guilty mind or the mens rea at the time of the commission of the actus reus or the act alone will make the act of the actor an offence.

The state of mind of the accused is relevant in several areas of criminal law. Chapter III of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 gives provision in which mental state of accused is. The principle behind chapter III, for General Exceptions, is based upon the Latin maxim, “actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea‘ i.e. an act is not criminal unless there is criminal intent. considered.

Mens Rea:

Mens rea is the state of mind which indicates culpability, which is required by a statute as an element of the crime. As a general rule, every crime requires a mental element i.e. some blameworthy mental condition. Expressions connoting the requirement of blameworthy mind mental element include: “with intent, knowingly, recklessly, unlawfully, maliciously, knowing or believing, fraudulently, dishonestly, corruptly allowing and permitting.”

Mens rea may, however, be direct or implied. Mens rea implies that there must be a state of mind with respect to an actus reus, that is, an intention to act in the prescribed fashion. It is, however, important to distinguish mens rea from motive. Thus, if a person steals away a few loaves of bread from someone’s kitchen to feed a child who is dying of hunger, the motive here may be honourable and understandable, nevertheless, the mens rea being to commit the theft, the person would be convicted for theft. His motive may, however, be taken into account in sentencing and he may be less severely punished because of his good motive. In short, motive should be taken into consideration at the sentencing stage and not at the time of deciding the question of mens rea i.e. during the investigation. If the offender has been found guilty of wrongful intentions, he shall be prosecuted by the court of law. The absence of guilty intentions may save him from punishment.

Constituents of Mens Rea:

Intention:

“Intention is the result of deliberation upon motive. Intention is a conscious state of mind in which mental faculties are roused in the activity and summoned into action for the deliberate purpose of being directed towards a particular and specified object and which the human mind conceives and perceives before itself, and represents that state of mind of a person in which he not only foresees but also desires the possible consequences of his conduct.

Knowledge:

To know a thing means to have a mental cognition of it. Knowledge is the awareness of the consequence of an act. A man may be aware of the consequence of an act, though he may not intend to bring them about. Thus a knowledge indicates that the accused is aware of the nature of the act and its probable consequences.

Negligence:

A person is said to be negligent when he does not use such care and attention as it was his duty to use. Negligent wrongdoing is that which is not intentional but results from culpable inadvertence or indifference. The mental attitude of the wrong dower consists not in any desire to do harm, but in the absence of a sufficient desire to avoid it. Negligence means the absence of such care as it is legal duty to use. It is the state of mind of a man, who pursues a course of conduct without adverting at all to its consequences. Negligence is used to denote want of care and precaution, which a reasonable man would have taken under the particular circumstances of the case. Criminal negligence will include recklessness and gross negligence.

Recklessness:

Recklessness is the state of mind of a person, who foresees the possible consequences of his conduct, but acts without any intention or desire to bring them about. It may be that the doer is quiet indifferent to the consequences or that he does not care what happens. In all such cases, the doer is said to be advertently negligent, or reckless towards the consequences of the act in question. It is a lower level of culpability than knowledge. The degree of risk awareness is key to distinguishing a reckless intent crime from a knowing intent crime.

Transferred Intent:

When a person intends to commit a particular crime and does an act which would constitute an offence, if directed against the person who actually becomes the victim of his act, he may be convicted notwithstanding that the crime takes effect in a manner which was unintended or unforeseen. This has been treated so on the ground that there is a transferred intention or transfer malice. Transferred intent is only relevant in crimes that require a bad result or victim. In a case where the intent is transferred, the defendant could receive more than one criminal charge, such as a charge for “attempting” to commit a crime against the intended victim.

Conclusion:

Mens rea is an important element of crime means guilty mind. “Intention” is a state of mind consisting of desire that certain consequences shall follow from the act or illegal omission. “Intention” may be inferred from that act. The presumption relating to “intention” is that every person is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his act. If the offender has been found guilty of wrongful intentions, he shall be prosecuted by the court of law. The absence of guilty intentions may save him from punishment.

Q3. What are the two ingredients of a crime? Discuss in detail with exceptions if any.

There are two necessary elements in a crime, namely, a physical element i.e “actus reus” and secondly, a mental element “mens rea”. The actus reus may be an act of omission or an act of commission’ but in order that the actus reus may be punishable, it must jointly be accompanied by a guilty mind i.e. mens rea. The existence of the mental element or guilty mind or the mens rea at the time of the commission of the actus reus or the act alone will make the act of the actor an offence.

Mens Rea:

‘Mens rea’ is an important essential elements of crime. It is also known as ‘evil intent’. A Latin maxim “Actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit” means the act itself does not constitute guilt unless done with a guilty intent.

The principle of mens rea ensures that only those who act with a blameworthy state of mind are punished. It reflects the idea that criminal liability should depend not just on actions, but also on the intention behind those actions. Courts often look into the accused’s state of mind at the time of the offense to determine whether mens rea was present.

There are different levels or types of mens rea. Intention is the highest level, where a person deliberately aims to bring about a particular result. Knowledge refers to awareness that certain consequences are likely to occur. Recklessness involves consciously taking an unjustified risk, while negligence occurs when a person fails to exercise reasonable care, leading to harm.

Mens rea plays a crucial role in distinguishing between different crimes and determining their severity. For example, intentional harm is punished more severely than harm caused by negligence. It also helps differentiate between similar acts that may have different legal consequences based on the mental state of the accused.

However, there are exceptions known as strict liability offenses, where mens rea is not required. These are usually minor offenses related to public safety, such as traffic violations or regulatory breaches.

In United States v. Currans 290, F. 2 d 751 (3 rd Cir. 1961) case, Biggs, Chief Justice observed: “The Concept of Mens Rea, guilty mind, is based on the assumption that a person has the capacity to control his behaviour and to choose between alternative courses of conduct. This assumption, though not unquestioned by theologians, philosophers, and scientists, is necessary to maintain and administration of social controls. It is only through this assumption that society has found it possible to impose duties and create liabilities designed to safeguard persons and property… Essentially these duties are intended to operate upon the human capacity for choice and control of conduct so as to inhibit and deter socially harmful conduct. When person possessing capacity for choice and control, nevertheless breaches a duty of this type he is subjected to the sanctions of criminal law.”

Constituents of mens rea are intention, knowledge, negligence, recklessness, and transferred intent.

Act (actus reus):

‘Actus Reus’ is also an important essential element of crime. It is the Latin term used to describe a criminal activity and is defined as a criminal activity that was the result of voluntarily bodily movement. This describes a physical Activity that harms another person or damages property. Only a human being and evil intent are not enough to constitute a crime because you can’t know the intentions of a man. The only intent of a person is not punishable. Intention or mens-rea alone shall not constitute a crime unless it is followed by some external or overt act which is forbidden by some prevailing law.

Actus reus includes not only positive actions (such as hitting someone or stealing property) but also, in certain circumstances, omissions (failures to act). An omission becomes punishable when there is a legal duty to act. For example, a police officer may have a duty to act to prevent an assault and if he does not, he will be liable to be punished under the law.

The elements of actus reus typically include three components: conduct, circumstances, and result. Conduct refers to the voluntary action of the accused. Circumstances are the surrounding facts that make the act unlawful, such as entering someone’s house without permission. The result refers to the consequence of the act, such as injury or damage.

Causation is another important aspect. The prosecution must establish a clear link between the accused’s act and the harm caused. This involves proving that the act was both the factual cause (“but for” test) and the legal cause (proximate cause) of the result.

Thus, actus reus forms the foundation of criminal liability by focusing on the physical element of a crime. When combined with mens rea, it ensures that a person is only punished when both the wrongful act and a guilty mind are present, thereby promoting fairness and justice in the legal system.

Exception to the Concept of Mens Rea and Actus Reus:

Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the general rule of criminal liability is based on the coexistence of mens rea (guilty mind) and actus reus (guilty act). However, there are important exceptions where this traditional requirement is either relaxed or completely excluded, depending on the nature of the offence and the purpose of the law.

One major exception to mens rea is found in strict liability offences, where the prosecution is not required to prove intention, knowledge, or negligence. The mere commission of the prohibited act is sufficient to establish liability. These offences usually relate to public welfare areas such as health, safety, and environmental protection, where enforcing responsibility is considered more important than examining the offender’s mental state.

An even stricter form is absolute liability, where the accused cannot take any defence, even if the act occurred without fault or intention. This principle was firmly established in the landmark case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, particularly in cases involving hazardous or inherently dangerous industries. The focus here is entirely on preventing harm and ensuring accountability.

Another exception arises through vicarious liability, where one person is held responsible for the acts of another. For example, employers may be held liable for offences committed by their employees in the course of employment, and companies may be held liable for acts of their directors or agents. In such cases, personal mens rea is not always directly required.

In relation to actus reus, the law also recognizes omissions as a basis for liability. A person may be held criminally liable not only for what they do but also for what they fail to do when there is a legal duty to act. For instance, failing to provide necessities to a dependent or neglecting statutory duties can constitute an offence, even though there is no positive act.

Similarly, possession-based offences form another exception, where mere possession of prohibited items—such as illegal weapons or contraband—is punishable, regardless of whether the person actively used them. The actus reus here lies in the state of possession itself rather than any overt conduct.

There are also situations involving state of affairs liability, where a person may be held liable simply for being in a prohibited condition or situation. In such cases, the law does not require a voluntary act in the traditional sense, as the offence is constituted by the existence of a particular circumstance.

Conclusion:

Thus, while mens rea and actus reus remain the foundation of criminal liability under the BNS, these exceptions reflect the law’s flexibility in addressing public welfare concerns, regulatory needs, and evolving societal conditions.

Q4. Are there any exceptions to the doctrine of mens rea in criminal jurisprudence? How is mens rea determined?

Mens Rea:

Exceptions to the Doctrine of Mens Rea:

Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the general rule is that a person is criminally liable only when a wrongful act is accompanied by a guilty mind, known as mens rea. However, there are several important exceptions where the requirement of mens rea is either relaxed or completely excluded in order to serve broader social and legal objectives.

Strict Liability:

The most significant exception is strict liability offences. In such cases, the prosecution is not required to prove intention, knowledge, or negligence. The mere commission of the prohibited act is sufficient to establish guilt. These offences are usually related to public welfare, such as food safety, environmental protection, and public health regulations. The rationale behind this exception is that placing the burden on individuals to ensure compliance helps protect society at large, even if it occasionally penalizes those without a guilty mind. For example, if a shopkeeper sells milk that is later found to be contaminated or diluted, they can be held liable even if they did not know about the adulteration or had no intention to deceive customers. The prosecution only needs to prove that the adulterated product was sold; it is not necessary to establish a guilty mind (mens rea).

Absolute Liability:

A more stringent form of this principle is absolute liability, where the accused is held liable without any exceptions or defences. This concept was clearly established in the landmark case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India. This rule ensures a higher degree of accountability for industries that pose significant risks to public safety. For example, Oleum gas leak case, formally known as M.C. Mehta v. Union of India case, oleum gas leaked from a unit of Shriram Industries in Delhi, causing harm to several people. The Supreme Court held that since the company was engaged in a hazardous and inherently dangerous activity, it was absolutely liable for the damage caused. This means the company had to compensate the victims even if it had taken all possible precautions and had no intention or negligence.

Vicarious Liability:

Another exception is vicarious liability, where one person is held responsible for the acts of another. This is commonly seen in employer-employee relationships and in corporate settings, where companies are held liable for the acts of their agents or employees performed during the course of employment. In such cases, the personal mens rea of the person held liable may not be directly established, yet liability is imposed to ensure effective enforcement of the law. For example, if a delivery driver employed by a company drives rashly during working hours and causes an accident, the employer (company) can also be held liable for the act of the driver, even though the employer did not personally commit the act or have any direct intention (mens rea). The liability arises because the act was done in the course of employment.

Statutory Offences:

Certain statutory offences under the BNS and other regulatory laws either presume mens rea or dispense with it altogether. These laws are enacted to ensure strict compliance with rules governing public order, safety, and economic activities. The emphasis here is on regulation and prevention rather than moral blameworthiness. A common example is traffic violations under the Motor Vehicles Act. If a person drives without a valid license or jumps a red light, they can be penalized regardless of intention or knowledge. The mere act of violation is sufficient to constitute the offence.

Although mens rea is a fundamental principle of criminal law, its exceptions under the BNS reflect the need to balance individual culpability with societal interests. By relaxing the requirement of a guilty mind in specific situations, the law ensures greater protection of public welfare, safety, and accountability.

How is Mens Rea Determined?

Mens rea (the guilty mind) is not something that can be seen directly; it is inferred from facts and circumstances surrounding the act. Under criminal law principles reflected in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, courts determine mens rea by examining both objective evidence and subjective intention.

Firstly, courts look at the nature of the act itself. Certain acts naturally indicate intention or knowledge. For example, using a deadly weapon in a manner likely to cause death may imply intention to kill or cause serious harm. The seriousness and method of the act often provide strong clues about the mental state.

Secondly, the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the act is closely analyzed. Prior planning, preparation, or threats may show intention, while behavior after the act—such as fleeing the scene or attempting to hide evidence—can indicate consciousness of guilt.

Thirdly, courts consider the circumstances and surrounding facts. This includes the relationship between the accused and the victim, the motive behind the act, and any external factors that may explain the behaviour. For instance, a longstanding dispute may support the existence of intention.

Another important factor is the knowledge and foreseeability of consequences. If a person performs an act knowing that harmful consequences are likely to occur, the law may treat it as having the required mens rea, even if the exact outcome was not intended.

In some cases, mens rea is determined through presumptions of law, especially in statutory offences where the burden may shift to the accused to disprove intention or knowledge.

Finally, courts rely on evidence, both direct and circumstantial, including witness testimony, documents, expert opinions, and forensic findings, to reconstruct the mental state of the accused at the time of the act.

Thus, mens rea is determined through a careful evaluation of actions, conduct, and circumstances, allowing courts to reasonably infer the guilty mind behind a criminal act.

Explain the various stages of crimes. Cite with examples from the BNS whether acts in each stage are punishable.
Is preparation to commit an offence

Q5. Explain the various stages of crimes. Cite with examples from the BNS whether acts in each stage are punishable.

If a person commits a crime voluntarily or after premeditation, the doing of it involves four stages. As in every crime firstly, there must be an intention to commit it, then there must be necessary preparation to commit it, then there is an attempt to commit it. If such attempt succeeds, he is said to have committed the offence. If such an attempt fails he is said to have committed the attempt to commit the offence. Thus, the Stages in the Commission of Crime are:-

Intention
Preparation
Attempt
Accomplishment.

Intention:

The intention is the first stage in the commission of an offence and known as a mental stage. The intention is the conscious excise of the mental faculties of a person to do an act for the purpose of satisfying a purpose. Criminal intent is the conscious decision someone makes to deliberately engage in an unlawful or negligent act or to harm someone else. For example, in the case of murder, the intention is to cause death. In the case of theft, an intention is to steal. In the case of rape an intention to have forcible sexual connection with a woman without her consent.

This 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;

In Indian criminal law also, a mere intention to commit a crime is not punishable except in following exceptional cases where the law takes notice of an intention to commit a crime as they have been considered to be the serious offences and mere preparation of it is punishable as it is to be checked or prevented at the earliest stage.

‘Waging War against the Government’ under Section 147 to 150 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
‘A mere ‘Assembly of Persons for Committing the Dacoity’ is punishable under Section 310(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Under section 294 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, criminal liability can be imposed on the person dealing with selling, hiring, distributing the obscene books.
The persons who have been engaged in the ‘Criminal Conspiracy’ specified under Section 61(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 shall be liable to be punished although he has not himself committed the impugned act.

Preparation:

‘Preparation’ is the second stage in the commission of a crime. It means arranged means and measures necessary for the commission of a crime. Generally, it is not punishable because it is impossible to show that preparation was directed towards the wrongful end or was done with evil intent or mind. The existing laws allow a principle of ‘Lous poenitantae’ which means an ‘opportunity to repent’.

In Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab, (1968) 2 SCR 663 case, a truck carrying paddy, was stopped before the Delhi-Punjab boundary. The question was whether the accused were attempting to export paddy from Punjab to Delhi without a permit in violation of the Essential Commodities Order. It was held that on the facts of the case that the offence of attempt had not been completed. The Court observed: The test for determining 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 acts already done would be completely harmless. In the present case, it is quite possible that the appellants may have been warned that they had no licence 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.

There are some offences, so grave that it would be of utmost importance to stop them at the stage of preparation itself. That is why such offenses are punishable even before the actual commission of the crime i.e. at the very preliminary stage i.e. mere at the preparation stage.

Preparation to wage war against the Government (Section 149).
Preparation to commit depredation on territories of power at peace with the Government of India (Section 154).
Making or selling instrument for Counterfeiting of Coins (Section 181 )
Making or selling instrument for printing Government Stamps (Section 178 and 181)
Possessing Counterfeit Coins, False Weight or Measurement and Forged Documents (Sections 180 and 339)
Preparation to commit dacoity (Section 310(4)).

Attempt:

The ‘Attempt’ is the third stage in the commission of a crime. It is also known as a ‘Preliminary Crime’. The term ‘Attempt’ means “the direct movement towards the commission of a crime after necessary preparation has been made.”

Ingredients of the Attempt

Accused has a guilty intention to commit an offence;
Some act done by accused towards the commitment of the crime; and
The act must fall short of the completed offence.

Offences Punishable for Attempt:

Completed offences and attempts have been specified in the same section and same punishment is prescribed for them. Such provisions are Sections 147, 151, 153, 158, 159, 195(1), 196, 233, 235, 237, 250, 179, 179, 308(3), 308(4), 308(7), 310(1), 309(6), 310(2), 310(3), 311, 331(7) and 331(8).
There are some grave offences, where attempts are described separately and specific punishment is prescribed for them. These provisions are as follows:-
The offence of ‘Murder’ is punishable under Section 103(1) and the offence of ‘Attempt to Murder’ is punishable under Section 109.
The offence of ‘Culpable Homicide’ is punishable under Section 105 and the offence of ‘Attempt to Commit Culpable Homicide’ is punishable under Section 110.
The offence of ‘Attempt to Commit Suicide’ is punishable under Section 309. In Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, (1996), 2 SCC 648) case the Supreme Court has held constitutional validity of Section 309. In this case, the completed offence is not punishable (since offender would be dead) and as such, there is no provision for the punishment.
The offence of ‘Robbery’ is punishable under Section 309(4) and the offence of ‘Attempt to Commit Robbery’ is punishable Under Section 309(5) and ‘if such Attempt is committed by a person Armed with the Deadly Weapons’, he is liable to be punished under Section 312.
The offence of ‘Dacoity with Murder’ is punishable under Section 310(3) and the offence of Dacoity with an ‘Attempt to cause Death’ is punishable under Section 311.
The offence of ‘Voluntarily causing Hurt in committing Robbery’ is punishable Under Section 309(6) and the offence of ‘Attempt to cause Grievous Hurt in committing the Robbery’ is punishable Under Section 311.

Accomplishment:

This is the final stage of a crime. Generally, most of the crimes are punishable only after the crime has been committed. If the accused commits an attempt to commit the crime and such attempt succeeds, he will be liable for the offence. If such an attempt is unsuccessful, he will be liable for the attempt to commit the offence.

Conclusion:

Mere intention to commit a crime except for some exceptions is not punishable. To make a person liable for an attempt to commit an offence the Court has been at a point to make a distinction between “attempt” which is punishable and preparation” which except for in some exceptional cases is not as much punishable because the theory is that a person can always change his mind and not proceed beyond the stage of preparation. Accomplishment or commission of a crime is always punishable under IPC.

Is preparation to commit an offence

Preparation:

Here again, the law does not take cognizance, except in certain cases for which provision has been made in the Indian Penal Code itself making preparations punishable, as there is still enough time for a person to change his mind. Thus the law doesn’t punish the person unless he has passed beyond that stage of preparation.

If ‘A’ acquires a revolver from certified ammunition store with a license with intention to kill his bitter enemy ‘B’ and keeps the same in his pocket duty loaded. But he does nothing more than that. A has an intention and made preparation to carry out his intention but he has not committed the offence. At this stage, it is impossible to prove that ‘A’ had the loaded revolver only with the intention of killing ‘B’.

In Noorbibi v. State, AIR 1952 J and K 55 case, 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.

In R. v. Robinson, 14 (1915) 2 KB 342 case, a Jeweller in order to make a false claim to an Insurance Company pretended that his shop had been burgled and informed the police accordingly. The investigation was held by the police, in which the truth was made known to them that the Jeweller had made the false complaint. Then he was prosecuted for it. But he was held not guilty as he was still preparing to commit the crime. He could have been guilty for it only if he had submitted the claim to the insurance company.

Preparation to wage war against the Government (Section 122).
Preparation to commit depredation on territories of power at peace with the Government of India (Section 126).
Making or selling instrument for Counterfeiting of Coins (Section 233 to 235 )
Making or selling instrument for printing Government Stamps (Section 255 and 257)
Possessing Counterfeit Coins, False Weight or Measurement and Forged Documents (Section 242, 243, 259, 266 and 474)
Preparation to commit dacoity (Section 399).

The Legal Quotient

Like this:

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Concept Applications 0.1.4 (Essay Type Answers 12/13/16 Marks)

Essential Elements of Crime:

Share this:

Like this:

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Categories

Archives