`STAGES OF CRIME

The commission of a crime involves a variety of actions which can be classified into different stages in
terms of their relevance in determining their liability of a person. The different stages involved in the
commission of a crime and the legal liabilities, if any, attached to these different stages have been
discussed below.

The following are generally identified as the four sequential stages in the commission of a crime1 ;

1. Intention or Contemplation

2. Preparation

3. Attempt

4. Actual Commission

The constitution of a crime includes all the elements. Some of these

elements are even punishable before the accomplishment ofw the crime:

1. Intention or Contemplation (think about something or the possibility of doing something):

The first stage in the commission of a crime is to contemplate its commission. It is known
as the mental or psycho stage. Intention is the direction of conduct
towards the object chosen upon considering the motives which suggest the choice.
This is the stage where the intention to commit a crime germinates in the minds of the
offender and takes a concrete shape. This is the mental state which is generally described
subsequently as the requisite mens rea to commit an offence. The criminal liability of
a person shall be decided only when he or she has a mala
fide intention.

Further, mens rea can be further divided into four levels depending upon the
degree of intent of committing the crime. These four levels are:

1. Negligence: This is the least and in fact the mildest form of mens
rea where the person is negligent of his/her actions and does not
ensure reasonable care in his/her act/omission.
2. Recklessness: This is of a slightly higher amplitude than negligence
where the person can anticipate the crime which may arise out of
the act/omission but did not expect or intended the same and acts
negligently.
3. Knowledge: The third level is knowledge where the person is
associated with the risks that may occur on his act/omission and still
continues with such act/omission. Here, he/she is not negligent.
 4. Intent: This is of the highest amplitude where the person
intentionally carries out an act or omits something in order to
commit the crime.

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.Generally, having an intention to commit a crime is not punishable in law. There
are a number of reasons because of which the contemplation of a crime in the mind of a
person is not punishable.
Firstly, no harm is caused to anybody by a person thinking to do something. Mere thoughts
unless accompanied by over acts do not cause any kind of injury to anybody.
Secondly, thoughts are fleeting and temporary. a thousand thoughts can come up in our
mind in a day and a person can change his thoughts in an instant. Thus, unless the person
harbouring the thought has shown a commitment to it by engaging in an overt act in
furtherance of the thought, it does not make sense for such person to be punished simply for
having a thought.
Thirdly, human race is yet to develop techniques where the thoughts of person can be
reliably investigated and proved. What goes on inside the mind of a human mind is mystery
to all but himself. It is impossible to know for certain what a person is thinking unless we
have some evidence of the same through his external conduct. The mere intention of a
person unaccompanied by any external action is a thing of supposition and not of fact. A
person is punished for the facts that are proved against him and not because of the
suppositions held against him.

There are certain exceptional situations however, where the evidence of the intention of a
person, if available, makes him criminally liable. For example, under section 503 of the Indian
Penal Code, when X threatens Y of injury to get Y to do something which Y is not legally
bound to do, X commits the crime of criminal intimidation. Thus the crime of criminal
intimidation does not consist of the actual infliction of injury on another person but the
communication of one’s intention to cause injury to another person.

Preparation
After the stage of intention to commit a crime comes the stage of preparation for committing
the crime so intended. 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. Preparation refers to the
stage where the person intending to commit the crime seeks to make the necessary
arrangements to enable himself to commit the crime so intended. Preparation may involve
 the procurement of the necessary tools for the commission of a crime or may also involve
planning of the manner in which the person seeks to execute the crime. In some cases the
preparation does not involve the procurement of the tools for the commission of the crime
but consists of determining the manner in which the crime would be committed.

Generally, preparation for the commission of a crime is not punishable. Firstly, like the stage
of intention, preparation does not indicate the certainty that the person so preparing will
definitely commit the crime. A person might make full preparation and yet not commit the
crime with a change of heart.4 Secondly, it is very difficult to judge from the preparation
whether the person intends to commit a criminal act or an otherwise innocent act.

making preparation punishable will lead to mostly unjust results. Many regular acts of
individuals in the daily course of life are capable of being interpreted as being the
preparation for a criminal conduct. Regular acts like going on a drive in a secluded road can
be interpreted as the preparation to kill the co-passenger and dump the body in a deserted
space. A simple act of buying a knife can be interpreted as preparation for killing somebody.
Purchasing combustible fuel like petrol or diesel can be interpreted as preparation for
committing arson. Purchasing a hockey stick can be interpreted as the preparation to assault
somebody. If preparation were to be made punishable, it will lead to a lot of harassment of
innocent individuals due to the fact that almost every action of a human being can be
suspected as being the preparation for the commission of a crime.

The reason behind the general rule is that it is nearly impossible to

prove that the accused made the preparation to execute the crime.
Apart from this, the test of locus poenitentiae is applied in cases where
the culpability of preparation is in question. The test provides that a
person has an opportunity to withdraw from his act before he actually
commits the intended crime.

It is for these reasons that generally, the preparatory stage of a crime has not been made
punishable under the law. However, there exist certain exceptional situations where even the
preparatory stage of a crime has been made classified as a crime in itself and made
punishable under law. These are primarily such situations where the crime for which
preparation is being made is grave in nature or poses a significant threat to the general
safety of the public or to public order. In certain other cases, where the nature of the
preparation leaves no scope of the preparation being for the purpose of any innocent
activity.

Exceptions in which criminal liability may be imposed

Exceptions to the general rule that a person cannot be held criminally liable
for the preparation of an act have been provided under the Code. These
exceptions include:
 1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Manipulation of the weight of the coins – Section 244, Section
246 and Section 247 of the Code provide the punishment for
altering or diminishing the weight of any coin. In these
circumstances, even the preparation to commit such crimes is
punishable.
4. Counterfeiting Government stamps – Section 255 of the Code
provides that “Whoever counterfeits, or knowingly performs any
part of the process of counterfeiting, any stamp issued by
Government for the purpose of revenue shall be punished with
imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to
fine.” In addition to this, the provision also criminalises the
possession (Section 256) and selling (Section 257) of counterfeiting
Government stamps.
5. 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.”
6. Possession of forged documents – Section 474 of the Code provides
the punishment for the possession of forged documents. The
intention behind the provision is to prevent any type of fraud that
may occur by using such forged documents.
These offences are punishable at the stage of preparation due to the gravity
of the outcome of the crime, if committed.

2. Attempt:

The initial two stages in the commission of a crime; intention and preparation are
generally not punishable. The stage of attempt is subsequent to the stage of
preparation and is punishable under law. The stage of attempt refers to the effort made
 by an individual in furtherance of his intention and on the basis of his preparation to
commit the crime. It is the overt action on the part of the individual seeking to fulfil
his contemplation.8 It needs to be noted that a person is held liable for attempt only
when his efforts to commit the intended crime are unsuccessful. When he succeeds in
his effort, he is punished for the actual commission of the offence.

Thus, an attempt to commit a crime is often termed “preliminary

crime”.

In the scheme of Indian Penal Code, the issue of attempt as a crime in itself has been
dealt in primarily four different ways. Firstly, on certain occasions, the crime and the
attempt to commit the crime have been dealt with in the same section.

Preparation involves everything a person may do in order to facilitate the commission

of the intended crime but it turns into attempt the minute the person seeks to execute
the commission of the crime.

An attempt to commit a crime is punishable under the Code. It has been

provided under various provisions for specific crimes.

The Indian Penal Code has dealt with attempt in the following four different ways-
· Completed offences and attempts have been dealt with in the same section and same
punishment is prescribed for both. Such provisions are contained in Sections 121, 124, 124-
A, 125, 130, 131, 152, 153-A, 161, 162, 163, 165, 196, 198, 200, 213, 240, 241, 251, 385, 387,
389, 391, 394, 395, 397, 459 and 460.

· Secondly, attempts to commit offences and commission of specific offences have been
dealt with separately and separate punishments have been provided for attempt to commit
such offences from those of the offences committed. Examples are- murder is punished
under section 302 and attempt to murder to murder under section 307; culpable homicide
is punished under section 304 and attempt to commit culpable homicide under section 308;
Robbery is punished under section 392 and attempt to commit robbery under section 393.

· Thirdly, attempt to commit suicide is punished under section 309;

· Fourthly, all other cases [where no specific provisions regarding attempt are made] are
covered under section 511 which provides that the accused shall be punished with one-half
of the longest term of imprisonment provided for the offence or with prescribed fine or with
both.
 However, in case of the absence of punishment for an attempt to commit a
particular crime, Section 511 of the Code comes into the picture. Some of the
specific provisions of the Code under which an attempt to commit a crime
have been enumerated hereunder:

 Section 121 – Attempt to wage a war;

 Section 131 – Attempt to seduce a soldier, sailor or airman from his
duty;
 Section 307 – Attempt to murder;
 Section 308 – Attempt to culpable homicide;
 Section 309 – Attempt to suicide;
 Section 326B – Attempt to throw suicide;
 Section 356 – Attempt to commit theft;
 Section 357 – Attempt to wrongfully confine a person;
 Section 393 – Attempt to commit robbery;
 Section 397 – Robbery or dacoity with an attempt to cause death or
grievous hurt;

The difference between the preparation and attempt to commit a crime

is a crucial one. It can determine the criminal liability of a person

Different tests have been forwarded to distinguish between the stage of preparation
and the stage of attempt. While none of these tests are either accepted or applied as a
rigid rule, it is important to have a clear understanding in order to better appreciate the
distinction between preparation and attempt.

Test of Proximity This test is based on the proposition that an act will qualify as an
attempt if it proximate to the commission of the offence.11 This principle can be
illustrated in the form of the following example; X seeks to set fire to a stack of hay
belonging to Y. He lights the matchstick but realises that he is being watched by Z,
the neighbour of Y. He puts out the matchstick. In this situation, X will be held liable
for attempt as his act of lighting the matchstick is directly proximate to his intended
crime of setting the hay stack on fire. Thus, when a person has committed himself to
an act which is proximate to the ultimate act that he has intended, it can be safely said
that he has begun the attempt to execute the crime.

Locus Poenitentiae This doctrine is based on the proposition that a person can change
his mind about committing an act even in the last possible minute. The doctrine of
locus poenitentiae provides that where a person withholds himself from
the actual commission of the crime, it would amount to mere
preparation. The doctrine was propounded after analysing that a
person has a reasonable opportunity to withdraw himself from
committing the crime.. According to the doctrine, the relevant fact for
determining whether the act of the accused constitute preparation or attempt is to
consider the nature of consequences which would have followed if the accused had 9
changed his mind after committing the act.12 If the consequence would be harmless
then the act can be reasonably said to be in category of preparation. On the other
hand, if the act has the potential to lead to harmful consequences, then it more
fittingly deserves to be classified as an attempt

Test of Equivocality : The test of equivocality is based on the premise that a man
should not be punished unless his actions reflect a clear and unambiguous intention to
commit the crime. Thus, an act will be considered as attempt if it unequivocally points
to the intention of the individual to commit the crime. Thus a man will be punished
only if there is no doubt about the consequences he sought to achieve through his
conduct. The equivocality test states that when an act of a person can
prove beyond reasonable doubt the likeliness of committing the crime,
it shall constitute as an attempt to commit the crime rather than mere
preparation.It is important to remember that all the tests described above are
indicative and not definitive. Whether a particular conduct qualified as attempt or
preparation is for the court to determine depending on the peculiar facts and
circumstances of each individual case. The court may refer to these tests in order to
aid itself in the process of determination but is not bound by the confines of these tests
and principles.

Probable Desistance Test:

The probable desistance test examines how far the defendant has progressed with
commission of the crime, rather than analyzing how much the defendant has left to
accomplish. In accordance with this test, a defendant commits attempt when he/she
has crossed a line beyond which it is probable he/she will not desist unless there is
an interruption from some outside source, law enforcement, or circumstances
beyond his/her control.

Impossibility Test: An act that is impossible to execute cannot be attempted and is

thus cannot be made guilty of. In such cases, there is no possibility to understand
the goal of the accused. Impossible acts are not punishable, but the impossibility
must be absolute and not only relative. Exception to this would be the case of
attempt to theft as though the act was impossible due to some unfavourable
 condition, therefore according to section 511, it constitutes an offence of attempt
and thus, would be punishable.

Social Danger Test: The gravity of act and the social danger it can cause are taken
into considertaion to distinguish attempt from preparation. The moral guilt of the
offender is considered to be the same as if he had been successful in the
commission of the crime. Thus, if a person gives some pills to a pregnant woman to
procure abortion, but it had no effect because the drug was harmless, the person is
liable for attempt to cause miscarriage since the act would cause an alarm to society
and will have social repercussions.

Attempt to do an Impossible Act :It may sometimes happen that the accused might be trying
to do something which is impossible, either by reason of physical impossibility, legal
impossibility or out of sheer inefficiency. For example, X is trying to shoot Y, who is at least
1000 metres away with a gun which has a range of only 500 metres. In this case, what X is
trying to achieve is physically impossible. The question is whether he can be punished for
attempt when he was clearly intending to commit a crime but the commission was
impossible due to physical factors. The answer is in affirmative. The impossibility of the act
does not detract from the mens rea of the accused and from the fact that he has committed
an act which is an effort to execute his intentions.13 This proposition is confirmed by
illustrations (a) and (b) of section 511 as well where impossibility of an act does not
neutralise the liability for having attempted it. Section 511 of the Code
particularly provides that any attempt to commit an impossible act is
punishable.

Accomplishment / Actual Commission

The accomplishment of a crime is when an attempt to commit a crime is
successfully executed. Every person shall be liable for the act, offence or
crime that he commits or accomplishes. In the case of commission of a crime, the
offender is always liable. The provisions of the Code provide for specific
punishments for various crimes in the country.

Stage at which liability commences

The above discussion reveals how these four stages of crime decide the
criminal liability of an accused. Undisputedly, at the level of accomplishment,
the criminal liability of a person shall arise. Nevertheless, the above
discussion reveals how the liability can commence even at the stage of the
attempt and in some cases, even at the stage of preparation. Usually, in such
instances, the crime committed is very serious and poses a threat to society.
Hence, the main object of ascertaining liability at such stages is to create a
deterrent effect in the minds of people and prevent them from committing
such heinous crimes.