Attempt And Preparation In Criminal Law
Understanding Attempt and Preparation
Attempt
An attempt to commit a crime is an act done with the intent to commit an offence, which goes beyond mere preparation and moves towards the commission of the crime but is ultimately unsuccessful.
Legal significance: Attempt is punishable because it demonstrates clear criminal intent and a substantial step towards commission.
Key feature: There must be a direct movement towards the commission of the offence after preparation.
Preparation
Preparation involves the planning or arranging the means or opportunity to commit a crime but does not constitute an offence itself because the criminal act has not yet begun.
Legal significance: Preparation alone is generally not punishable because it does not show immediate danger or certainty of the crime being committed.
Legal Framework in Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Section 511 IPC: Punishes attempts to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other punishment.
No separate punishment for preparation except in special statutes.
Distinction Between Attempt and Preparation
| Factor | Preparation | Attempt |
|---|---|---|
| Nature | Planning, arranging | Direct act towards commission |
| Criminal liability | Generally no | Punishable |
| Proximity to crime | Distant | Close to actual commission |
| Examples | Buying tools, planning | Trying to break into a house |
Important Case Law on Attempt and Preparation
1. R v. Eagleton (1855) 6 Cox CC 228
Facts: Defendant purchased a pistol and powder intending to commit a crime but was arrested before taking further action.
Issue: Whether buying arms was an attempt or mere preparation.
Holding: Court held that buying arms was preparation, not attempt.
Significance: Early case establishing that mere preparation is insufficient for attempt liability.
2. State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722
Facts: Accused caught before committing the actual crime but had done acts towards commission.
Issue: Whether acts were attempt or preparation.
Holding: Court held acts amounted to attempt since they moved beyond preparation to actual commission.
Significance: Clarified that an overt act directly pointing to commission constitutes attempt.
3. R v. Gullefer (1990) 93 Cr App R 39
Facts: Defendant jumped onto a dog racing track to stop a race and claim a refund.
Issue: Whether this was an attempt to commit theft.
Holding: Court held this was an attempt because the defendant had moved beyond preparation.
Significance: Established the "proximity test" for attempt.
4. State v. Sathanantham, AIR 1967 SC 1161
Facts: Defendant was caught with weapons and intention to kill but before actual attack.
Issue: Whether possession with intent was attempt or preparation.
Holding: Court held that possession of weapons with intent and steps taken towards crime amounted to attempt.
Significance: Recognized that acts closely connected to crime constitute attempt.
5. R v. Jones (1990) 90 Cr App R 68
Facts: Defendant’s act was interrupted before completing burglary.
Issue: Whether the acts amounted to attempt.
Holding: Court held that act was an attempt since the defendant had embarked on the crime proper.
Significance: Emphasized that attempt begins once preparation is over and the crime is about to be committed.
6. Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955
Facts: The case dealt with intent and acts related to unlawful assembly.
Issue: Differentiating between mere preparation and attempt in criminal acts.
Holding: The Supreme Court clarified that mere preparation is not punishable, but attempt is, requiring direct movement toward commission.
Significance: Landmark Indian case explaining the distinction clearly in criminal law.
Summary Table of Case Law on Attempt and Preparation
| Case | Issue | Holding | Legal Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| R v. Eagleton (1855) | Buying arms - attempt or preparation | Mere preparation, not attempt | Preparation not punishable |
| State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George (1965) | Acts before crime - attempt or preparation | Acts were attempt | Overt act toward commission = attempt |
| R v. Gullefer (1990) | Stopping race - attempt or preparation | Held as attempt | Proximity test for attempt |
| State v. Sathanantham (1967) | Possession with intent | Constitutes attempt | Intent + steps toward crime = attempt |
| R v. Jones (1990) | Interrupted burglary | Constitutes attempt | Attempt starts after preparation |
| Kedar Nath Singh v. State (1962) | Preparation vs attempt | Preparation not punishable; attempt is | Indian precedent clarifying the distinction |
Conclusion
In criminal law, preparation is generally not punishable as it is too remote from the actual commission of the offence, while attempt is punishable as it indicates a definite intention coupled with direct action towards committing a crime.
Courts focus on whether the accused has moved beyond preparation to direct acts evidencing an attempt to commit the offence. The distinction is critical to ensuring fair application of criminal liability.
RELATED Blog
0 comments