Stages of Crime

Every crime, from inception to completion, passes through four stages. The law's response intensifies as the actor moves along this chain: it begins by leaving the first two stages (largely) unpunished and imposes liability at the third, with full punishment at the fourth.

The Four Stages

Stage 1: Intention

Intention is the direction of conduct towards the achievement of a particular end. It is purely mental and internal.

Why intention alone is not punishable: The law does not punish thought crimes. A person who resolves to steal but does nothing is not a criminal. Punishing intention alone would require proving an internal state without any external act, which is both unreliable and oppressive. The maxim is actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, but its corollary is that mens without actus is not an offence.

Stage 2: Preparation

Preparation consists in arranging or devising the means necessary to commit the offence. The actor collects materials, surveys the scene, acquires tools, or makes other arrangements.

Why preparation is generally not punishable: At the stage of preparation, the actor has not yet done anything that unequivocally points to the commission of the offence. The same preparatory act may be abandoned, may be directed at a lawful purpose, or may never mature into an attempt. Punishing preparation would criminalise an ambiguous state and would require the court to speculate about future conduct.

Exceptions Where Preparation Itself Is Punishable

Why these exceptions exist: In each case the legislature has judged that the preparation is so dangerous or so proximate to the harm that waiting for an attempt would be irresponsible. Counterfeiting instruments, for example, have no lawful use, so possession itself demonstrates criminal purpose.

Stage 3: Attempt

An attempt is an act done with the intent to commit an offence, which goes beyond mere preparation and which, if not interrupted or frustrated, would result in the commission of the offence.

The Boundary Between Preparation and Attempt

This is the central difficulty of the topic and the most examined. Several tests have been proposed:

Indian position: The Supreme Court in Abhayanand Mishra (1961) and State of Maharashtra v Mohd Yakub (1980) adopted a proximity approach: the act must be proximate to the completed offence. It need not be the last act, but it must go beyond preparation and move sufficiently close to the commission.

Punishment for Attempt (BNS S.62)

S.62 provides the general punishment for attempt where no specific provision exists:

• If the offence attempted is punishable with imprisonment for life: attempt punishable with imprisonment up to one half of imprisonment for life.
• If punishable with imprisonment: attempt punishable up to one half of the longest term provided.
• Fine as provided for the offence.

Specific attempt provisions carry their own punishment:

Impossible Attempts

Where the offence is impossible to complete (picking an empty pocket, shooting at a dead body believed to be alive), Indian law generally treats such cases as punishable attempts if the intention and the act exist. The impossibility goes to completion, not to culpability.

Stage 4: Commission

The offence is complete when all its elements (actus reus and mens rea, and any special conditions the definition requires) are satisfied. At this stage the full punishment prescribed for the offence applies.

Recall Check

1. Why is mere intention not punishable?
2. Name three statutory exceptions where preparation is punishable.
3. State the proximity test and the case that establishes it in Indian law.
4. What is the general punishment for attempt under BNS S.62?

Key Cases

Abhayanand Mishra v State of Bihar (1961) Abhayanand Mishra v State of Bihar 1961
Issue: Line between preparation and attempt.
Rule: An act sufficiently proximate to the offence, where the accused has done everything in his power, is an attempt.
Held: Submitting a false application was an attempt to cheat.

State of Maharashtra v Mohd Yakub (1980) State of Maharashtra v Mohd Yakub 1980
Issue: Whether being at the seashore with silver and a vehicle, waiting for a boat, was preparation or attempt.
Rule: Proximity test; the last act need not have been done if the accused is sufficiently close.
Held: Attempt to smuggle.

Malkiat Singh v State of Punjab (1970) Malkiat Singh v State of Punjab 1970
Issue: Whether driving a loaded truck towards a restricted border was preparation or attempt.
Rule: Proximity test applied; driving towards the border was proximate.
Held: Attempt to export illegally.

Distinctions

Flashcards

Exam Scenario

Problem: Aamir intends to murder Bilal. He buys a licensed revolver. He loads it and drives to Bilal's house. On arrival he parks outside, takes out the loaded revolver, and walks towards the gate. Before he can enter the compound, a passing police patrol spots the revolver and apprehends him. Aamir is charged with attempt to murder under BNS S.109. He argues that he had not yet fired and had not even entered the compound, so his acts amount to preparation at most. Advise.

Step 1: Map each act to a stage

Step 2: Apply the proximity test

Apply Abhayanand Mishra (1961) and State of Maharashtra v Mohd Yakub (1980). The test is whether the act is sufficiently proximate to the completed offence, not whether it is the last act.

Aamir was at the place (Bilal's house), at a time consistent with commission (while Bilal was presumably home), with the loaded weapon drawn, and was moving towards the target. The only remaining steps were to enter the compound, locate Bilal, and fire. These are steps of execution, not of preparation.

Step 3: Distinguish from mere preparation

Step 4: Reject the "last act" argument

The Indian position does not require the last act. Mohd Yakub held that the accused need not have performed the final step (loading onto a boat / firing the weapon) for the attempt to be made out. Proximity is enough.

Aamir's position is stronger than the accused in Malkiat Singh (driving towards a border) because Aamir was already at the target with the weapon drawn.

Conclusion. Aamir's acts satisfy the proximity test. The charge under BNS S.109 (attempt to murder) is made out.

See Also

• Actus Reus and Mens Rea : the elements that constitute the completed offence (stage 4).
• Attempt : the detailed treatment of attempt as a substantive offence, including impossible attempts.
• Criminal Conspiracy : where the agreement itself (stage 2) is punishable.