Crime

A crime is defined as the commission of an act that is prohibited by law, or

an omission of an act that is obligated by the law. In other words, crime may
be defined as the disobedience of law. Another important aspect of a crime is
that it affects the public interest, rather than the rights of a single individual,
which shall be a part of civil law.
In India, criminal law is operated through substantive as well as procedural
law. The substantive law includes the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the Code),
and the procedural law includes the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (Cr.P.C.). These laws implicitly and also various cases have enunciated
that in the commission of a crime, there exist four stages. The same forms
the scope of the present article and has been discussed hereafter.1

Importance of Understanding the Stages of Crime

Understanding the different stages of crime in IPC is crucial in the Indian legal system
to establish the culpability of an accused person and determine the appropriate legal
consequences for their actions. From the initial intention to the preparation, attempt,
and commission of the offences, each stage has its own distinct characteristics and
legal provisions. It is important for law enforcement agencies, judicial bodies, and legal
professionals to carefully consider and analyze each stage of crime while investigating,
prosecuting, and adjudicating criminal cases.

The stages of crime provide a framework for assessing the culpability of the accused
and determining the appropriate charges and punishments. The intention and
preparation stages involve mental elements, such as intent and planning, which may
be established through circumstantial evidence, witness testimonies, or other relevant
evidence.

The attempt stage involves overt acts towards the commission of the offences, which
may be assessed based on the proximity to the completion of the crime and the level
of danger posed to the victim or society. The commission stage involves the actual
completion of the offences, which requires proof of all the necessary elements of the
offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

1 Encyclopædia Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/topic/crime-law

Stages of crime:
The stages of crime or elements of a crime include intention, preparation,
attempt and accomplishment. The constitution of a crime includes all the
elements. Some of these elements are even punishable before the
accomplishment of the crime. All the stages can be explained further as
follows:

Intention:
The fundamental elements of a crime are ‘mens rea’ and ‘actus reus’, the former being the
intention to commit a crime and the latter being the act done in furtherance of the intention.
The criminal liability of a person shall be decided only when he or she has a mala fide
intention. It is the direction of conduct towards the objects chosen upon considering the
motive which suggests the choice. Mere intention shall not constitute a crime, as it is almost
impossible to know the intentions of a person. As the famous saying goes “the devil himself
knoweth not the intention of a man”. Since it is hard to know the intentions of a man, a
criminal liability at this stage cannot be drawn.

Common Intention
Common intention means to act in accordance with predetermination as one. It should be
shown beyond the reasonable doubt that the criminal act was done together with a previously
designed plan. It must exist earlier than the time in which the act was committed; however,
for its purpose it does not necessarily have to cover a long period. In some instances,
spontaneous gap reconciliation can lead to shared aspirations. The first factor focuses on the
prepared scheme that would implement the desired outcome. Each of such individuals shall
be held accountable for an act performed in pursuit of a shared intention as if the conduct
were performed by a single individual. Common intention does not imply that numerous
people have the same intention.

Section 34 IPC
Section 34 aims to address instances where the actions carried out jointly by different party’s
members are indiscernible, or cannot identify their functions within a general scheme. In such cases, a
person involved in the criminal act receives assistance, support, cover as well, and the trust of an
accomplice. Consequentially, anyone involved in the creation of a criminal offense will be considered
liable for the offense committed, regardless of whether the actual act performed was accomplished
jointly or individually. Each member should have a particular objective for his/her participation in the
group such that its culminating point is to accomplish these objectives. In this regard, anyone who
participated either acted as an accomplice or directly carried out the crime becomes responsible for
the crime.

Mens rea:
\ constitute a crime situation on any particular occasion. One of the most significant aspects

of criminal responsibility. Only when an act that is prohibited by law has been done

intentionally-is it considered a criminal offence. The mens rea is the motive which drives the

illegal conduct. But until an act is done with guilty conscience, it remains not criminal. A

crime will not usually be committed if the person committing it is of an innocent mind. A

person must first be in a blameworthy state of mind before they can face criminal sanctions.

The familiar Latin maxim ‘actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea’—the act does not render
one guilty unless the thought is also guilty—expresses the essential concept of the principle
of mens rea. At least in the case of the more severe crimes, simply committing a criminal act

(or causing the state of events that the law prohibits) is insufficient to constitute a crime.2

Preparation
The next stage of a crime is preparation. It can be understood as an act in furtherance of
the mala fide intention of a person. It is an act that shall be a means to the attempt and
accomplishment of the crime. In the previous illustration, if A purchases a weapon legally
and carries it with himself, it shall amount to the preparation of the crime.

Reasons why preparation is not punishable

Under the law, it is generally accepted that the preparation of a crime, when considered an
offense, does not typically incur a penalty. This is due to the difficulty in establishing the
preparatory nature of a crime by proving that the accused had planned to commit an offense.
Moreover, a test known as "locus poententiae" is employed to assess the culpability of

preparation. This test ensures that the individual has the opportunity to reconsider and refrain

from executing their intent before the actual commission of the crime.

2Forms of Intention under the IPC – Lawctopus https://www.lawctopus.com/clatalogue/clat-pg/ipc-notes-forms-

ofintention-under-the-ipc/
Exceptions of Preparation
Preparation to wage a war against the Government of India – Section 122 of the Code provides
that collection of arms, ammunition, or associating with people with an intention to wage a war
against the State shall be a punishable offence with imprisonment for a term that may not exceed
ten years, and such the offender shall also be liable for fine.

Counterfeiting coins – Section 233, Section 234, and Section 235 of the Code provide the
punishment for counterfeiting any coin, including an Indian coin and the possession of any
counterfeit coin. These provisions also provide punishment for the preparation of producing or
using a counterfeit coin.

Preparation to commit a dacoity – Section 399 of the Code provides that “Whoever makes
any preparation for committing dacoity, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a
term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

Attempt
The distinction between the preparation of a crime and an attempt is a fine line. Attempt refers to
actions taken by a person intending to further progress toward committing an offense. This effort
to commit a criminal offense is commonly known as a preliminary crime. The legal code imposes
punishment for attempting to commit a crime, as specified in various statutes for particular
offenses. However, this section becomes applicable if a person does not face punishment for
attempting a certain offense.

When does Preparation end and Attempt Begin?

In Aman Kumar v State of Haryana, the Supreme Court held that the word ‘Attempt’ is to be
used in its ordinary meaning. There is a difference between intention to commit offence and
preparation. Attempt begins and preparation ends. It means when any step is taken towards
committing that offence is considered as ends of preparation and begins of attempt.

Tests to determine Attempt:

Proximity Test:
The proximity rule is embodied in the Latin maxim cogitationis poenam nemo patitus which
means that no man can be punished for his guilty purposes, except so far as they have
manifested themselves to proclaim his guilt. The proximity test postulates the defendant’s
progress by determining how close the defendant is to completing the offense.

For instance, A shoots at B intending to kill him but misses the mark for want of skill or any
other defect in the gun and the like. There A would be liable for attempt where A points a gun
at B and proceeds to pull the trigger in order to shoot him dead, but it turns out that the gun
was not loaded, A would be liable for attempt because he has done everything in his hand
towards the commission of the offence.

An act of the accused is considered proximate, if, though it is not the last act which he
intended to do, is the last act that was legally necessary for him to do, if the contemplated
result is afterwards brought about without further conduct on his part. Since the probable
wrongdoer could change his mind at any point before the crime is committed; the state should
wait until the last possible minute to ensure that the intention is going to be realized.

The Doctrine of Locus Poenitentiae: (Doctrine of Repentance)

It deals with those cases in which an individual made preparation to commit the crime but
changes his mind at the end, thereby pulling out at the last instant. Such intentional
withdrawal prior to the commission or attempt to commit the act will be termed as mere
preparation for the commission of the crime and no legal liability will be imposed.

Res Ipsa Loquitur Test:

Res ipsa loquitur means “the thing speaks for itself”. The res ipsa loquitur test, also known as
the unequivocality test. It is applied depending on the facts of each case independently. To
constitute an attempt the act must be such as to clearly and unequivocally indicate the
intention to commit the offence. The act must be referred to the commission of the crime and
it must be evident and clear on examination. The intention followed by preparation is not
sufficient to constitute an attempt. But intention and then preparation must be followed by an
act toward the commission of crime. The act must be revealed with reasonable certainty in
conjunction with other facts and circumstances an intention to commit the particular offence.

CASE: state of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub, (1980) 3 SCC 57

The Customs department received confidential information about a plan to smuggle silver from
Mumbai to a coastal area near Bassein. Acting on this tip, authorities surveilled two vehicles with
specific registration numbers. In the midnight hours, the vehicles arrived at the coastal location,
and individuals began unloading bundles from a truck. Simultaneously, the sound of a sea-craft
engine was heard from a nearby creek. Customs officers swiftly surrounded and apprehended the
individuals.
Upon inspection, the authorities discovered silver ingots both on the ground and concealed in
bags. The accused were prosecuted for attempting to smuggle silver from India. The Supreme
Court determined that the accused's intention to unlawfully export silver by sea was evident from
the circumstances. The clandestine activities, including unloading near the shore and the presence
of a sea-craft, indicated a clear intent for smuggling. The court held that the accused had moved
beyond mere preparation, having taken significant steps toward the actual export. The only
remaining step was loading the silver onto a sea-craft. The timely intervention of law
enforcement prevented the completion of the unlawful export, and the court reinforced this
conclusion by considering the sea-craft's disappearance upon interception. Ultimately, the
Supreme Court affirmed that the accused had deliberately attempted to contravene the law by
exporting silver illicitly.3

Case: Malkiat Singh vs the State of Punjab (1968)

In this case accused were driving a truck containing 75 bags of paddy. Under the Punjab Paddy
(Export Control) Order 1959, the police arrested the accused for attempting to export paddy. In
the Supreme Court, the accused argued his act was merely an attempt to commit a crime and not a
crime in itself. The Supreme Court accepted the accused’s point of view and ruled that their acts
were still at the stage of preparation. The court observed that the police arrested the accused 14
miles before the Delhi-Punjab border. It is conceivable that the accused may have been cautioned
that they had no permit to carry the paddy, and they may have changed their minds at any time
before crossing the border.4

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.

3State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub, AIR 1980 AIR 1111, 1980 SCR (2)1158 4
Malkiat Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab. 1970 AIR 713, 1959 SCR (2) 663