Prosecution Of Attempt And Preparation To Commit Major Offences
I. Concept of Attempt and Preparation
1. Preparation
Definition: Making arrangements or planning for committing a crime.
Legal Position: Mere preparation is generally not punishable, except when specific laws criminalize preparatory acts (e.g., arms possession, conspiracy, terrorism).
Example: Buying weapons intending to commit robbery may not itself be an offence unless coupled with other acts.
2. Attempt
Definition (Section 511 IPC): Attempt is an act done with the intent to commit a crime, which falls short of completing the crime.
Essentials of Attempt:
Intention to commit the offence
Commencement of execution – the accused must take a substantial step toward the commission.
Failure to complete the offence – due to circumstances beyond control.
Key Difference:
Preparation = planning/arrangement (not punishable).
Attempt = substantial step to commit offence (punishable).
II. Statutory Provisions
1. Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 511: Punishment for attempt to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment.
Section 120B: Criminal conspiracy (preparatory acts can be criminal if forming conspiracy).
2. Special Laws
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967: Preparation for terrorist acts criminalized.
Arms Act, 1959: Possession with intention to commit offence punishable.
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Preparation involving solicitation/bribery can be criminal.
III. Judicial Interpretation
Here are five important case laws regarding attempt and preparation:
1. R v. Eagleton (1855), 2 F & F 438
Facts:
The accused attempted to shoot a person but missed.
Held:
Mere preparation without any substantial step is insufficient.
Pulling the trigger was a clear attempt, making him liable under the law.
Principle:
Preparation is not punishable, but attempt with a direct act towards crime is punishable.
2. State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub (1966 AIR 190)
Facts:
The accused purchased bombs intending to commit a terrorist act. Bombs were seized before use.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that possession of explosive substances with intent to commit crime amounted to preparation coupled with criminal intent, punishable under IPC Sections 120B (conspiracy) and 511 (attempt).
Principle:
Preparatory acts coupled with criminal intention can constitute an attempt under Section 511 in serious offences.
3. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116
Facts:
A case involving attempted bribery and corruption. Officials had agreed on a corrupt transaction, but it was intercepted before execution.
Held:
The Supreme Court ruled that agreement to commit a crime plus overt acts in furtherance can amount to criminal attempt.
Mere discussion without acts was insufficient; substantial step required.
Principle:
Attempt = intention + substantial step; preparation alone is not enough.
4. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684
Facts:
The accused plotted to murder a person. Police intercepted the plan before execution.
Held:
Court held that planning alone is not punishable.
However, acts like buying weapons, lying in wait, or following the victim could constitute attempt.
Principle:
Clear distinction between preparation and attempt in serious offences like murder.
5. Raj Kumar v. State of Haryana (1990 CriLJ 1594)
Facts:
Accused tried to commit dacoity but was caught during robbery before taking any money.
Held:
Court held that attempting dacoity by brandishing weapons, threatening victims, and entering premises amounted to criminal attempt under IPC Section 511, even though the crime was not completed.
Principle:
Substantial steps toward crime = attempt; completion not necessary.
6. State v. Nalini (1999) 5 SCC 253
Facts:
Involved conspiracy to assassinate political leaders. Arrested before execution.
Held:
Court emphasized that conspiracy + overt acts = attempt.
Mere intention without action = preparation, not punishable.
UAPA was applied to punish preparatory acts in terrorism cases.
Principle:
For major offences, planning coupled with overt acts can be prosecuted as attempt.
IV. Key Principles from Case Law
Preparation vs Attempt:
Planning = not punishable.
Substantial step = attempt, punishable.
Intention is necessary but insufficient alone.
Overt acts toward commission = essential for attempt prosecution.
Serious offences (terrorism, murder, robbery): preparation may also be punishable if explicitly criminalized.
Conspiracy + overt acts = can be treated as attempt.
V. Punishment
IPC Section 511: Attempt to commit an offence → Punishment half of the maximum prescribed for the original offence, unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Special statutes: Punishment may be same as the intended crime (e.g., UAPA, Arms Act).
VI. Conclusion
Criminal liability for preparation is limited; liability arises when preparation is linked to specific criminal acts or statutory prohibitions.
Attempt requires intention + overt act, even if the crime is not completed.
Courts consistently emphasize substantial step requirement while punishing attempts, maintaining the balance between criminalization and personal freedom.
RELATED Blog
comments