Law and You > Criminal Laws > Indian Penal Code > Stages of Commission of Crime

In last articles, we have discussed what is crime and what are are its ingredients. In this article, we shall discuss different stages of commission of crime.

List of Sub-Topics:

• Introduction
• Stage 1: Intention
• Stage 2: Preparation
• Stage 3: Attempt
• Stage 4: Accomplishment

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 the Indian Penal Code, the term intention is not used in every section but in various sections, it is express by using the word voluntarily or knowingly section 39 of IPC defined the term voluntarily. According to Section 39: “A person is said to cause an effect voluntarily when he causes it by means whereby he intended to cause it, or by means which at the time of employing those means he knows or had reason to believe to be likely to cause it”. The definition itself gives importance to cause rather than the act means the effect is more important by the term voluntarily it is to be understood in relation to causation of effect and not to doing of acts, which those affect the result.

Mens rea is a legal phrase used to describe the mental state of a person while doing any act, some intention is there. A mere intention to commit a crime is not punishable because it is very difficult for the prosecution to prove the guilty intention of a person and the court is also unwilling in punishing a person for mere guilty 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 121 to 123 of the Indian Penal Code
• ‘Sedition’ under Section 124 A of Indian Penal Code,
• A mere ‘Assembly of Persons for Committing the Dacoity’ is punishable under Section 402 of Indian Penal Code.
• Under section 292 of the Indian Penal Code, 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 120 A of Indian Penal Code shall be liable to be punished although he has not himself committed the impugned act.

According to Section 120-A of Indian Penal Code- “When two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done:- (i) an illegal act or (ii) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy”. But the mere agreement is not punishable as proviso added to the section requires that some act besides the agreement must be done.

Chapter IV of the Indian Penal Code deals with ‘General Exception’ wherein the act which otherwise constitutes offence ceases to do so under certain circumstances set out in this chapter. This chapter provides certain circumstances under which though the person commits the act, it results in the injury but due to absence of the blameworthy mind, that act is not liable for any punishment or it is exempt from the punishment. This chapter provides the circumstances, which are nothing but the principles of the common law system. All these general exceptions are recognized the concept of mens rea in the IPC.

 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’.

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.

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 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).

Mere possession of these things is a crime and a possessor can’t plead that he was still at the stage of preparation.

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.” Prof. Kenny and Sir James Stephen called the term ‘attempt’ as ‘inchoate crime’ which connotes something which is yet to be completed.

Ingredients of the Attempt

• Guilty intention to commit an offence;
• Some act done towards the commitment of the crime; and
• The act must fall short of the completed offence.

The term ‘attempt’ has nowhere been defined in the Indian Penal Code but simply provides for its punishment. An attempt is made punishable because every attempt; although it falls short of success, must create alarm, which itself is an injury. Although the injury is not as great as it would be if the act had been committed but it is punishable because it creates an alarm to other person.

In State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub, (1980) 3 SCC 57 case, the customs department received some secret information from their sources that a jeep and truck of particular registration number were transporting silver from Mumbai to a lonely coastal area which lies near Bassein. After receiving this information, authorities went to keep watch on the two vehicles. In Midnight they saw the said vehicles coming from Mumbai. The customs department followed them. The vehicles stopped near the sea-coast and the people started removing some bundles and packets from the truck and placing them on the ground. 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 of the Customs department surrounded and caught them. Officers found four silver ingots on the ground and 39 silver ingots concealed in a shawl and dust bags. The authorities prosecuted the accused for the offence of attempting to smuggle silver ingots from India. The Supreme 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 vehicles under cover of darkness. They had reached close to the seashore and had started unloading the sliver there near a creek from where the sound of the engine of a sea-craft was also heard. 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 the territorial waters of India. But for the intervention of the officers of the 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 the sea in contravention of the law.

In Abhayanand Mishra v. State of Bihar, AIR 1961 SC 1698 case, the appellant wanted to get enrolled himself in Patna university to give an M.A. examination by misrepresenting that he has a B.A. degree and currently he had been working as a teacher in a school. The university after giving him admission got to know that he forged those documents which he submitted and he had not been working as a teacher anywhere. The university brought the charges against the appellant. 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 the course. 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 admit 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.

In Om Parkash v. State of Punjab, AIR 1961 SC 1782 case, Bimla Devi, was married to the appellant in October 1951. Their relations got strained by 1953. She was, ill-treated and her health deteriorated due to alleged maltreatment and deliberate under-nourishment. In 1956, she was deliberately starved and was not allowed to leave the house. On June 5, 1956, she happened to find her room unlocked and availing of the opportunity went out of the house and managed to reach the Civil Hospital, Ludhiana. She informed there that she was kept locked in a room for a long time and was beaten by all the above and was starved.

the Supreme Court held that the principles which govern the liability under Section 511 also govern the 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 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 is the penultimate act or not. 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 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. The court further held that the word act denotes. a series of the act and similarly and so does an illegal omission denote series of illegal omissions. In this case, the husband and the mother-in-law of the victim had subjected her to acts of cruelty and they had the 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. 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.

In Asgarali Pradhania v. Emperor, AIR 1933 Cal 893 case, where accused attempted to cause miscarriage of the woman with whom he had illicit relations and who had become pregnant by administering a substance which could have caused a miscarriage. But the preparation of that substance was defective and there was no miscarriage. The Court didn’t held accused guilty of attempting to cause a miscarriage of the woman. The Court observed 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 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.

Attempts which are Punishable:

Under the Indian Penal Code, the term ‘Attempt’ has been described in three different ways

• Completed offences and attempts have been specified in the same section and same punishment is prescribed for them. Such provisions are Sections 121, 124, 124-A, 125, 130, 131, 152, 153-A, 161, 162, 163, 165, 196, 198, 200, 213, 239, 240, 241, 251, 385, 387, 389, 391, 394, 395, 397, 459 and 460.
• There are some grave offences, where attempts are described separately and specific punishment is prescribed for them. These provisions are as follows:-

1. The offence of ‘Murder’ is punishable under Section 302 and the offence of ‘Attempt to Murder’ is punishable under Section 307.
2. The offence of ‘Culpable Homicide’ is punishable under Section 304 and the offence of ‘Attempt to Commit Culpable Homicide’ is punishable under Section 308.
3. 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.
4. The offence of ‘Robbery’ is punishable under Section 392 and the offence of ‘Attempt to Commit Robbery’ is punishable Under Section 393 and ‘if such Attempt is committed by a person Armed with the Deadly Weapons’, he is liable to be punished under Section 398.
5. The offence of ‘Dacoity with Murder’ is punishable under Section 396 and the offence of Dacoity with an ‘Attempt to cause Death’ is punishable under Section 397.
6. The offence of ‘Voluntarily causing Hurt in committing Robbery’ is punishable Under Section 394 and the offence of ‘Attempt to cause Grievous Hurt in committing the Robbery’ is punishable Under Section 397.

• All other cases where no specific provisions have been made in the code relating to Attempt shall be covered under Section 511 of the Code, which provides that the accused shall be punished with the 1/2 of the largest term of imprisonment provided for the offence or with the fine or with both. For Example:- A person has committed an offence of attempt to commit theft and there are no specific provisions for the punishment but the offence of theft is punishable with the imprisonment for a term of three years. So, the punishment for the offence of attempt to commit theft would be one and a half years of imprisonment or with fine or with both, by virtue of Section 511 of the Code.

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.

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. ‘A’ locates ‘B’ in the garden and fires at him. If the bullet strikes ‘B’ causing fatal injuries leads to death, then the attempt is successful and the intention of ‘A’ accomplished. ‘A’ would be liable for the offence of ‘Murder’ under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. If ‘B’ got injured then ‘A’ would be liable for the Offence of ‘Attempt to Murder’ under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

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.

For More Articles on Indian Penal Code Click Here

For More Articles on Different Acts, Click Here