Crime, Stages Of Crime And The Offences..
What is Crime
A crime or an offence can be described as an act which is prohibited by law and is so grave or serious in nature that it revolts against the moral sentiments of the society. Precisely speaking, the gravity or seriousness attached to an offence distinguishes it from a civil wrong and makes the offender liable for punishment. The criminal liability of an offender is adjudged on the touchstone of the legal principle which is embodied in the latin maxim "actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea"; the maxim implies that an act of a person does not make him guilty unless he does that act with a guilty mind.
INTRODUCTION
In criminal jurisprudence, the concept of the stages of crime refers to the sequential phases through which a criminal act progresses, from inception to completion. As per the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the stages of a criminal offence encompass various phases, from the initial thought or intention to commit the crime, through the actual execution of the offence, to the post-commission actions. These stages play a crucial role in determining an accused person's culpability and the appropriate legal consequences for their actions. Understanding these different stages assists in analysing both the mens rea (mental state which is culpable) and actus reus (physical act) of the accused, which are essential elements in establishing criminal
liability.
STAGES OF CRIME
There are four stages of Crime i.e., Intention, Preparation, Attempt and Actual Commission of the Offence.
These stages collectively form the foundation of criminal liability and in determining guilt or innocence, assessing appropriate punishments, and ensuring justice within the framework of criminal law. Each stage is essential for both prosecution and defence in criminal proceedings.
Intention
The intention is the first stage of any offence and is known as the mental or psycho stage. It is impossible to prove the mental state of man and the court cannot convict for what it can not know.
The obvious reason for not prosecuting the accused at this stage is that it is very difficult for the prosecution to prove the guilty mind of a person.
A intends to kill B but does nothing in the direction of reaching the target of killing B. A cannot be punished.
In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub (2011), the Supreme Court considered whether the accused had the intent to commit murder. The court emphasised that intent can be inferred from the evidence of the accused's actions and conduct. In this case, the accused's deliberate actions leading to the death of the victim were sufficient to establish intent for the offence.
Preparation
(Note: Section 149 of BNS corresponds to Section 122 of IPC)
(Note: Section 178 of BNS corresponds to Sections 230, 231, 232, 246, 248, 255, 489A of IPC respectively)
(Note: Section 180 of BNS corresponds to Sections 242, 243,2 52, 253, 259, 489C of IPC respectively)
(Note: Section 181 of BNS corresponds to
Sections 233, 234, 235, 256, 257, 489D of IPC respectively)
(Note: Section 310 of BNS corresponds to
Sections 391, 395, 399, 402 of IPC respectively)
It is the second stage of the crime. Preparation entails gathering all the materials needed to execute a planned criminal act. Since it can be challenging to demonstrate that all necessary preparations were made before the crime was committed, preparation is not illegal in and of itself. But in certain rare circumstances, even preparation might result in punishment.
It means to arrange the necessary resources for the execution of the intentional criminal act. Intention and preparation alone are not enough to constitute a crime.
For example, if A, after forming the intention to kill B, purchases a pistol and keeps it with him, it can be said to be preparation on his part.
In Ram Narain Poply v. CBI (2003), the Supreme Court held that preparation alone does not constitute an offence unless specified by law.
Preparation when Punishable
Under Section 149 of the BNS Collecting arms, etC., with intention of waging war against the Government of India.
Under Section 178, 181 of BNS Counterfeiting coin, Government stamps, currency-notes or bank-notes.
Under Section 180 of BNS, and Section 310 of BNS, having counterfeit money, fraudulent documents, or fake weights and measurements, making plans to commit dacoity.
The reason for not punishing the first two stages is that they are considered too remote to the completion of the intended crìme. They are perceived as harmless acts.
Attempt
(Note: Sections 62 of BNS corresponds to
Section 511 of IPC)
An Attempt' is the third stage of crime. The first two stages generally are not punishable but once an act enters the third stage criminal liability arises. If the e attempt is successful, the crime is committed.
The term attempt means direct movement towards the commission of a crime after necessary preparations made to cárry out an offence or it is an endeavour to commit crime. It is also called preliminary crime or inchoate crime.
Attempt may broadly be defined as an intentional act done by a person in the direction of commission of a crime which failed in its object independent of the violation of the person doing it.
Section 62 of BNS does provide punishment for attempting to commit a crime, where no express provision is made by BNS for the
punishment of such attempt.
For example, A makes an attempt to pick the pocket of Z by thrusting his hand into Z's pocket. A fails in the attempt as a consequence of Z's having nothing in his pocket. A is guilty of attempting to commit theft under Section 62.
Tests to Determine Whether the ACt Amounts to Attempt
Proximity Test: A connection between time and an action or an intention is called proximity. It is used in attempted cases that are in the third stage. The closeness of an action or intention to a time is what determines the concept of proximity. This idea is especially important when figuring out attempts, which is the third phase of a crime.
It mainly focuses on whether an individual is "so near" to the outcome that there is a very high risk of success or "dangerously close to completing the crime. Moreover, the act toward the commission of the offence need not be the penultimate act i.e., the act that comes first and leads to the crime. However the action must be proximate to the desired outcome.
In State of Maharashtra v. Mohammed
Yakub, (1980), it was held by supreme court that It should not be remotely leading towards the Commission of offence.The act of the accused is proximate if, though it is not the last act that he intended to do,is the last act that he was legally necessary for him to do, if the contemplated results is afterwards brought about without further conduct on his part.
Locus Paenitentiae (Time for Repentance):
The doctrine of 'Locus Poenitentiae' says 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.
The intender may change his path or may fear the consequences, if the act is in control of the intended to not to commit the offence, then it is said to be mere preparation and not an attempt. Hence, it is not punishable under penal law.
In Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab (1970), It was held by the supreme court that If the overt acts are such that they would be entirely harmless if the person changed his mind and did not proceed further, then that is the best indicator of whether a given set of acts constitutes an attempt or is merely preparation. If that were the case, it would just be preparation. However, in situations where the action taken would amount to an attempt to commit the offence if it weren't stopped by an unrelated causeway, it would be considered an offence of attempt.
Equivocality Test: This test is a combination of the above two tests. This test requires the unequivocal intention through the act done which is considered to be fulfilled beyond a reasonable doubt that the end is towards the crime intended. The act must speak for itself.
To constitute an attempt the act must be such as to clearly and unequivocally indicate the intention to commit the offence.
Impossibility Test: Since the act is impossible to perform, it cannot be tried and is therefore not guilty. Such actions as shooting a shadow, giving sugar to someone who believes it to be arsenic, killing a man through witchcraft, or cursing someone with the intent to harm them are not allowed under the law.
In these cases there is no probability of realising the accused's goal, but because what he does is not an act towards commission of that offence, but an act towards commission of something which cannot according to ordinary human experience result in hurt to another. His failure to cause hurt is due to his own act of omission.
Social Danger Test: If the fact and circumstances of a case lead to the inference that the resultant consequences would have been grave, the crime of attempt is complete. In fact, it is the apprehension of social danger which the particular crime is calculated to excite, that determines the liability for an attempt.
Commission of Crime or Accomplishment
The last stage in the commission of an offence is its successful completion. Committing the crime is the final step in the process. If the accused succeeds in his attempt, he commits a crime and will be guilty of it.
If he fails, he will only be charged with attempting. If the crime is complete, the offender will be tried and punished as per the specific provisions provided in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
The case of State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab (2012), deals with the 2008 Mumbai attacks where the accused, Kasab, was captured alive during the commission of terrorist acts. The court found him guilty of multiple offences, including murder and waging war against the nation, based on overwhelming evidence of his direct involvement in the execution of the attacks.
For example, A fires at B with the intention to kill him, if B dies, A will be guilty of committing the offence of murder if B is only injured, it will be a case of attempt to murder.
OFFENCES
In criminal law, offences can be categorised into two main types: choate and inchoate
Choate offences refer to completed or fully criminal acts that have been carried out to their intended completion.
On the other hand, inchoate offences concern criminal actions that are initiated but remain incomplete.
Choate Offences
Choate offences refer to the completed or fully executed criminal acts that have resulted in injury, harm, damage, or the intended outcome. In the choate offences, the elements of the offence are entirely present, and the perpetrator's intent is manifested through their actions.
The key elements required to establish guilt in a choate offence include
Actus Reus: The guilty act or physical conduct committed by the perpetrator. This could be an action or failure to act when there is a legal duty to act.
Mens Rea: The criminal intent or mental state of the offender at the time of committing the crime. It includes degrees of intent, such as intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently.
Concurrence: The requirement that the guilty act and the criminal intent coincide, meaning the person intended to commit the act and then actually followed through with it.
Example: If an individual successfully causes the death of another person, it is considered a choate offence since the act was carried out to its conclusion, that is, till the death of the person.
Inchoate Offences
(Note: Sections 109, 152 of BNS correspond to Sections 307, 124A of IPC respectively)
Inchoate offences deal with actions that are
incomplete or preparatory in nature, falling. short of achieving the ultimate criminal objective. They represent an individual's intention to commit a crime without successfully executing it.
Inchoate offences are incomplete offences as they only fulfil the mens rea aspect and not the Actus reus element of the crime. Thus, an attempt of an offence can be said to be an Inchoate offence.
An attempt has not been defined directly in the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. However, Chapter IV of the BNS mentions the punishment to attempt an offence with imprisonment or life imprisonment as the case may be.
For instance, A, a person intends to kill B. He shoots at B but misses the target and hence the actual crime of murder or culpable murder doesn't take place. In such a case, A will be charged with the offence of Attempt to Murder under Section 109 of the BNS. The BNS deals with the attempt majorly in three different ways which is as under:
Firstly, the attempt of the offence and its commission are simultaneously dealt with the common section and same punishment. For example, Sedition under Section 152 of the BNS.
Secondly, they are treated as separate offences and thus are punished accordingly. For example, Attempt to Murder under Section 109 of BNS, Attempt to Culpable Homicide under Section 110 of BNS and Attempt to Suicide under Section 226 of BNS.
Thirdly, remaining offences. This is provided in Section 62 of the BNS, where it mentions the punishment of life imprisonment or simple imprisonment for committing such offence.