This article has been written by Mr. Satyam Singh, a student studying BBA LLB (H) from Netaji Subhas University, Jamshedpur. The author is a 3rd year law student.

 

Introduction

The stages of a crime refer to the different phases that a criminal act goes through before it is completed. Understanding the stages of a crime is crucial for law enforcement agencies and criminal justice professionals to investigate, prevent, and prosecute criminal offenses. The stages of a crime can vary depending on the type of offense, but there are some common elements that are present in most criminal acts. In this article, we will explore the different stages of a crime and their significance in the criminal justice system.

 

Stages of crime

In Indian law, the stages of a crime can be classified into four categories:

Intention: The first stage of a crime is intention, which refers to the offender’s state of mind and motive for committing the offense. The intention can be classified into two categories: specific intention and general intention. Specific intention refers to situations where the offender intended to commit a particular harm, such as murder or theft. General intention refers to situations where the offender intended to do the act, but without a specific intention to cause harm.

Preparation: The second stage of a crime is preparation, where the offender takes steps to plan and prepare for the crime. This may involve acquiring weapons, tools or other materials required for the crime, and scouting the location to assess the risk of getting caught.

Attempt: The third stage of a crime is the attempt, where the offender takes overt actions towards committing the crime, but is unable to complete it due to some intervening circumstances. An attempt can also be classified as specific or general, depending on the offender’s intent.

Commission: The final stage of a crime is the commission, where the offender actually completes the crime. At this stage, the offender has successfully carried out the act that they had intended to commit.

It is important to note that each stage of a crime may have its own legal implications and consequences under Indian law. The severity of the punishment may depend on the stage at which the offender was caught or arrested. Additionally, some offenses may have different punishments depending on the stage of the crime that was committed.

Intention

In criminal law, intention refers to the state of mind of the offender at the time of committing the crime. It is the first stage of a crime and involves the mental element or mens rea of the offender. The mens rea refers to the mental intent, knowledge, or recklessness of the offender in committing a criminal act.

Actus reus, on the other hand, refers to the physical element of a crime, which involves the actual commission of the criminal act. It is the second component of a crime and refers to the conduct or act of the offender that is prohibited by law. Both mens rea and actus reus must be present for an offense to be considered a crime.

In order to prove a criminal offense, it is necessary to establish both mens rea and actus reus. The prosecution must show that the offender had the required mental intent to commit the crime (mens rea) and that they took physical steps to carry out the criminal act (actus reus). In some cases, an offender may have the mens rea but may not have completed the actus reus, and in such cases, they may be charged with attempted crime.

The concept of mens rea and actus reus is important in criminal law, as it ensures that an offender is not punished for merely thinking about committing a crime, but only for actually committing it.

 

Preparation

Preparation is the second stage of a crime, where the offender takes steps to plan and prepare for the crime. However, mere preparation is generally not punishable under criminal law, as it does not involve the actual commission of the crime.

There are several reasons why preparation is not punishable. Firstly, punishing an offender for mere preparation would be unjust, as the offender has not yet caused any harm or damage. Additionally, it would be difficult to determine the point at which preparation becomes punishable, as different offenders may require different levels of preparation for the same crime.

However, there are exceptions in which criminal liability may be imposed for preparation. For example, if the offender’s preparation involves the possession or acquisition of illegal weapons, tools or other materials that are specifically intended for use in a crime, then they may be charged with possession of illegal weapons or criminal conspiracy.

Similarly, if the offender’s preparation involves taking overt actions towards committing the crime, such as breaking into a building or casing the location, then they may be charged with attempted crime. In such cases, the offender’s actions go beyond mere preparation and may indicate a clear intent to commit the crime.

It is important to note that the line between preparation and attempt can be blurry, and whether an offender is charged with a crime may depend on the specific circumstances of the case. Generally, it is the responsibility of the prosecution to prove that the offender took steps beyond mere preparation to indicate a clear intent to commit the crime.

 

Attempt

Attempt is the third stage of a crime, where the offender takes steps towards completing the criminal act but does not actually succeed in carrying out the crime. Attempted crime is a criminal offense and can be punished under criminal law.

There are circumstances under which an attempt becomes impossible, making it impossible to charge the offender with attempted crime. For example, if the offender attempts to steal money from a bank but finds that the bank is closed and cannot enter, they cannot be charged with attempted theft as it was impossible for them to complete the crime.

The main difference between preparation and attempt is that preparation involves taking steps towards planning and preparing for the crime, while attempt involves taking overt actions towards completing the criminal act. Attempt is considered a more serious offense than preparation, as the offender has taken actual steps towards committing the crime.

There are two tests for determining whether an offender has committed attempted crime. The first is the “last act” test, which looks at whether the offender has taken the last act necessary to commit the crime, but was prevented from completing it due to external factors. The second test is the “proximity” test, which looks at whether the offender’s actions were close enough to the completion of the crime to be considered an attempt.

In order for an offender to be charged with attempted crime, it is necessary to establish both mens rea (the mental intent to commit the crime) and actus reus (the overt actions towards completing the crime). The prosecution must prove that the offender intended to commit the crime and that they took steps towards completing it, but were prevented from doing so by external factors.

Overall, attempted crime is a serious offense and is punishable under criminal law, as it shows that the offender had the intention to commit a crime and took steps towards carrying it out.

 

Accomplishment

Accomplishment is the final stage of a crime, where the offender successfully completes the criminal act. At this stage, the offender has committed the crime and can be held liable for it under criminal law.

Liability for a crime generally commences at the stage of attempt or preparation, depending on the specific circumstances of the case. In some cases, an offender may be held liable for attempted or prepared crime even if they did not actually succeed in committing the crime. This is because criminal law recognizes the danger posed by an offender’s intention to commit a crime and the steps they have taken towards completing it.

For example, if an offender attempts to rob a bank but is caught before they can steal any money, they can be held liable for attempted robbery. Similarly, if an offender is found to be in possession of tools that are commonly used for committing a crime, such as lockpicks or burglar tools, they may be held liable for preparing to commit a crime.

Once the offender has successfully completed the criminal act, they can be held liable for the full extent of the crime committed, including any harm or damage caused by their actions. The punishment for a crime varies depending on the specific offense and the laws of the jurisdiction in which it was committed.

 

Judicial Pronouncements

Asgarali Pradhania v. Emperor (1933):

This case involved a charge of criminal breach of trust against the accused, who was a treasurer of a co-operative society. The accused had been entrusted with certain funds of the society but had misappropriated them for his own use. The court held that the accused had committed criminal breach of trust as he had dishonestly misappropriated the funds entrusted to him. This case established that in order to establish criminal breach of trust, it must be shown that the accused had dishonestly misappropriated or converted to his own use the property entrusted to him.

 

Madan Lal v. State of Rajasthan (1986):

In this case, the accused was charged with attempt to commit murder by firing at the victim with a revolver. The accused missed the target and the victim survived. The court held that the accused was guilty of attempt to commit murder, as he had taken a direct step towards committing the offense. This case established that an accused can be held liable for attempt to commit a crime even if they did not succeed in completing the crime.

 

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Narayan Singh (1989):

This case involved a charge of murder against the accused. The accused had attacked the victim with a knife, causing injuries that resulted in the victim’s death. The accused argued that he had not intended to kill the victim but had only intended to cause grievous hurt. The court held that the accused was liable for murder, as he had intended to cause such bodily injury to the victim as was likely to cause death. This case established that an accused can be held liable for a more serious offense than the one they intended to commit if the actual harm caused was greater than what they intended.

 

Nasim v. Senior Superintendent of Police (2002):

In this case, the accused was charged with the offense of waging war against the state under Section 121 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused had allegedly engaged in anti-national activities and had distributed literature promoting secession. The court held that the accused could be charged with the offense of waging war against the state, as their activities posed a serious threat to the security and integrity of the nation.

Mathivanan v. the State of Tamil Nadu (2021):

This case involved a charge of criminal conspiracy and murder against the accused. The accused had allegedly conspired to murder a political rival and had hired hitmen to carry out the killing. The court held that the accused were guilty of criminal conspiracy and murder, as they had planned and executed the crime with the intention of eliminating their political rival.

 

Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab (2001):

In this case, the accused was charged with the offense of murder for killing his wife and her alleged paramour. The accused argued that he had acted in a fit of rage upon discovering his wife’s infidelity. The court held that the accused was guilty of murder, as he had intentionally caused the death of two individuals. This case established that the defense of provocation can only reduce a charge of murder to one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder if it is shown that the accused acted in the heat of passion and did not premeditate the killing.

 

Abhayanand Mishra v. State of Bihar (1961):

In this case, the accused was charged with the offense of rioting under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused had participated in a violent clash between two groups of people, during which several individuals were injured. The court held that the accused could not be held liable for rioting as there was no evidence to suggest that they had participated in the violence with a common intention to cause a disturbance of the peace. This case established that for an accused to be held liable for the offense of rioting, it must be shown that they had acted with a common intention with others to cause a disturbance of the peace.

 

Conclusion

In conclusion, the stages of a crime include intention, preparation, attempt, and accomplishment. Each stage is important in determining criminal liability and the severity of punishment. While preparation alone is not punishable, criminal liability may be imposed in exceptional circumstances. Attempt to commit a crime becomes impossible when the circumstances make it unlikely that the crime will be accomplished. There are several tests used to determine whether an attempt has been made. Once a crime has been accomplished, liability commences and the accused may be punished according to the law. Judicial pronouncements such as Asgarali Pradhania v. Emperor, Madan Lal v. State of Rajasthan, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Narayan Singh, Nasim v. Senior Superintendent of Police, Mathivanan v. the State of Tamil Nadu, Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab, and Abhayanand Mishra v. State of Bihar have contributed significantly to the understanding and development of the stages of a crime in Indian law.

 

Reference

• https://blog.ipleaders.in/all-you-need-to-know-about-stages-of-crime/ 
• Asgarali Pradhania v. Emperor (1933)
• Madan Lal v. State of Rajasthan (1986)
• State of Madhya Pradesh v. Narayan Singh (1989)
• Nasim v. Senior Superintendent of Police (2002)
• Mathivanan v. the State of Tamil Nadu (2021)
• Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab (2001)
• Abhayanand Mishra v. State of Bihar (1961)