Difference Between Attempt And Preparation In Criminal Law
✅ Difference Between Preparation and Attempt in Criminal Law
| Basis | Preparation | Attempt |
|---|---|---|
| Definition | Preparing means arranging the necessary means or measures for the commission of a crime. | Attempt means a direct movement towards the commission of the crime after preparations are made. |
| Stage | It is the second stage in the commission of a crime (after intention). | It is the third stage and comes just before the actual commission of the offence. |
| Punishable? | Generally, not punishable (unless specifically provided by law). | Yes, punishable under criminal law (e.g., Section 511 IPC). |
| Proximity to crime | Remote – the crime has not yet begun. | Proximate – the crime has begun but is not completed. |
| Example | Buying a knife with the intent to kill someone. | Stabbing someone but they survive – attempt to murder. |
📚 Detailed Case Laws Explaining the Difference
1. R v. Eagleton (1855)
Jurisdiction: English Law
Facts: The accused was charged with attempting to obtain money by false pretenses. He had submitted false claims to receive payments but had not yet received any.
Held: The court held that an attempt begins when the accused does an act that is immediately connected with the crime — not merely a preparatory act. The act must be proximate enough to the crime, not just remote steps.
Importance: This case laid down the "proximity rule" — that mere preparation is not punishable, but a sufficiently proximate act towards the commission of a crime is.
2. State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub (1980 AIR 1111, SCR (2)1158)
Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of India
Facts: The accused was caught loading silver into trucks near the seashore, allegedly for smuggling. The prosecution argued that this was an attempt to commit smuggling.
Held: The Supreme Court held that the act of loading contraband onto a vehicle near the port was more than mere preparation — it was an attempt, because the accused had taken steps that would have directly led to the offence.
Importance: The court clarified that if the accused has done everything in their power to commit the offence, and only external intervention prevents it, it constitutes an attempt.
3. Abhayanand Mishra v. State of Bihar (1961 AIR 1698, 1962 SCR (2) 241)
Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of India
Facts: The accused applied for a college admission using forged documents. Before he could gain admission, the forgery was discovered.
Held: The Court held this was an attempt to cheat, not mere preparation. Once the forged documents were submitted with intent to deceive, it amounted to an attempt.
Importance: Demonstrates that once the deceptive act is initiated, even if the deception is not successful, it qualifies as an attempt.
4. Koppula Venkat Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2004 Cri LJ 1805)
Jurisdiction: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Facts: The accused attempted to rape a girl but could not succeed in the act of penetration. The question arose whether this constituted an attempt to rape or merely preparation.
Held: The court held that the act of removing clothes, physical assault, and the clear intention to commit rape amounted to attempt to rape, not mere preparation.
Importance: Reinforced that if physical steps are taken toward committing the crime, beyond preparation, with intent, it constitutes an attempt.
5. Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1970 SC 713)
Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of India
Facts: The accused tried to transport goods out of India illegally, but was intercepted before he crossed the border. He argued that he hadn’t yet committed any offence.
Held: The court held that transporting goods with the intent to smuggle and reaching the border with everything in place was not just preparation, but an attempt.
Importance: This case explained that the act need not be the final act, but if it’s close enough to the commission of the offence and is done with intent, it qualifies as attempt.
🧠 Summary
Preparation involves thinking, planning, arranging resources, or setting the stage.
Attempt involves taking direct, intentional steps towards committing the crime, where the crime could occur if not interrupted.
The courts decide the difference based on how close the act is to the completion of the offence.
🔍 Important Legal Provision
Section 511 of IPC: Punishes attempts to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or any other punishment. Even if the final act is not completed, the attempt is punishable.
📝 Conclusion
The line between preparation and attempt can be thin and context-dependent. Courts apply the proximity test and examine intention, actions, and stage of execution. The case laws discussed above show how the judiciary interprets this distinction and when it draws the line from non-punishable preparation to punishable attempt.
RELATED Blog
0 comments