ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Primarily, I would like to thank God almighty for being able to complete this project with
success.

I extend my heartfelt appreciation to my esteemed Assistant Professor Dr. Lavalesh Singh

for his guidance and suggestions in completing this project. The completion of this project
was possible under his guidance and support.

I would also like to acknowledge my sincere gratitude to principal Mr. Anand Shankar
Singh and convener Dr. Manoj Kumar Dubey for providing me with all the facilities that
were required to complete my assignment.

At last but not the least, I am very thankful to my parents and my friends who have boosted
me up morally with their continuous support.
 INDEX

S.No. Table of contents Page no.

1. Case Laws List

2. Introduction

3. The Concept of Crime

4. Definition of Crime

5. Nature of Crime

6. Elements of Crime

7. Stages of Crime

8. Are the Post-Commission actions punishable?

9. Judicial pronouncement

10. Conclusion

11. Bibliography
 INTRODUCTION

Crime in society shows the failure of the government to maintain law and order but it’s not
always the government that breaks the law. Laws are broken by individuals who are not
abstract entities of society. The reason for committing a crime can be different for every
individual; there can be differences in the sociological, economical, psychological and, to
some extent, biological development of a person that become the cause of crime in society.
Crime has been part of human civilization since ancient times. Manu, the composer of
Manusmriti, recognises some of the crimes, like assault, theft, robbery, false evidence,
slander, criminal breach of trust, cheating, adultery and rape. Since then, the ambit of the
word crime has reshaped into its modern form and has become a part of every transaction,
whether it be social, economic, financial, domestic or intellectual.

The law of crimes is as old as civilization itself. The crime and the criminal in every society
is looked upon with great hatred, but the study of the crimes and discovering the causes of
crimes have remained the greatest attraction among the jurists of the jurisprudence. There
always lies the necessity of devising some ways and methods to curb such criminal
tendencies among the section of the people living in the civilised society. The problem arises
as to what acts should be forbidden, or what acts should be selected for punishment by the
society or the State. The concept of crime has always been dependent on public opinion.

As, H.J. Klare remarked in his book ‘Changing Concepts of Crime and its Treatment’ that,
“Law is determined by the political process and accords with what most people recognise as
the minimum standards prevailing. The definition of the criminal is also part of the process
and the rejection of law by offenders is a form of protest of which they may be dimly aware”.
Any deviation from the standards of behaviour fixed by the society is punished and such
conduct doesn’t accord with the prescribed standard which is loosely known as crime.1

Stephen in his book ‘General View of Criminal Law of England’ said that, “Crime is said to
be an act which is both forbidden by law and against the moral sentiments if the society”2.
Murder, robbery, kidnapping, rape, rioting, counterfeiting of currency, involvement in
terrorist organisations, etc. are the acts which the society doesn’t approve and that are termed
as the crime. Societies which are the followers of the jihad and engage in the terrorist
activities and other immoral acts don't consider these as wrong ones and thus, don’t treat
them as crime. This classification can only be valid in the societies where civilised people
live and proper law is laid down on humanitarian grounds by the application of sound
principles of natural justice and the law of the land. Thus, society plays a very important role
in the categorisation of the law and of the crimes which should be followed at all costs but
with the rider of application of the sound mind.

1
K.D. Gaur, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd, 2016.
2
K.D. Gaur, The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd, 2016.
 THE CONCEPT OF CRIME

Crime has become a part of human society. Generally, crime can be defined as an act made
punishable by law. Legislatures pass several laws to regulate affairs and criminalise certain
acts, omissions or commissions. Once such activities are criminalised, all those who indulge
in them are said to be criminals. It certainly means that if ‘X’ is the offence that has been
made punishable by the State at a certain point in time, then the person who is doing any act
of such kind is a criminal. The state has prime responsibility for stating what is right or wrong
in the country. What is wrong in one place cannot be illegal in another.

Whereas crime can also be understood as a conflict between individuals and society. Years
ago, Aristotle said that “man is a social animal,” but while we move forward and see that
every criminal activity is a result of a conflict between the will of the individual and the will
of society, there has been a consistent pattern of deviant acts done by men, acts that are
against the will of society. These acts proved that man has not yet learned to socialise with
each other even at the present modern age, that man is not a social animal but a gregarious
one, and that a perfectly social man is still in the making.

A very famous sociologist, Durkheim, suggested that a society without crime is not possible.
In his view, the designation of criminality is how society defines it. If all of the members of
society decide not to do any act that is considered criminal, the same society will develop
new behaviours that are not considered criminal. Crime is a social fact and it contributes to
the social dynamics of society. The only difference is that one sees criminality in an
individual sense and observes the effect of that criminal activity on society, while the other
sees criminality as a policy of public morality, which may or may not have anything to do
with the effect on society.

Although “criminality” and “crime” are both different terms, crime can have different scopes
and meanings, but in general, an “offence or a crime is a violation of right, considered in
reference to the evil tendency of such violation as regards to the community at large,” while
criminality is a state of mind, a temperament, which for the purpose of law can be evidenced
by an overt act or provable fact. So far, we have failed to defend our society against crime
and our whole focus is now shifting towards defending it against criminals. Thus, there is no
definite definition of crime; it is a very complex phenomenon, especially in this modern age,
where changes occur across cultures, cultures change over time and behaviours that were not
criminalised get criminalised (for example, the ban on alcohol in Bihar).
 DEFINITION OF CRIME

An action committed or omitted, which constitutes an offence and is punishable by law, is a

crime. Crime is an unlawful act that is forbidden and punished by the State or the law. In
other words, anything which is injurious to public welfare is a crime.
Generally speaking, crime is a human conduct that society generally disapproves of. But in
the modern sense, crime is any act that is prohibited by the penal law in force, and the result
of this is punishment.

General Definition :- An act forbidden by law and injurious to public welfare is called
crime.
But this definition is incomplete because there are certain acts which are injurious to private
individuals. For eg :- Defamation

Definition of Crime According to Renowned Jurists :-

1.​ According to Bentham, “ Crime is an act which is in the form of an offence which
the legislature has prohibited for good or for bad reasons.”
It is an incomplete definition as it is only based on offence against individuals but
there are also offences which are against the state. For eg:- Offences against the
sovereignty and integrity of the nation.

2.​ According to Austin, “a wrong which is pursued at the discretion of the injured party
and his representatives is a civil injury; a wrong which is pursued by the sovereign or
his subordinates is a crime.”3
It is an incomplete definition because any wrong persuade by sovereign or state is also
a crime but above definition only consider those wrong persuade by an individual as a
crime.

3.​ Blackstone has defined crime in his “Commentaries on The Laws of England.” He
defined it as “An act committed or omitted in violation of a public law either
forbidding or commanding it.” He also defined crime as “violation of the public rights
and duties due to the whole community, considered as a community, in its social
aggregate capacity.”
The editor of Blackstone, Stephen, has made slight changes in the definition and
presented it as “a crime is a violation of a right, considered in reference to the evil
tendency of such violation as regards the community at large.”
Blackstone had not defined the ‘public law’.

4.​ According to Stephen, “Crime is an act forbidden by law and which is at the same
time revolting to the moral sentiments of the society.”

3
S.N. Mishra, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Central Law Publication Company, 22nd edition.
 Revolting against the moral sentiments is a moral wrong but not legal wrong so it is
not punishable.

5.​ According to Paul W. Tappen, “An intentional act or omission in the violation of
criminal law, without justification and sanctioned by the law as felony or
misdemeanour.”
An act of slight nature is also a crime but he did not mention it.

6.​ According to Kenny, “Crimes are wrongs whose sanction is punitive and is in no way
remissible by any private person; but is remissible by crown alone, if remissible at
law.” (Here, the word ‘sanction’ means punishment, and the word ‘remissible’ means
to pardon by a crown.)
He mentioned that offences which are remitted by the crown is a crime but there are
some compoundable offences which are remitted by private individuals also.

7.​ According to Keeton, “a crime would seem to be any undesirable act which the State
finds it most convenient to correct by the institution of proceedings for the infliction
of a penalty, instead of leaving the remedy to the discretion of some injured person.”4

8.​ According to Miller, crime is “to be the commission or omission of an act which the
law forbids or commands under pain of a punishment to be imposed by the State by a
proceeding in its own name.”

9.​ According to Paton, “the normal marks of a crime are that the State has the power to
control the procedure, to remit the penalty or to inflict the punishment.”

From the above definitions, it can be said that there is no constant definition of crime. Each
jurist has defined the crime differently according to their views and opinions. Also, due to the
varying nature of the content of crime, all efforts to define crime with perfection have failed.

According to Terence Morris, “crime is not absolute like sin, that can be defined and have an
existence beyond the limits of what men may say and do. It is essentially a relative definition
of behaviour that is constantly undergoing change.”

Therefore, Crime is an act which is intentional or non intentional, harmful for human and
society which is prohibited by law and punishment is given in the form of imprisonment by
the state.

4
S.N. Mishra, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Central Law Publication Company, 22nd edition.
 NATURE OF CRIME

The Bhartiya Nyaaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) or the Indian Penal Code (Amendment) is a major
legislative reform aimed at updating and replacing the colonial-era Indian Penal Code (IPC)
1860. This new legal framework, which still retains much of the core elements of the IPC,
seeks to modernise criminal law in India, improve efficiency in justice delivery, and address
contemporary concerns related to crime and justice.

Nature of Crime under Bhartiya Naya Sanhita, 2023:-

1.​ Categorization of Crimes:- Crimes under the BNS 2023 are broadly classified into
various categories as under the IPC but have been redefined or reframed to reflect
current realities.

Crimes against the State: Offences like sedition (previously Section 124A of the
IPC), which have been significantly amended or replaced. The focus is now on
punishing acts of terrorism, secessionism, and attempts to overthrow the government
by force, but not peaceful dissent.

Offence against Public Tranquillity: Riots, unlawful assembly, and other crimes that
disturb public order.

Crimes against the Human Body: Murder, culpable homicide, grievous hurt, rape,
and kidnapping. Provisions for capital punishment, life imprisonment, or lesser
sentences based on the severity of these offences remain largely intact, though there is
greater emphasis on victim rights and compensation.

Crimes against Women and Children: Specific provisions have been added to
strengthen punishments related to sexual offences, trafficking, and other crimes that
disproportionately affect vulnerable groups. The definition of rape has been expanded
to include non-consensual sexual activity in all its forms, and marital rape has seen
more focused attention.

Offences against Property: Theft, robbery, dacoity, misappropriation of funds, and

fraud.

Economic and Financial Crimes: Fraud, embezzlement, corruption, and white-collar

crimes have received significant attention, with stricter provisions to deal with
corporate fraud and misuse of financial systems.

Cybercrimes: Recognizing the rise in internet-based crimes, the new law has clearer
provisions against offences such as hacking, identity theft, and cyberbullying.
 2.​ Punishments:- The system of punishment under BNS is modernised to include not
just imprisonment and fines but also community service, reparation for victims, and
electronic surveillance in certain cases.
For heinous crimes like murder and terrorism, the death penalty is still retained, but
with more rigorous checks and appeals.
The concept of life imprisonment has been clarified, and it now can be “for the
remainder of the natural life” of the convict in certain offences, replacing earlier
ambiguities.

3.​ Incorporation of Technological and Economic Offences:- BNS 2023 brings into
focus crimes related to the misuse of technology, such as data theft, hacking, and
cyberstalking.
Provisions have also been enhanced to address money laundering, bank fraud, and
Ponzi schemes.

4.​ Protection of Civil Liberties:- The 2023 bill places more emphasis on the protection
of civil rights, especially in context to crimes by the police or government officials
against ordinary citizens.
Torture, custodial deaths, and illegal detentions by state authorities are now more
explicitly punishable.

5.​ Simplification and Clarity:- Legal terms have been simplified for easier
comprehension, and definitions of various crimes have been streamlined.
The new law is aimed at minimising interpretational ambiguities, thereby reducing
delays in legal procedures.

6.​ Focus on Victim-Centric Justice:- Under BNS, there is a significant focus on victim
rights, including compensation schemes for victims of violent crimes, a more robust
witness protection system, and speedier trials to ensure justice is not delayed.
The new framework emphasises restorative justice alongside punitive measures,
meaning the accused may, in some cases, have to compensate or directly assist
victims rather than merely serving jail time.

7.​ Abolition and Redefinition of Certain Colonial-Era Offences:- The law attempts
to abolish outdated and redundant sections of the IPC, such as those related to sedition
and certain provisions on defamation.
Focus is on punishing acts that are directly linked to modern threats like terrorism,
organised crime, and drug trafficking.

In conclusion, Bhartiya Nyaaya Sanhita, 2023 is designed to make the criminal justice system
more responsive to modern concerns, with particular attention given to vulnerable groups, the
efficient prosecution of economic crimes, and technology-enabled offences. It also
emphasises the balance between protecting state security and ensuring civil liberties
 ELEMENTS OF CRIME

There are four essential elements which constitute a crime and these are :-
1.​ Human being
2.​ Mens Rea
3.​ Actus Reus
4.​ Injury

Human Being

The first ingredient required for a crime is that the unlawful act must be done by a human. In
ancient times, when criminal law was dictated by the concept of retribution, punishments
were imposed on humans as well as animals for causing any harm. For e.g. often horses or
cows were killed for causing harm to human beings like kicking a man or destroying
property.

This concept was not considered logical and consequently discarded. The rules of crime and
criminal jurisprudence have been amended time and time again for refinement. Now, the first
ingredient of crime is a human being. It is mandatory that the human being or person must be
under a legal duty to act in a specific manner and should be fit for rewarding punishments.
Further, Section 2 (26) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (BNS) elaborates on this concept
and states that the word “person” aside from a human being may include a Company or
Association or body of persons, whether incorporated or not. Therefore, the word “person”
may include artificial or juridical persons as well.

Criminal liability of a company or corporation :- the following difficulty were felt in

beginning in holding a company or corporation for committing a crime -
1.​ Company has no body of its own so it cannot be imprisoned or hanged.
2.​ No mind of of its own so it cannot have Mens Rea or guilty mind.
3.​ Company can act only through agent or servants , prior there is no place for vicarious
liability in criminal law.
4.​ Company never authorised for commission of crime as it is its beyond legal capacity.
However, during the course of time , all these difficulties were resolved.

Firstly, It was held in R v. Birmingham Railway Co. (1843) that the Railway Company was
lined up for committing a public nuisance i.e. for obstructing a highway.

In R v. Great North of England Railway Company , It was held that if a statutory duty was
cast upon a company or corporation and it failed to do that duty penal liability would be
imposed and in this case, the Railway Company was held liable for not repairing the
highway.
In Leeward Carrying Company v. Asiatic Company (1950), Viscount Haldane J. made a
distinction between superior officers and the servants or minor officers of a company and he
said that the intention of superior officers i.e the directors can be attributed to the company
itself because they are directing of the company.

Mens Rea

The second essential element of a crime is mens rea or guilty mind or evil intent. Mens rea
refers to the mental element that is necessary for a particular crime. Any wrongful act
committed by a human being cannot be called a crime if committed without evil intent. There
must be an evil intent while doing an act.
There is a well-known maxim– ‘Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea.’ It means ‘the act
itself does not make a man guilty unless his intentions were so.’ From this maxim, there came
another maxim- ‘actus me invito factus non est mens actus,’ which means ‘an act done by
me against my will is not my act at all.’ This means an act in order to be punishable at law
must be a willed act or voluntarily and at the same time must have been done with criminal
intent the intent and the act both must conquer to constitute the crime.5

Volition:- Every conscious act which we do is preceded by a certain state of mind. No

physical act is possible without bodily motions. And every bodily motion which constitutes
in act is preceded by a desire for those motions. According to Austin, “bodily movement
obeys Wills. They move when we wil they should. The wish is volition and consequent
movements are acts.6
According to Stephen, “ will is often used as being synonymous with the act of volition,
which precedes or accompanies voluntary action”.

Intention and Motive :- Intention is an operation of will directing an overt act; Motive is the
feeling which prompt the operation of will, the ulterior object of person willing, example, if a
person kills another, the intention direct the act which cause the death, the Motive is the
object which person had in view, example satisfaction of some desire, such as Revenge etc.7
Intention refers to the immediate object and means to achieve it while it refers to the ulterior
object which is the root of the intention and it is also the end.

Origin of Mens Rea:- The doctrine of Mens rea in early primitive societies was not in
existence and the liability was absolute and the accused was responsible whether he acted
innocently or negligently. But this was before this period in which the tort law and criminal
law was divided and punishment in those days mainly consisted of money compensation to
the person wronged and the mental attitude of the person was an irrelevant consideration for

5
Fowler v. Padget , (1798)
6
S.N. Mishra, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Central Law Publication Company, 22nd edition.
7
S.N. Mishra, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Central Law Publication Company, 22nd edition.
the trial and punishment of the person concerned. As the distinction between tort and crime
appeared, the requirement of mens rea took an increasing importance and the bodily
punishment had taken the palace of awarding the money compensation.
‘Coke’ traces the origin of the maxim ‘Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea’ to the
‘Sermons of Augustine’ as ‘ ream linguam non facit nisi mens rea’. The author of ‘Leges
Henrici’ picked it up from some intermediate work in which Linguam may possibly have
disappeared. After ‘Coke’, many English decisions had taken the help of this maxim. As the ‘
Lord Kenyon’ in the case of Fowler v. Padget8 had accepted this maxim to be the principle
of Natural justice and English Law. In case of R v. All day9, ‘Lord Arbinger’ had observed
that the maxim is older than the law of England that no man is guilty unless his mind is
guilty.
The modern notion of mens rea was almost non- existence until the 12th century. Even then it
wasn't completely disregarded and it was kept in view in awarding punishment. In the 13th
Century, Roman law, especially its conception of Dolus and Culpa influenced English
Criminal law. The English courts were also influenced by the common law which emphasised
moral guilt. In case a felony was committed the guilt was determined according to the
intention of the accused.
The notion of mens Rea, as we understand it today, was fully established during 14th and
15th centuries but by the end of the 17th century, it was universally settled law that Mens Rea
i.e. guilty intention is an essential element of crime. The act of the person was not punishable
unless the same is done with evil intent.

Levels of Mens Rea:- There are four kinds of mens rea. In most of the criminal cases any of
the following kinds of mens rea is involved -

1.​ Intent :– This is the explicit and conscious desire to commit an illegal act.It means a
person has a clear foresight of the results of his acts and desires those results to occur.
It is his aim to achieve that consequence.
For Example- If a person assaults someone with the aim of inflicting harm on the
victim, he is displaying criminal intent.

2.​ Knowledge:– It applies if a person is aware that his actions will have certain results,
but doesn’t seem to care about it. It means a person knows or should know that the
results of his conduct are reasonably certain to occur.

3.​ Recklessness:– It is the decision to commit a certain act despite knowing about the
associated risks. It means, a person foresees that particular consequences may occur
and proceeds with the given conduct without caring whether these consequences
actually occur or not.

8
(1798) 7 T. R. 504 at 541
9
(1837) 8 C and P, 136 at 139
 4.​ Negligence:- This is the mildest form of criminal culpability. A person commits
negligence when he fails to meet a reasonable standard of behaviour for his
circumstances. In it, a person didn’t actually foresee that the particular consequences
would flow from his actions, but a person of ordinary prudence in the same
circumstances would have foreseen those consequences

Mens Rea and Statutory Offences:- The conception of mens rea was introduced in the
statutory offences by judges by means of ‘construction’ without any Parliamentary sanction.
There are two schools of thought. One embodies in the judgement of Wright j., in Sherras
v. De Rutzen10 that “in every statute means rea is to be implied unless the contrary is shown;
and second is that of Kennedy, in Hobbes v. Corporation11 that you are to construe the
statute literally unless there is something to show that mens rea is required. On either view
means rea is implied in certain statute and not in others, although there are no word in statutes
itself to show a recognition of mens rea and judges provide for it on their own authority.
For a better elucidation of the subject it would be useful to discuss some cases in detail. The
first of such case is R. v. Prince12 in which the defendant was charged with taking an
unmarried girl under the age of 16 out of the possession of her father. The defendant believed
the girl was 18. The court held that the defendant’s honest belief in the girl’s age was not a
defence. The Court also drew a distinction between ‘acts that were in themselves innocent but
made punishable by statutes’ (malum prohibitum) and ‘acts that were intrinsically wrong or
immoral’ (malum in se). So it was held that it seems to be impossible, where a person takes a
girl out of her father's possessio, not knowing whether she is or is not under 16, to say that he
is not guilty; and equally impossible when he believes, but erroneously, that she is old in a for
him to do wrong at with safety and the conviction should be a affirmed.
The Queen v. Tolson13 involved Mrs. Tolson, who was charged with bigamy after
remarrying under the belief that her first husband, who had deserted her and been absent for
several years, was dead. She had received information leading her to believe in good faith
that he had died. The legal issue was whether this genuine and reasonable belief could serve
as a defence to the charge of bigamy. The court held that Mrs. Tolson’s honest and reasonable
mistake of fact regarding her husband’s death negated the mens rea required for the offence.
It was held that a Bina fide belief in reasonable grounds in the death of the husband at the
time of the second marriage afforded a good defence Of the indictment, and that the
conviction was wrong.
Nathulal vs. State of M.P14 , In this case, the accused was a food grain dealer who applied
for a licence and deposited the requisite licence fee. Without knowledge of rejection of his
application, he purchased food grains and sent returns to the Licencing Authority, who on
checking, found that it was in excess of the quantity permitted by Section 7 of MP Food
Grains Dealers Licensing Order, 1958. The accused was prosecuted. However, he was
acquitted on the ground that he had no guilty mind.

10
(1895) 1 Q.B. 918.
11
(1910) 2 K.B. 471.
12
(1875) LR 2 CCR 154.
13
(1889) 23 QBD 168.
14
AIR 1966 SC 43.
State of Maharashtra v. MH George,15 In this case, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) placed
some restrictions on the entry of gold into India, thus superseding an earlier notification. The
accused reached Mumbai fromManila, where gold bars were recovered from his jacket. The
accused pleaded that he had no Mens Rea and that he had no knowledge of the RBI
notification. After considering the object and subject matter of statute, the Court held that
there was no scope for the invocation of the doctrine of Mens Rea in this particular case.
R.S. Joshi vs. Ajit Mills Ltd.,16 In this case, the court held that, "Even here we may reject
the notion that a penalty or a punishment cannot be cast in the form of an absolute or no-fault
liability but must be preceded by Mens Rea. The classical view that `no Mens Rea, no crime’
has long ago been eroded and several laws in India and abroad, especially regarding
economic crimes and departmental penalties, have created severe punishments even where
the offences have been defined to exclude Mens Rea."
Sweet v. Parsley17, it was observe that where and offence is created by some statute, the
language of that statute should be read with the rebuttable presumption that common law
doctrine that there can be no crime without mens rea, has not been this page with by the
statute concerned.

Exception to Mens Rea:- Strict Liability, Absolute Liability and Vicarious liability are the
exception to the Mens Rea .
Mens Rea when not essential: Strict Liability :
1.​ Public nuisance
2.​ Contempt of court
3.​ Kidnapping
4.​ Bigamy
5.​ Waging war
6.​ Sexual Harassment
7.​ Rape
8.​ Selling of obscene book

Actus Reus

The third element of the crime is actus reus. The criminal intent to be punishable must be
obvious in some voluntary act or omission. As per Kenny, ‘actus reus’ is such a result of
human conduct as the law seeks to prevent. The act committed must be one that is forbidden
or punished by the law. An act also includes omissions. A man is also held liable if some
duty is imposed upon him by law, and he omits to discharge that duty. An omission must be a
breach of a legal duty.

15
AIR 1965 SC 722.
16
1977 AIR 2279.
17
(1969) 2:W.L.R. 470 (H.L.)
Maxim - “actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea” meaning "an act is not guilty unless the
mind is not guilty”.& Actus Reus is a wrongful act committed or omission of an action.Mens
Rea is not necessary in every Actus Reus.
Illustration: Person A thinks of killing Person B - not a crime Person A hits Person B using a
rod with the intent to kill him - crime (commission) Person A sees his child B drowning in
water but does not do anything - crime (omission).

Injury

Injury is the last important, or we can say the essential element of a crime. It must be caused
illegally to another human being or a body of individuals or society at large. ‘Injury’ has been
defined in section 2 (14) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (BNS) as ‘any harm
whatsoever illegally caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or property.’ So, any
harm which legally causes a Person, Body, Mind , Reputation, and Property.
However, there can be some crimes that may not cause any injury to anybody. For example, if
you drive a vehicle without a driving licence, it is a crime, even if it does not cause any injury
to someone.

Therefore, Elements of crime are a set off acts that must be shown in order for a defendant to
be convicted of a crime. Criminal elements are defined in criminal statutes or cases in
jurisdictions where common law crimes are permitted. Mens Rea embodies the essence of the
crime. It is not a crime in the eyes of the law if there is no intent to act in such a way that it
causes harm to another person or property. Mens rea is also employed in some civil disputes,
requiring the defendant to have been aware of the consequences of their conduct in order for
civil culpability to arise, but in most cases of civil liability, the Actus Reus takes precedence.
 . STAGES OF CRIME

The stages of crime in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (BNS), refer to the various phases
that a criminal offence goes through, from the initial thought or intention to commit the crime
to the actual execution of the offence and the post-commission actions.
These stages are considered crucial in establishing the culpability of an accused person and
determining the appropriate legal consequences for their actions. Understanding the different
stages of crime in IPC helps in analysing the mens rea (mental state) and actus reus (physical
act) of the accused, which are essential elements in establishing criminal liability.

The Four Stages of Crime in India are :-

1.​ Intention
2.​ Preparation
3.​ Attempt
4.​ Accomplishment

Intention:- Intention is the first stage of crime, where the accused person forms the mental
state or mens rea to commit a particular offence. It involves a conscious decision or desire to
commit the crime, without taking any physical action towards its execution. Intention may be
either general or specific, depending on the nature of the offences.
In the Indian legal system, criminal intent is considered the first stage in committing a crime.
However, it is important to note that individuals are not punished for their evil thoughts or
unlawful intentions under the law. Criminal intent alone cannot be punished until a crime has
been committed with that intent. The concept of criminal intent plays a crucial role in
determining the culpability of an accused person and guiding the appropriate charges and
punishments. Until intention followed by any act it is not punishable.

Illustration: For instance, if a person intends to steal a valuable item from a store and plans
to do so by entering the store after hours and breaking the lock, the intention to steal is
formed in the person’s mind even before they take any physical action.

Preparation:- The preparation stage follows the intention stage and involves taking
actions towards the execution of the intended offences. In this stage, the accused person
makes arrangements, gathers resources, and plans the details of the crime, but has not yet
taken any concrete steps towards its commission.
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.
Preparation When Punishable:-

When the offence is regarded as a serious offence, preparation to commit offences is

penalised under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (BNS). A few of them are mentioned
below:

●​ Warfare preparations against the government (Section 149 of BNS).

●​ Preparing coins or government stamps for counterfeiting (Sections 181 of BNS).
●​ Having counterfeit money, fraudulent documents, or fake weights and measurements
(Sections 180 of BNS).
●​ Making plans to commit dacoity (Section 126 of BNS).
●​ Committing depredation on territories of foreign State at peace with Government of
India (Section 154 of BNS).

Illustration: Continuing with the previous example, the person who intends to steal from the
store may start gathering tools or instruments, such as lock-picking tools or a crowbar, to
break the lock. They may also survey the store’s layout, identify the best time to commit the
theft, and plan their escape route.
In the preparation stage, certain acts may be punishable under the law, depending on the
nature of the offences and the specific provisions of the relevant laws.
Illustration; X knowing that Y has kept gold jewellery in his house decides to rob him. In
order to do so, X purchases a gun from a known contact, Z.
Till the time X had only decided to rob Y, the crime was only at the stage of intention. The
minute X initiates contact with Z to buy a gun for the purpose of robbing Y, it enters the stage
of preparation. Here X has sought to procure the necessary tools in order to commit the
crime that he has in his mind.
Let's consider the same example in a modified form;
X knowing that Y has kept gold jewellery in his house decides to rob him. X
already owns a gun. He conducts surveillance on Y’s house for a couple of
nights to acquaint himself with the sleeping pattern and other habits of Y, Y’s
family members and Y’s neighbour.
Here, the preparation does not involve the procurement of the tools for the commission of the
crime. Here, the preparation 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.18

18
https://epgp.inflibnet.ac.in/epgpdata/uploads/epgp_content/S001608/P001744/M027822/ET/1521103818Stage
sofCrime-Final2.pdf.
Attempt:- The attempt stage follows the preparation stage and involves taking direct
actions towards the commission of the intended offences. It is the stage where the accused
person makes a physical or overt act towards the completion of the crime, but the offence is
not fully consummated.

Illustration: In the previous example, the person who intends to steal from the store may go
to the store after hours, break the lock using the tools they gathered in the preparation stage,
and enter the store with the intent to steal. However, if they are caught by security personnel
or leave the store without actually stealing anything, it would be considered as an attempt to
commit theft.
Under the BNS, an attempt to commit a crime is punishable under Section 62 ( prior Section
511 of IPC), which provides for the punishment for attempting to commit an offence
punishable with imprisonment for life or with shorter terms. The punishment for the attempt
is generally lesser than the punishment for the actual offences, but it varies depending on the
nature of the offences and the specific provisions of the law.
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.
Let's consider the example below;
X intends to kill Y because of some insulting things which Y had said about
X’s father.
In order to kill Y, X procures a gun and approaches his house
and knocks on his door. When Y opens the door, X points the gun at Y’s head
and pulls the trigger.
In this case, if the gun fires and Y is killed, X will be liable for culpable homicide amounting
to murder. However, if for some reason the gun does not fire and X runs away from the place,
he will be liable for attempting to commit culpable homicide amounting to murder.
Examples:
●​ Waging, or attempting to wage war, or abetting waging war, against Government of
India (Section 147 of BNS)
●​ Attempt to commit robbery or dacoity when armed with deadly weapons (Section 312
of BNS)
●​ Attempt to murder (Section 109 of BNS)
●​ Attempt to commit culpable homicide (Section 110 of BNS)19

Certain test to determine whether the act in question among to attempt:-

The court have adopted several tests to distinguish between a ‘preparation’ and an ‘Attempt’
to commit a crime -

1.​ Proximity rule – proximity is the linkage between time and action or to the intention.
It primarily focuses on whether a person is ‘dangerously close’ to completing the
crime or shows near to the result that danger of success is very high.

19
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, Bare act, Taxmann.
 Accused has completed all or almost all necessary steps towards the commission of
crime which fall short of the desired consequences.
In R. v. White20 case, the accused put 2 grams of potassium cyanide in his mother's
drink intending her to take it and be killed.
It was held that he was guilty of an atom to murder even though the quantity was
insufficient to cause death.
Examples: 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 haystack 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.

2.​ Locus Poenitentiae – the doctrine of ‘locus Poenitentiae’ that when an act is such
that there is ample time with the accused to choose whether to commit such crime or
not and it is within the control of that person.
In this the accused has an opportunity to repent or give up the idea of crime then it is
the stage of preparation what if lost that opportunity it is the stage of attempt.

3.​ Equivocality Test –the Equivocality Test state that when an act of person can prove
beyond reasonable doubt that likeliness of committing the crime it shall constituted as
an attempt to commit the crime rather than mere preparation.

Accomplishment :- It is also known as Commission. The commission stage is the final

stage of crime, where the accused person successfully completes the offences by performing
all the necessary acts to accomplish the intended crime. It is the stage where the mens rea
(mental state) and actus reus (physical act) of the accused coincide, resulting in the
consummation of the offences.
Illustration: In the previous example, if the person who intended to steal from the store
successfully breaks the lock, enters the store, and steals a valuable item, it would be
considered as the commission of theft.
The commission of a crime is punishable under the relevant provisions of the BNS or other
applicable laws, depending on the nature of the offences. For example, theft is punishable
under Section 303 of the BNS21, which prescribes the punishment for theft as imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

20
1910 2 KB 124.
21
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, Bare act, Taxmann.
ARE THE POST-COMMISSION ACTION PUNISHABLE?

After the commission of a crime, the accused person may take certain post-commission
actions, such as hiding the stolen goods, disposing of evidence, or attempting to escape from
the scene. These actions may also attract legal consequences, depending on the nature of the
offences and the specific provisions of the law.

Illustration:Continuing with the previous example, if the person who committed theft hides
the stolen item in their house or sells it to another person, they may be charged with offences
such as concealment of stolen property or disposal of stolen property, which are punishable
under the relevant provisions of the IPC.

Post-commission actions may be punishable under the relevant provisions of the IPC or other
applicable laws, depending on the nature of the offences. For example, Section 411 of the IPC
deals with the punishment for dishonestly receiving stolen property, while Section 201 of the
IPC deals with the punishment for causing the disappearance of evidence of an offence.

JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT

●​ Asgarali Pradhania v. Emperor 22

In this case, the Calcutta High Court, while distinguishing between an attempt to commit an
offence and its preparation, was of the opinion that not every act done by the accused can
constitute an attempt to commit the said offence. The facts of the case included the accusation
of an attempt to cause a miscarriage of his ex-wife. The Court held that if the accused, with
an intention to administer a drug which shall cause a miscarriage, administers any harmless
substance instead, he shall not be liable for the attempt to cause miscarriage. However, if the
failure of the accused is caused by someone else, it shall result in the contrary.

●​ Madan Lal v. State of Rajasthan23

In this case, the convict was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years when found
guilty of attempting to commit rape of the victim under Section 376 read with Section 511 of
the Code. The facts of the case included three prime witnesses, who found the convict laid
down naked on the victim, who was also found naked, and the mouth of the victim was
covered by the convict’s hand. It was established the convict himself removed his clothes and
that of the victim and had an intention to rape the victim.
The Court, while analysing the stage of attempt, held that “It is the stage beyond preparation
and it precedes the actual commission of the offence. An attempt to commit an offence is not
meant to cover only the penultimate act towards the completion of an offence but it also
covers all those acts or series of acts which travel beyond the scope of preparation and exhibit
a definite intention and determination to commit a particular offence. It need not be an act

22
AIR 1933 CAL 893.
23
1986 (2) WLN318.
which just precedes the last act on the happening of which the offence itself is committed but
it covers all those acts or series of acts which may precede the penultimate act towards the
commission of that offence.”

●​ State of Madhya Pradesh v. Narayan Singh24

In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the commission of an offence involves four
stages; i.e. intention, preparation, attempt and commission. The first two stages of these
offences would not attract culpability, however, the last two stages would attract it. In this
case, the respondents were trying to export fertilisers without a permit from Madhya Pradesh
to Maharashtra. Hence, the act was considered to be an attempt of the offence rather than just
preparation.

●​ Nasim v. Senior Superintendent of Police 25

This case is related to cow slaughter which attracts criminal liability as per UP Prevention of
Cow Slaughter Act, 1955. The petitioner, in this case, was found to be holding a knife, 38cm
in length, and to be sitting on the top of a cow with all of its legs tied. The instant petition
was filed for quashing an FIR registered under Section 3 and Section 8 of the impugned Act.
Relying upon the Narayan Singh case (1989) as discussed above, the Hon’ble Allahabad
High Court held that preparation had been done by the petitioner and he would have moved
to the third stage i.e. attempt had he not been stopped. Resultantly, he had criminal liability as
attempt and accomplishment of crime would have attracted liability under the said Act.

●​ Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab 26

In this case, the appellants were accused of abetting an attempt to commit suicide, which was
done by the wife of the primary appellant. The issue before the court was whether it was
whether, in an episode of an attempt to suicide made by a person due to harassment by
another, the person harassing such person shall be liable for an attempt to abet the
commission of suicide. The Court answered in negative, stating that an attempt to abet shall
only be punishable if the said offence has been committed, hence providing successful
abetment. In case the said offence has not been committed, the abettor shall not be held
liable.

●​ Abhayanand Mishra v. State of Bihar27

In this case, the appellant was a candidate appearing in an entrance examination of the Patna
University for the course of M.A. in English. In his application form, the appellant had
provided that he was a graduate and was also teaching in certain schools after his graduation.
However, the University, only after dispatching his admit card for the examination, found the
information to be forged. He was convicted by the lower court and the High Court under
Section 420 read with Section 511 of the Code. Under the appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme

24
1989 SCR (3) 549.
25
2002 CRILJ 2719.
26
AIR 2001 SC 2828
27
1961 AIR 1698
Court, the contention of the appellant was that it was mere preparation to commit fraud and
not an attempt. The Court rejected the argument and held that when the appellant submitted
the forged information, it constituted preparation to commit fraud, and when the said forged
documents were dispatched, it amounted to an attempt. The court reiterated that an attempt
may not be seen as only the penultimate act, rather, it means any act in furtherance of the
preparation.

●​ Mathivanan v. the State of Tamil Nadu28

In this case, the Madras High Court reiterated that the first and the second stage (intention
and preparation) are generally not culpable, whereas the third and the fourth stage (attempt
and accomplishment) are culpable. However, exceptions to this general notion are the
offences under Section 122 and Section 399 of the Code.
Commenting on Section 122 of the Code, the Court opined that “To wage war would require
several steps and crossing of stages. There has to be mobilisation of men as well as
accumulation of arms and ammunition. That would require a concerted effort. Each
individual who is a party to the conspiracy to wage war may be allotted a particular task. One
may be tasked with collecting men, another with arms and the third with ammunition. The
expression “otherwise prepares” in this context should not be construed on the application of
the principle of ‘ejusdem generis’. A person may be engaged in fund-raising. Another may be
responsible for providing reinforcements. Some may be engaged in making logistical
arrangements. Some may be engaged in the intellectual front. There could be several
dimensions. All of them would fall within the scope of “otherwise prepares”. But as already
held, when it comes to application of the provision to concrete facts, courts will apply a
higher threshold.”

28
AIR 2021
 CONCLUSION

Elements of crime are a set off acts that must be shown in order for a defendant to be
convicted of a crime. Criminal elements are defined in criminal statutes or cases in
jurisdictions where common law crimes are permitted. Mens Rea embodies the essence of the
crime. It is not a crime in the eyes of the law if there is no intent to act in such a way that it
causes harm to another person or property. Mens rea is also employed in some civil disputes,
requiring the defendant to have been aware of the consequences of their conduct in order for
civil culpability to arise, but in most cases of civil liability, the Actus Reus takes precedence.

The stages of crime in IPC are intention, preparation, attempt, and commission, play a crucial
role in the criminal justice system. These stages help establish the mens rea and actus reus of
the accused, determine the level of culpability, and guide the appropriate charges and
punishments.

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.

Various cases have been adjudicated by the courts wherein an attempt has been made to
distinguish the thin line between an attempt and preparation of a crime. The courts have been
of the view that an attempt shall not be considered only as the penultimate act of the crime.
Rather, a series of acts shall constitute an attempt to commit the crime and the differentiation
between preparation and attempt shall depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Source :-

1.​ Indian Penal Code,1860 (22nd Edition) by Prof. S.N. Mishra.

2.​ Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( 8th Edition) by K.D Gaur.
3.​ Criminal Law (15th Edition ) by P.S.A Pillai.
4.​ Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, Bare act, of Taxmann.

Secondary Source :-

1.​ https://www.writinglaw.com/crime-ipc-definition/

2.​ https://lawnotes.co/elements-of-crime/

3.​ https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/crime-and-it-s-elements-11975.asp

4.​ https://www.scribd.com/document/405489652/Imf

5.​ https://lawbhoomi.com/stages-of-crime-in-ipc/

6.​ https://blog.ipleaders.in/all-you-need-to-know-about-stages-of-crime/

7.​ https://lawctopus.com/clatalogue/clat-pg/ipc-notes-stages-of-crime/

8.​ https://epgp.inflibnet.ac.in/epgpdata/uploads/epgp_content/S001608/P001744/M0278
22/ET/1521103818StagesofCrime-Final2.pdf

9.​ https://www.toppr.com/guides/legal-aptitude/indian-penal-code/stages-of-crime

10.​https://www.jyotijudiciary.com/stages-of-crime-in-ipc/
 CASE LAWS LIST

S.No Cases Name Citations

.

1. Fowler v. Padget (1798) 7 T.R. 504 at 541

2. R v. All day (1837) 8 C and P, 136 at

139

3. Sherras v. De Rutzen (1895) 1 Q.B 918

4. Hobbes v. Corporation (1910) 2 K.B. 471

5. R v. Prince (1875) LR 2 CCR 154

6. Queen v. Tolson (1889) 23 QBD 168

7. Nathulal v. State of M.P AIR 1966 SC 43

8. State of Maharashtra v. MH George AIR 1965 SC 722

9. R.S. Josi v. AJIT mills Ltd. 1977 AIR 2279

10. Sweet v. Parsley (1969) 2. WLR 470 (H.L)

11. R v. white 1910 2 KB 124