Stages of Crime

 Intention – Mens Rea; Actus Reus

 Preparation – You’re preparing to commit the crime
 Attempt – to commit [50/50 chance]
 Commission – final stage [you succeed]

Concept of Crime
Of all the branches of law, the branch that most closely touches and concerns a man in his
day-to-day life is criminal law. However, criminal law is not a satisfactory statute. Many
attempts have been made to define the word crime, but the kind of act or omission that
constitutes a crime varies. This is perhaps because the notion of crime changes from time to
time and place to place. The very definition and concept of crime vary according to the form
of government, structure, and other factors as well. For instance, what is considered an
offence against property in a capitalist culture may be a lawful way of living in a socialist
society. The Parliament can also scrap a crime from the statute book.

Hence, crime may be defined as the commission of acts prohibited by criminal law, and
criminals are those who commit such acts. Natural law relies heavily on the feeling of moral
sense and an individual’s instinct for the fitness of things. Under natural law, an act that
violates moral and ethical codes is considered a crime, while an act that does not violate
these codes is not a crime.

Thus, the general concept is that adherence to a basic moral code is considered right, and its
violation is considered wrong. According to the positive law theory, crime is a man-made
creation. Under this law, crime is defined as a violation of the sovereign’s authority. Crime,
under positive law, consists of those acts and omissions that are specifically prohibited by
criminal law under the threat of punishment.

Characteristics of offense/ crime

The outstanding characteristics of an offense are that it normally results in punishment that
a special legal procedure is followed in deciding on the guilt of the accused person. One can
understand as to what constitutes a crime by the following three essential attributes:
 Crime is an act of commission or an act of omission on the part of a human being
which is considered harmful by the state.
 The transgression of such harmful act is prevented by a threat or sanction of
punishment administered by the state.
 The guilt of the accused is determined by the accusation against him has been
investigated in legal proceedings of a special crime in accordance with the provisions
of law.

The Actus Reus and Mens Rea

The ancient maxim Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi men Sit Rea has remained unchallenged as a
declaration of principle at common law throughout the centuries up to the present day
which cavisages that no man should be convicted of a crime unless the two requirements of
actus reus physical and to mens rea mental elements is satisfied in every crime. It is a
principal of mental justice that the intent and the act must both conquer to constitutes the
crime. The criminal law is interested with the behavior of men therefore the physical
element indicated by the word Actus (the act done) the deed must consist some
manifestation of physical behavior. The mental element indicated by the word Mens (mind)
must consist the operation of mans mental process.

In the past liability depended solely upon two objective facts, stated below;
a) That a thing (deed) has been done, which the law prohibited being done,
b) That the man accused had done it (the second fact being ascertained by following
the chain of causation)
A further ingredient of liability whether added later on namely;
c) That the accused should have been actuated by a legally reprehensible attitude of
mind (mens rea).
In short, there are five main points in the totality of criminal responsibility:
 Human action or abstention from conduct (action) (which for the purpose of present
discussion is termed as conduct)
 Such circumstances as are prohibited by law the law
 The result of the conduct in these specified circumstances
 The conduct must be voluntarily and,
 The result must be foreseen.

Actus Reus
To constitute a crime at common law there must always be a result brought about by human
conduct, a physical event which the prohibits. For example – killing a man, raping a woman,
etc. It has long been the custom to employ the term Actus Reus to denote a deed so
prohibited. A result of human conduct is an event which for the present purposes must be
carefully distinguished from the line of conduct which produced the event. No man can
pursue a line of conduct without producing a continuing series of events anyone of which
may or may not constitute an event forbidden by law. One example – Thus a man intends to
murder another may lawfully purchase a revolver for the purpose or he may secretly take
and carry away the revolver without the consent of the owner thus performing the Actus
Reus of theft. He may then break and enter victims dwelling house during the night thereby
performing the Actus Reus of another crime that is burglary.

Mens Rea
Mens rea is a technical term generally taken to mean some blameworthy mental condition
whether constituted by intention or knowledge or otherwise. The absence of which or any
particular occasion negatives the intention of crime. No act is perse criminal as such. The act
becomes criminal when the actor does it with a guilty mind. The guilty intent does not
necessarily that of intending the very act or thing (deed) done and prohibited by common or
statute law. But it at least must be the intention to do something wrong.

However this is no single state of mind that must be present as a prerequisite for all crimes.
Mens rea in fact takes on different colours in different surroundings. An evil intent for one
kind of offence may not be so for another kind.
Example – In case of murder it is the intent to cause death, in case of theft, the intention to
steal, in case of receiving stolen goods, knowledge that the goods were stolen, in case of
rape the intention to have forceable cohabilitation with a woman without her consent, etc.

Mens Rea under BNS (IPC)

The doctrine of Mens rea as such has no application to the offences in general under IPC
(now BNS) which is codified unlike its counterpart the common law. However the doctrine
has been incorporated in two ways:-
1. The provisions as to the state of mind required for a particular offence having added
to the sections by using such words as intentionally, knowingly, voluntarily,
fraudulently, dishonestly, etc. Depending on the gravity of the offence concerned
that is to say every offence under IPC (now BNS) virtually imports the idea of Mens
Rea.
2. Concept of Mens Rea has been incorporated into provisions relating to general
exceptions.

Difference between intention and motive

Intention must be distinguished from motive. Motive is the reason or ground of action
whereas intention is the active desire to do an act. In other words intention is an operation
of the will directing an overt act, motive is the feeling which prompts the operation of the
will – the ulterior object of the person willingly.

For instance if A kills B the intention is the state of mind which directs the act which causes
death. The motive is the object which the person had in view namely the satisfaction of
some such desire revenge, hatred and the like. Motive is not a basis for criminal liability.
Criminal law takes into amount only a mans intention and not his motive. A good motive will
not render lawful what is in fact a crime. If a man steals food in order to feed his starving
child the act amounts to theft. Inspite of the fact that the motive for the act was to save the
life. Likewise a bad motive will not make unlawful that which is lawful. An executioner may
enjoy putting a convict a death because of spite against him but this would not render his
unlawful act of crime. Thus motive is not a sine quanon (an indispensable requisite or
condition) for holding the accused liable.

Difference between intention and knowledge

Intention is distinguishable from knowledge. An intention to commit an offence may be
inferred from knowledge though at times intention and knowledge merge into each other. If
A sets a house on fire in an inhabited locality at night for the purpose of facilitating a theft
and thereby causes death of some person living in the house, A is liable for murder of the
inhabitants. Intention to cause death will be inferred from the awareness of the risk involved
in the act of setting fire.

Nevertheless, there is a distinction between intention and knowledge. Knowledge is the

awareness of the consequences of an act. A man may be aware of the consequences of his
act, though he may not intend to bring them about. A attacked by a wild animal calls out B
to fire in order to save him though with imminent hazards for himself. B who in response to
A’s request fires which causes the death of A, is not liable for A’s death. Here B’s act was not
the intentional killing of A though we knew the act was likely to cause A’s death.
 Difference between Knowledge and Reason to believe
Knowledge is again distinguishable from reason to believe. The person is supposed to know
a thing where there is a direct appeal to his senses, whereas reason to believe means
sufficient cause to believe a thing but not otherwise. If A comes to B at night under
suspicious circumstances and offers to sell a valuable watch for Rs 20 only. B may not know
that the watch is stolen but he has sufficient reason to believe that the watch might be
stolen as is evident from the low price demanded.

Different stages of Crime

1. In every crime there are 4 successive stages in its commission.
i. Intention to commit a crime
ii. Preparation to commit a crime
iii. Attempt to commit a crime
iv. Actual commission of a crime

2. Intention to commit a crime:- Intention to commit a crime is not punishable under

the Indian Penal Code, like the penal laws of other countries, because it is impossible
to read the mind of a man and so it is absolutely difficult to define contemplation in
the mind of a man and to punish him for ideas in his mind.

3. Preparation not punishable:- In general, preparation is not punishable because a

preparation apart from its motive would generally be a harmless act. It would be
impossible in most cases to show that the preparation was directed to a wrongful
end, or was done with an evil motive, or intent, and is not the policy of the law to
create offences that in most cases it would be impossible to bring home the culprit or
which might lead to harassment of innocent person. Besides, a mere preparation
would not ordinarily affect the sense of security of the individual intended to be
wronged, nor could society be distributed or its sense of vengeance aroused by what
to all outward appearances would be an innocent act. Take a case of murder.
Purchasing a gun is not punishable, being merely preparation, but if a man having
processed the gun pursues his enemy with it, but fails to overtake him, or is arrested
before he is able to complete the offence, or fires without effect, this amounts to
attempt and obviously, none of the considerations which justify the exclusion of
preparations from the category of crime will apply.

4. Preparation punishable in exceptional cases:- These are however exceptional cases,

wherein the contemplated offence may be so grave that it would be of the utmost
importance to stop it as its initial stage and punish it at the preparatory stage itself.
These are preparations to:
i. Collecting arms, etc., with the intention of waging war against the
Government of India (Section 122 of IPC)
ii. Committing depredation on territories of power or at peace with the
Government of India (Section 126 of IPC)
iii. Making or selling or being in possession of instruments for counterfeiting
coins or Government stamps (Section 223-235 and 257 of IPC)
iv. Possession of counterfeit coin, Government stamps, false weight or measure
(Section 242, 243, 259, 266 of IPC)
 v. Making preparation to commit dacoity (Section 399 of IPC)

If intention and preparation were made punishable, it would be impossible to prove that the
object of an accused was to commit an offence. For instance, a man might purchase arsenic
powder for medical purpose, not necessarily for committing murder. Again, the acts of
mental determination and that of preparation are too remate from the completion of a
crime.

Attempt
The word ‘attempt’, said Chief Justice Cockburn, ‘clearly conveys with it the idea that if the
attempt had succeeded, the offence charged would have been committed.’ In other words,
attempt is the direct movement towards the commission of an offence after the
preparations have been made. According to English Law, a person may be guilty of an
attempt to commit an offence, if he does an act which is more than merely preparatory to
the commission of the offence; and a person maybe guilty of attempting to commit an
offence even though the facts are such that the commission of the offence is impossible.

Once an act enters into the arena of attempt, criminal liability begins, because attempt takes
the offender very close to the successful completion of the crime and so it is punishable in
law like the completed offence.

An attempt, creates alarm which of itself is an injury, and the moral guilt of the offender is
the same as though he had succeeded. The act maybe sufficiently harmful to society by
reason of its close proximity to the completed offence classed as a crime. Hence, unlike civil
law, criminal law takes notice of attempts to commit punishable wrongs and punishes them
according to the nature and gravity of the offence attempted. And if the third stage is
successful, then the crime is completed and the accused will be liable according to the
offence committed by him.

Thus an attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient in
law, if there is at present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof.

What is Attempt under the IPC?

The BNS has not defined attempt to commit a crime but has dealt with attempt in 4 different
ways.
1. The commission of an
a. Offence and the attempt to commit it is dealt with the same Section. The
event of punishment being the same. These are offences against the state
such as waging or attempt to wage war against Government of India (Section
121 of IPC)
b. Assaulting or attempting to assault the President of India or Governors of the
state with intent to council or restraint the exercise of any lawful power
(Section 124 of IPC)
c. Sedition (Section 124 A of IPC) waging or attempting to wage war against any
Asiatic power in alliance with the Government (Section 125), Public Servant
taking gratification (Section 161), dacoity (Section391), etc.
 2. Attempt to commit offences and commission of specific offences have been dealt
with separately and separate punishments have been made from the offence
committed.
Example – Attempt to commit robbery, culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
(Section 307, 393)

Whereas murder, culpable homicide, robbery are punishable offences, Sections –

302, 304, 392 of IPC respectively.

3. Attempt to suicide is
4. Attempt to commit offences in General, except those falling in the above offences
under Section 511 of IPC

It leaves unpunished attempts to those who are punishable with fine only.

Offences relating to Property

Theft
Theft – Whoever intending to take dishonestly any moveable property out of possession of
any person without his consent moves that property in order to such taking is said to
commit theft.

Explanation:
1. A thing so long as it is attached to earth, not been a immoveable is not a subject of
theft but it becomes a subject of theft as soon as it is severed from earth.

2. A moving affected by the same act which effects the severance maybe a theft.

3. A person is said to cause a thing to move by removing an obstacle which prevented it

from moving or by separating it from any other thing as well as by actually moving it.

4. A person who by any means causes an animal to move is said to move that animal
and to move everything which in consequence of the motion so caused is moved by
that animal.

5. The consent mentioned in the definition maybe expressed or implied.

Illustration:
‘A’ cuts down a tree on Z’s ground with the intention of dishonestly taking the tree out of ‘s
possession without Z’s consent. Here as soon as ‘A’ has severed the tree in order to such
taking, he has committed theft.
Meaning (theft):
This section defines the offence of theft and section 379 prescribes punishment for theft.
Theft as defined in section 378 is the dishonest removal of movable property out of the
possession of any person without his consent. It is thus an offence against possession and
not against ownership. The offence of theft consists of the dishonest taking of any property
out of the possession of another without his consent. Such an act does not amount to theft
unless there be not only no legal right but appearance of colour of legal right. By the
expression colour of legal right is meant not a false pretense but a fair pretense. Not a
complete presence of claim but a bonafide claim but weak. There are five explanation
attached in section 378 to explain when an act amounts to theft.

Ingredients:
To constitute theft the following ingredients are required
1. The accused must have a dishonest intention to take the property
2. The property must be movable
3. The property must be taken out of the possession of another person, resulting in
wrongful gain by one and wrongful loss to other.
4. The property must be moved in order to such taking that is obtaining property by
deception and,
5. Taking must be without the person’s consent expressed or implied.

Dishonest Intention-
Intention is the gist of the offence. The taking will not amount to theft unless the intention
with which it is taken is dishonest. If it is not taken dishonestly, it will not amount to theft.

Movable property-
The subject of theft must be movable property that is corporel property of every description
except land and things attached to earth or permanently fixed to anything which is attached
to earth. Property is said to be movable when it is capable to be carried about. It is said to
be immovable when it is permanently attached to the earth.

Possession and custody distinguished-

The term possession must be distinguished from custody. A man is said to be in possession
of a thing when he can deal with as the owner with the execution of other. The possession
that is in his custody when he cannot deal with it as the owner but merely keeps it for the
sake of another as in the case of servant keeping of possession for the owner.

Moving property to such taking-

Theft is complete the moment a ting is moved over though such thing is yet be for from
passing into the thieves’ possession. Moving a thing is the initial stage in the possession of
that which is taken and theft is considered completed at such an initial stage, thus the actual
taking or possession is not of much consequence in determine whether theft have been
committed or not.

It is not necessary that the taking must be of a permanent character or the accused derived
any profit. A temporary removal of a office file from an office of chief engineer and making it
available to a private person for a day or two is theft. Taking out of a possession being an
essential ingredient of theft one of the ingredient of theft is intention to take dishonestly.

Without consent-
The offence of theft is committed if the property of another person is taken away from him
without his consent expressed or implied with a dishonest intention. From a temporary
retention or deprivation is enough to show that offence has been committed. The removal of
the property must be without the consent of the person in possession of it.

Extortion
Extortion Section 383 IPC 308 BNS
Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person or to any other
and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any property or
valuable security or anything signed and sealed which maybe converted to valuable security
commits extortion.

Illustration:
1. ‘A’ threatens to publish a defamatory liable concerning ‘Z’ unless ‘Z’ gives him money.
He thus induces ‘Z’ to give him money. ‘A’ has committed extortion.
2. ‘A’ threatens ‘Z’ that he will keep Z’s child in wrongful confinement, unless ‘Z’ will
sign and deliver to ‘A’ a promissory note/cheque binding ‘Z’ to pay certain money to
‘A’. ‘Z’ signs and delivers the note. ‘A’ has committed extortion.

Explanation:
Section 383 defines extortion and section 384 provides punishment for extortion. The
offences of extortion consists of
1. Intentionally putting a person in fear of injury to himself or another
2. Dishonestly inducing the person so put in fear to deliver to any person property or
valuable security.

Putting a person in fear of injury-

The fear of injury must be of a real nature so as to unsettle the mind of the man upon whom
it is exercised in such a way that is the act does not remain voluntary. The injury that a
person maybe put in fear of is not necessarily physical injury. Injury to the character may
also be an injury.

Dishonest inducement of fear to deliver valuable property or valuable security-

‘A’ threatens to use a process of law for the purpose of black mailing is criminal and when
property or a document is obtained by threats for the purpose, the offence of extortion is
committed.

Difference between Extortion and Theft-

The offence of theft and extortion have many common features. Both are offences against
property. The object of both the offences is wrongful gain of property. However there are
certain point of distinction between the two.
Sl no. Theft Extortion
1. In theft property is taken away without the In extortion the consent of the owner is
consent of the owner. obtained but wrongfully.
2. Theft maybe only in respect of movable The property maybe movable or
property. immovable.
3. There is no element of force. Property is obtained by putting a person in
fear of injury and inducing him to part with
his property.
4. There is no delivery of property by owner. There is delivery of property by owner.

Robbery
In all robbery there is theft or extortion. Robbery in common language means to deprive a
person from his/her property and the chief distinguishing element of robbery. Theft and
extortion is the eminent fear of violence. In all robbery there is either theft or extortion. The
essence of the offence of robbery that is the offender for committing theft or carrying away
or attempting to carry the looted property voluntarily causes or attempts to cause death,
hurt or wrongful restraint.

When theft is robbery-

Theft is robbery if in order to the committing of the theft or in carrying away or attempting
to carry away property obtained by theft, the offender for that and voluntarily causes or
attempts to cause to any person death or hurt, wrongful restraint or fear of instant death or
of instant hurt or of instant wrongful restraint.

When extortion is robbery-

Extortion is robbery if the offender that the time of committing the extortion is in the
presence of the person put in fear and commits the extortion by putting that person in fear
of instant death or of instant hurt or of instant wrongful restraint to that person or to come
other and by so putting in fear induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver up
the thing extorted.

Explanation:
The offender is said to be present if he is sufficiently near to put the other person in fear of
instant death or of instant hurt or of instant wrongful restraint.

Example:
‘A’ holds ‘Z’ down and fraudulently takes Z’s money and jewel from Z’s clothes without Z’s
consent. Here ‘A’ has committed theft, and in order to committing of theft has voluntarily
caused wrongful restraint to Z, A has therefore committed robbery.

Dacoity
Whenever five or more person conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery or where
the whole number of persons conjointly committing or attempting to commit a robbery and
a person present in aiding such property or attempt amount to five or more every person so
committing, attempting or aiding is said to commit dacoity.
Dacoity (Gang robbery defined)(391 IPC)
This section defines dacoity. Here is no difference between robbery and dacoity except in
the number of offenders. Robbery is dacoity is the person committing robbery is five or
more in number.

Ingredients:
The ingredients are
1. The accused commit or attempt to commit robbery.
2. Persons committing or attempting to commit robbery and persons present and aiding
must not be less than five.
3. All such persons should act conjointly.
The word conjointly refers to united or consorted action of five or more person participating
in the act of committing the offence. In other words five or more persons should be
concerned in the commission of the offence and they should commit or attempt to commit
robbery.

Punishment for robbery (section 392)

Whoever commits robbery, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment of ten years, and
shall be liable to fine; and, if the robbery is committed on the highway between sunset to
sunrise, the imprisonment will extend to fourteen years.

Attempt to Robbery (section 393)

Whoever attempts, shall be imprisoned for term extending to seven years and will also be
liable to fine.

Punishment for Dacoity (section 395)

Imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment which may extend to ten years along with a
fine.

Criminal Misappropriation of Property

Section 403 of IPC
Dishonest misappropriation of property, whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to
his own use any movable property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to two years; or with a fine or with both.

Example:
A takes property belonging to Z out of Z’s possession, in good faith, believing at the time
when he takes it, that the property belongs to himself. A is not guilty of theft; but if A after
discovering his mistake, dishonestly appropriates the property to his own use, he is guilty of
an offence under this section

Meaning:
Section 403 and 404 IPC relate to the Criminal Misappropriation of property. Section 403
defines Criminal Misappropriation of property and prescribes the punishment for the
offence and section 404 deals with misappropriation of a deceased person’s property. The
word misappropriation means a dishonest appropriation, and use of another’s property for
the sole purpose of capitalizing it for one’s own use.
Criminal Misappropriation takes place when the possession has come innocently, but is
continued due to a subsequent change of intention or after knowledge of some new fact
with which the party was not previously acquainted. The retaining of property becomes
wrongful and fraudulent when the fact is known. The offence is punishable with
imprisonment that may extend to two years (simple or grievous) with fine or with both.

Ingredients:
To constitute the offence of misappropriation the following ingredients must be established:
1. The accused misappropriated that property and converted the same for his own use
dishonestly.
2. The movable property must belong to the complainant.
The offence of misappropriation consists in dishonest misappropriation or conversion either
permanently or temporarily of movable property which is already in the possession of the
offender. No entrustment beavered to constitute this offence; When the property of another
person comes into possession of the offender and is dishonestly converted or
misappropriated by the offender to his use, the offence is committed.

Finder of Goods
Under the code, the intention of the accused at the time the property was taken is taken
into account and his subsequent dishonesty does not suffice to make him guilty to this
offence. If the intention was not dishonest at the time possession was taken, a subsequent
change of mention does not make the possession illegal.

Dishonest Misappropriation or conversion of property: The word appropriate means to set

apart or assign the property to oneself or to another to the exclusion of the owner. The
words ‘Converts to his own use’ necessarily connote the use or dealing with the property in
derogation of the rights of the owner. There must be an actual misappropriation or
conversion of the thing and it must be to the accused’s own use. When an accused found a
thing and merely retained it in his own possession, he was acquitted of this offence.

Property must be Movable

The misappropriation must be of a movable property and it must be in possession of
someone. Its in possession of no one or nobody is its owner, no criminal misappropriation
can take place with respect to that property.
Example: A Bull set at large in accordance with Hindu religion usage is the property of no
one, and therefore no criminal misappropriation can take place neither can it take place
when a thing has been abandoned. There must always be an owner.

Difference between Criminal Misappropriation (403) and Criminal Breach of Trust (405)

Criminal Misappropriation Criminal Breach of Trust

The property comes into the possession of The property comes into the possession of
the accused in some natural manner. the accused either by an express
entrustment or by some process.
The property comes into possession of the The offender is Lawfully Entrusted with the
offender by some casualty or otherwise and property (may or may not be in writing,
he after-wards misappropriates it. mostly in writing) and he dishonestly
 misappropriates the same.

Difference between Criminal Breach of Trust and Theft

Theft (378) Criminal Breach of Trust (405)

In theft, property is moved from possession The offender is Lawfully Entrusted with the
of another man with dishonest intention. property and he dishonestly
misappropriated it.
In theft, the offender comes in possession Possession is denied with the consent of
of the property without the consent of the the owner.
person in possession.