CRIME
As the classical school of thought would follow- humans are free-willed and thus try to maximise pleasure and minimise the pain. They believe that fear is the main characteristic that controls the human behaviour. After understanding many theories of different school of thoughts it is clear that there could be many reasons to commit crimes which could vary from biological traits to routine activities and even societal behaviour.
Crimes are public wrongs, unlike tort which is a wrong against a private individual. Misdemeanour are trivial crimes and felonies are serious crimes whose penal provisions generally include death or life imprisonment. Crimes do not have a single root cause. For instance, A and B are extremely jealous of C who owns a villa and is very wealthy. A and B come together and plan to kill C. They further decided to poison him to death and A goes to buy poison the same day. Three days later, they go for tea to C house; and as C goes to the kitchen to get some snacks B pours poison that A gives in the tea served for C. As, C sips the tea nothing happens him but as he finishes his cup of tea he dies. Here, A and B are liable under section 300 of the IPC for murder.
The whole process of commission of crimes is also of great relevance. There is a certain line drawn between whether the contribution of an act to a crime is punishable or not. To understand this thin line the stages of crime, it is divisible into four categories. These are as follows:
- Intention
- Preparation
- Attempt
- Accomplishment
INTENTION
The best description of this phase is the Latin maxim “Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea”. This states that for the commitment of a crime, both acts as well as mental intention to commit the crime is a requirement for established. Mens rea is an essential element in establishing a crime[1]. It includes conscious commission of an act or omission of an act.
Any sort of malice, recklessness or fraudulent intent is the element that primarily distinguishes a crime from a tort. Section 39 of the IPC clearly defines the word ‘voluntarily’; It defines it as the intention or a reason to believe that the act is likely to cause harm. It can be observed by the conduct of the parties or chronology of events and the probable effects of this conduct[2]. In the case of State of Maharashtra v. M.H. George[3], it was made mandatory to establish the psychological intent as a fact unless especially it is ruled out.
Further ‘intention’ in the Indian law was clarified by Hari Mohan Mondal v. State of Jharkhand. In this case, the court holds that the fact that the bodily injury would cause is not essential; but the knowledge of an intention to kill is the prime concern and is considerable. In the example mentioned above, where A and B plans on killing C, it qualifies as an intention for both A and B as they voluntarily want to inflict grievous hurt to C by deceiving him into consuming poison.
There do exists an exception to the same. The committing of a crime is, in general, with a dishonest intent; but if it committed to prevent a relatively unpleasant consequences or in good faith to prevent greater harm then it is considerably not a crime. Mens rea will apply in all cases other than (a) acts that are not criminal, (b) public nuisance and (c) acts that seems criminal but are mere enforcement of a legal or civil right.
PREPARATION
Preparation a crime is the second phase which involves organising the necessary things needed for committing the crime. It is not explicitly punishable under the law as it is not easy to establish the malicious intent of the preparation. The principle of ‘Locus Poenitentiae’ essentially gives the option to withdraw. It allows repenting as the law does not punish anyone who has not yet done the act and hence mere preparation is not punishable. In the example mentioned above, A goes and buys the poison and it is the preparation stage. It is not punishable in most cases as there is no harm; and here law allows them to change their mind about the commitment of a crime.
In the case of Noorbibi v. State[4] stated that although the alleged was walking towards the border it cannot be necessarily presumed that the alleged was intending to illegally cross the border. Even if so, he has not yet committed the crime and hence cannot be penalised for the same. R v. Robinson[5] states that the jeweller wanted to put a false claim to the Insurance company with the reason of theft. Then, a false complaint to the police was made; and it was found that the complaint was false. This was the purpose he was dealt with in the court. The court held that as he had not presented this claim to the Insurance company yet and that cannot be held liable.
There are some crimes for which preparation is also punishable under the Indian Penal Code and that it must be prevented at this stage itself. These are crimes preparation to wage war against the government under section 122 or depredation of territories under section 126, preparation for dacoity under section 399, making or selling counterfeit currency[6] and government stamps[7] and forging documents under section 463 to 470.
ATTEMPT
Attempt is the third phase and is punishable under the Indian Penal Code. Attempt is to make use of the preparations and take a step to commit the crime as planned. It is to put the intent into action but must have failed to give the desired result. It has three basic components: (a) the mala fide intent (b) a step towards the commission of the crime (c) an element that falls short of the completed offence. An attempt is generally a failed offence, that is when a person takes the necessary steps towards the commission of the offence but does not receive the desired result. In the example given at the beginning of the article, the minute B pours the poison into C’s tea, it would constitute an attempt to murder under section 307 if the IPC.
An Attempt and an accomplished crime have separate punishments under the Indian Penal Code. For example, robbery is a crime under 392 and the attempt to robbery is a crime under 393 as both are offences but have different consequences. Certain sections provide punishment for the attempt and the offence together such as aiding the escape of, rescuing or harbouring such prisoner under section 130 of the Indian Penal Code. There are other sections as well which deal with both of these phases together[8]. For attempting to commit offences that their respective sections don’t cover, Section 511 of the IPC provides a half of the longest term of imprisonment or fine or both.
ACCOMPLISHMENT
This is the last phase where the malicious intention, preparation for the crime and the attempt towards the commission is successful and the accused can be punished as the crime has been completed. The penal provisions for trivial to serious crimes are codified under the Indian Penal Code which is substantial. According to the above example, when C sips the tea and dies, A and B achieve their desired result; and hence they are liable under section 300 of the Indian Penal Code for murder.
References:
[1] State vs. Salauddin @ Raja & Anr18 October, 2011.
[2] Ravji and Ram Chandra vs State Of Rajasthan, 1996 AIR 787.
[3] AIR 1965 SC 722
[4] AIR 1952, J and K 55
[5] (1915) 2 KB 342
[6] Indian Penal Code, Section 233 to 235
[7] Indian Penal Code, Section 255 to 257
[8] Section 121, 124, 124-A, 125, 131, 152, 153-A, 161, 162, 163, 165, 196, 198, 200, 213, 240, 241, 251, 385, 387, 389, 391, 394, 395, 397, 459 and 460 of the Indian Penal Code.
0 Comments