This article has been written by Payodhi Daschaudhuri, student of 2nd Year, BA LLB, Adamas University

INTRODUCTION

According to Indian Penal Code, 1860, crime can be defined as an act or omission which is forbidden by law, and which poses injury to people or property living in the society and hampers peace and tranquillity in the society and the commission of which can lead to punishments as decided through judicial procedures. In other ways, crime might be described as disobeying the law. Another crucial characteristic of a crime is that it harms the public interest rather than a single individual’s rights, which must be a component of civil law. Committing a crime, in the eyes of society, is a terrible act that shocks the public conscience. Criminal law is primarily concerned with defending and sustaining specified vital society values and institutions. The Indian Penal Code (IPC) establishes a set of guidelines for human behaviour. It forbids behaviour that clearly demonstrates disdain for another person or causes or threatens serious harm to that person. Whatever happens in our life, it is a slow process. For example, we all receive terrible marks now and then. An uncontrollable lifestyle leads to laziness, which leads to a lack of study, which leads to a poor grade. Similarly, a crime occurs in the same way.

The definition of crime is nowhere defined in IPC, but the latter does mention about the constituents of crime. Crime basically has two major essentials: Mens Rea and Actus Reus. The maxim Mens Rea literally means guilty mind; it signifies the bad intent or evil intention to commit a crime The criminal liability of an accused is basically adjudged by the degree of Mens Rea he was possessing at the time of commission of the crime. Secondly, the maxim Actus Reus on the other hand, states about the guilty act or criminal act which is associated with the crime. Actus reus is a juristic concept that depicts the bodily expression of a crime. Thus, it demonstrates how the crime committed physically affected the victim, as well as his behaviour at the time. As a result, this notion may be implemented while taking into account the fact, time, location, person, possession, victim consent, and so forth. Apart from these two concepts, to constitute a crime, there need to have a human body who shall act in a certain wrongful manner which is prohibited by law. And thus, any act or omission committed by that human body is penalised under law. According to the Indian Penal Code, the term “person” refers to any artificial or legal person, as well as any type of organisation, whether incorporated or not. Along with that, an act shall be termed as a crime when it shall be accompanied by any type of injury to human body or property or reputation or to the society at large. Not only commission, but the Indian Penal Code also penalises those who are convicted of committing an attempt of any crime, for example, attempt to murder. 

The commission of a crime involves a range of acts that may be categorised into distinct phases based on their importance in evaluating a person’s responsibility. It is critical to understand the many steps involved in the conduct of a crime, as well as the legal obligations associated with these stages, if any.

So, to sum up, there are basically four stages of crime which are chronologically mentioned as follows:

• Intention
• Preparation
• Attempt
• Commission

STAGES OF A CRIME

1. INTENTION

The first stage in committing a crime is contemplating its conduct. This is the stage at which the offender’s desire to commit a crime germinates and acquires concrete form. This is the mental state that is commonly referred to as the required Mens Rea to conduct an offence. In most cases, having the desire to commit a crime is not penalised by law. There are several reasons why a person’s mental consideration of committing a crime is not punished. To begin with, a person contemplating doing something causes no harm to anyone. Unless accompanied by overt actions, mere ideas do not bring harm to anybody. Second, ideas are ephemeral and transient. A thousand thoughts might pass through our minds in a single day, and a person’s thoughts can change in an instant. Thus, unless the individual harbouring the concept has demonstrated a commitment to it by participating in an overt act in favour of the belief, punishing such a person merely for possessing a thought makes no sense. Third, the human race has yet to discover procedures for accurately investigating and proving people’s thinking. What goes on within a human mind is a mystery to everyone but himself. It is difficult to tell what a person is thinking unless we have some proof of it through his behaviour. The sheer purpose of a person without any exterior action is a matter of conjecture, not truth. A person is punished for the facts that are proven against him, not for the suppositions that are held against him. Intension is the mental stage of crime. As stated earlier, intention forms the basis of a crime; in other words, no crime can be constituted without prior intension or evil intent. An intention is a specific direction in which a person wishes to perform or omit an illegal act. Mere intention shall not make a man liable for the offence as because it is an immense tough job to prove the evil intent of a man in the court of law, as the famous saying goes by, ‘the devil himself knoweth not the intention of a man’. That’s why the criminal liability cannot be drawn at this stage. Mens Rea encompasses intention, knowledge, recklessness, carelessness, and negligence. Knowledge refers to the situation where a person is fully aware of the consequences of his conduct and yet he does that act. On the other hand, the state of mind in which a person anticipates the potential of carrying out an act but fails to consider the danger that may arise from that conduct is referred to as recklessness. Negligence is the failure to fulfil a duty or responsibility. Unlike in tort law, there is no general punishment for negligence in criminal law.

One of the landmark judgements of Mens Rea is B Nathulal vs State of Madhya Pradesh. In this case, the accused, who was a food dealer applied for a license for his food grains and also deposited the requisite license fee. Afterwards, he without having knowledge of rejection of his application for license, purchased food grains and sent returns to the Licensing Authority, who on checking, found that it was in excess of the quantity permitted by Section 7 of Madhya Pradesh Food Grains Dealer Licensing order, 1958. The accused was hereby prosecuted. But since, he was not having any guilty mind, he was acquitted. 

2. PREPARATION

Following the stage of purpose to commit a crime, comes the stage of preparation for completing the intended crime. The stage in which the individual planning to commit the crime strives to make the necessary preparations to enable himself to perform the intended crime is referred to as preparation. Preparation may include acquiring the required equipment for the execution of a crime or arranging the method in which the individual intends to carry out the crime. Preparation for the conduct of a crime is often not criminal. To begin, preparation, like the stage of intention, does not imply that the person preparing will undoubtedly perform the crime. A person might make every preparation and still not perform the crime due to a change of heart. Second, it is difficult to determine if a person wants to do a criminal offence or an otherwise innocent act based on the preparation. The stage of preparation doesn’t possess any criminal liability. If preparation were made punishable, it would result in a lot of harassment of innocent people because practically every human behaviour might be considered as being preparation for the commission of a crime. For these reasons, the preparation stage of a crime is often not criminal under the law. However, there are certain unique cases in which even the preliminary stage of a crime has been defined as a crime in its own right and is punished by law. These are essentially cases in which the crime for which preparation is being made is grave in character or constitutes a major threat to public safety or order. In certain other circumstances, the nature of the preparation provides no room for the preparation to be used for any benign activity. Thus, preparing to conduct war against the government has been designated as a crime and is punished by law. Preparation to commit the crime of dacoity is likewise illegal. Also, preparation for counterfeit of coins or government stamps is equivalently punishable in the Indian Penal Code. 

For example, X plans to rob Y since he knows he has gold jewellery in his residence. X already owns a firearm. He observes Y’s home for a couple of nights to become acquainted with Y’s sleeping patterns and other routines, as well as those of Y’s family members and neighbours. The acquisition of instruments for the conduct of the crime is not part of the preparation in this case. The preparation in this case consists of establishing how the crime will be committed.

3. ATTEMPT

In most cases, the first two phases of committing a crime, purpose, and preparation, are not punished. The stage of attempt comes after the stage of preparation and is illegal. The stage of attempt refers to an individual’s effort in furtherance of his desire and on the basis of his readiness to perform the crime. It is the individual’s overt behaviour in order to fulfil his contemplation. It should be highlighted that a person is held accountable for attempt only when his attempts to accomplish the intended crime fail. When he succeeds, he is penalised for the actual commission of the crime. The topic of attempt as a crime in itself has been dealt with in four distinct ways in the framework of the Indian Penal Code. To begin with, on certain occasions, the crime, and the attempt to commit the crime were dealt with in the same section. Offenses against the State under Sections 122, 123, which states about collection of arms with intention of waging war against the Government of India and concealing with intent to facilitate war respectively and so on are an example of this. Second, on other instances, the definition of the crime is supplied in one part while the attempt to perform the crime is penalised in another. One example is the attempt to commit murder, which is penalised under Section 307. Third, there is one case in which simply the effort to do something is punished, not the actual commission. Suicide attempts are illegal under Section 309. Actual suicide is not criminal for obvious reasons: it would be difficult to punish someone who is already dead. Fourth, Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code has a general rule about attempt that applies in all circumstances where the attempt to commit has not been clearly characterised as a crime and no penalty has been provided. It is vital to recall that Section 511 only applies to the attempt to conduct such offences that are punished by life imprisonment or other punishment.

Basically, there are three components in order to accomplish the act of attempt. These are: Guilty or evil intention,  an act done towards the commencement of the offence, the act must not be completed. Moreover, there are 4 major tests in order to determine the act of attempt of a crime. These are as follows:

• Proximity Test: The proximity rule states that in circumstances when the accused does a succession of acts in furtherance of his intent to commit a crime, the responsibility is determined by the proximity of the Act’s completion.
• Locus Poenitantiae: The notion of locus poenitentiae states that withholding oneself from the actual conduct of a crime is considered mere preparation. The idea was developed after determining that a person had a reasonable opportunity to refrain from committing the offence.
• Equivocality Test: According to the equivocality test, when a person’s actions demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt the likelihood of committing a crime, it is considered an effort to conduct the crime rather than simple preparation.

Narayan Das v State of West Bengal is one of the landmark judgements. In this case, the offender had undeclared notes sewed inside his jeans, which the customs officer found. The accused, according to the court, proceeded beyond the level of preparation. The court ruled that attempting to withdraw cash notes is a crime punishable under the Sea Customs Act, 1878. Also, in Abhayanand Mishra v State of Bihar, the accused fraudulently claimed to be a graduate. He sought to appear as a private candidate in an MA test using a prior authorization letter but was denied and prosecuted. In this case, the court held that “the attempt to commit 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.”

4. ACCOMPLISHMENT

The completion of the offence is the ultimate stage. When all three of the preceding phases are finished, a specific improper conduct known as an offence is considered to be completed. If the perpetrator succeeds in his endeavour, he will be found guilty of the entire offence. This step concludes the entire process of the offense’s inception.

In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v Narayan Singh, The Supreme Court ruled that the conduct of an offence consists of four stages: purpose, preparation, attempt, and action. The first two phases of these offences would not result in guilt, but the latter two would. In this case, the respondents were attempting to export fertilisers from Madhya Pradesh to Maharashtra without an authorization. As a result, the conduct was regarded an attempt at the infraction rather than mere preparation. Also, one of the landmark judgements concerning attempt and accomplishment of crime is Nasim v. Senior Superintendent of Police. This case involves cow slaughter, which is punishable by law under the UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act of 1955. In this case, the petitioner was discovered clutching a 38cm knife and sitting on top of a cow with all of its legs bound. The instant petition was filed to vacate a FIR issued under Sections 3 and 8 of the contested Act. The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, relying on the Narayan Singh case (1989), found that the petitioner had done preparation and would have progressed to the third step, i.e. attempt, if he had not been prevented. As a result, he was charged with criminal attempt.

CONCLUSION

The fact that there are numerous phases of crime involved in the commission of an offence leads us to the conclusion that a crime is more than just an act or omission. Criminalization does not occur at all stages of the crime; rather, it occurs only after the act has been committed. There are various exceptions to the general rule that some conducts are illegal and punishable under Indian law. It is important to remember the fine line between preparation and endeavour, knowledge, and intention, and so on. The four stages of a crime have been defined and adopted by the judiciary for a long time now. The classification of these stages is necessary in order to decide the culpability of a crime at each stage. Generally, the liability arises during an attempt and the actual commission of the crime, as the courts cannot overlook the legal maxim of locus poenitentiae. The problem before the courts that arises more than often is the differentiation between the preparation and the attempt to commit a crime. Several decisions have been decided by the courts in an attempt to differentiate the fine line between an attempt and preparation for a crime. The courts have ruled that an attempt should not be viewed solely as the first act of a crime. Rather, a succession of activities constitutes an effort to commit the crime, and the distinction between preparation and attempt is determined by the facts and circumstances of each instance.

REFERENCES

• C.K. Takwani, Indian Penal Code (EBC Reader 2017).
• K.A. Pandey, Indian Penal Code (EBC Reader 2017).
• K.D. Gaur, Commentary on the Indian Penal Code, 3rd ed. (Central Law Publications 2019).
• Ratanlal & Dhirajlal the Indian Penal Code (LexisNexis 2023).