Jamia Milia Islamia

FACULTY OF LAW

TOPIC:- ATTEMPT
SUBMITTED TO:-DR. SAMIA KHAN
SUBMITTED BY:- YASH
STUDENT ID:-202305889

B.A.LL.B (HONS.)
3RD SEMESTER (SELF-FINANCE)
INDEX

Introduction

Stages of crime

Legal stages to determine crime

Indian Cases on attempt in crime

Statutory Provisions in Indian Law on Attempt

Conclusion
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

With immense pleasure and a profound sense of gratitude. I take this opportunity to express my
deep sense of gratitude to my teacher, Dr SAMIA KHAN. Faculty of Law, JMI. His initial
inspiration, constant encouraging attitude and sound guidance through every stage of the entire
work has boosted me to complete the present study successfully.

I am fortunate and feel proud of having worked under his supervision.I must also acknowledge
with thanks the help and cooperation extended to me by the different internet websites.

I express my deep sense of regard and special indebtedness to my mother who have always been
a sense of inspiration for me and have provided me with all the bits of help whenever needed.
CERTIFICATE

This to clarify that Yash carried out the project work entitled “ATTEMPT” in partial fulfillment
of the requirement for LAW OF CRIMES assignment work under my guidance and supervision,
it is completed in the same to my satisfaction.

The material in this project is slightly original.

Supervisor (Dr. SAMIA KHAN)

(Faculty of law, JMI)

Date:_______
DECLARATION

I, Yash solemnly declare that this project entitled “Attempt” is submitted in partial fulfillment for
Economics assignment work. It is the result of my original work. Due to acknowledgement, it
has been made wherever anything has been borrowed from other sources.
 ABSTRACT

The 1990s marked a pivotal period in global economic history, characterized by widespread
economic reforms across many countries, particularly in the developing world. This assignment
provides an in-depth analysis of economic reforms undertaken since the 1990s, focusing on the
context, drivers, types of reforms, and their impacts on various aspects of the economy. It
examines the experiences of key countries such as India, China, and several others to illustrate
the diverse approaches and outcomes of these reforms. Additionally, it discusses the challenges
and criticisms associated with these reforms and offers insights into future directions for
economic policy.
INTRODUCTION

The law relating to stages of crime in India is marked by controversies. The term "attempt" in
criminal law describes behaviours that go beyond simple planning and signal a clear path to
committing a crime, even if the crime is not carried out. Because they show a definite intent to
break the law and represent a real danger to the safety and order of society, attempted crimes are
acknowledged and punished. Even though there might not be any harm in the end, an attempt is
punishable because it involves criminal intent and a substantial step towards the criminal goal.
Attempt falls under the larger heading of inchoate or incomplete offences, which also
encompasses solicitation and conspiracy. These offences are punished according to the acts and
intentions that precede the intended crime, as opposed to completed crimes. As a preventative
measure, the criminalisation of attempt deters people from committing dangerous acts that, if left
unchecked, could put others in danger. Additionally, it gives legal systems the ability to step in
early and shield possible victims from harm.

Section 62 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which addresses attempts for offences not
expressly mentioned elsewhere in the BNS, provides the legal foundation for punishing attempts
in India. This clause, along with particular sections that deal with attempts (such as Section 109's
attempt to murder), allows the legal system to bring charges against people who exhibit culpable
intent and action even though they did not carry out their intended crimes. The idea that both
harmful and nearly harmful acts must be addressed by justice is upheld by this methodical
approach.
STAGES OF CRIME

In criminal law, understanding the stages of crime is essential to determining when an

individual’s actions become legally punishable. Crime is not an instantaneous occurrence but
progresses through a series of steps that reveal the criminal intent and plan of the accused. The
four widely recognized stages of crime are Intention, Preparation, Attempt, and Completion.
Among these, attempt is the crucial phase that marks the threshold where the law begins to
intervene to prevent harm, even if the intended crime was not fully realized. Let’s explore each
stage with particular emphasis on attempt and why it is distinctively punishable.

1. Intention

The first stage, intention, involves the formation of a conscious purpose to commit a crime. At
this point, the individual has developed a criminal intent or mens rea (guilty mind) but has not
taken any concrete steps toward carrying it out. This stage, in isolation, does not constitute a
punishable offense under most legal systems, as mere thoughts without action do not cause harm
or disturbance to public order. In essence, while intending to commit a crime is morally
objectionable, the legal system does not typically punish intentions alone, recognizing that
thoughts are private and intangible.

2. Preparation

The second stage is preparation, where the individual begins making arrangements to commit
the crime. Preparation involves organizing the means or planning the steps necessary to carry out
the intended act. For instance, gathering tools or weapons to commit a theft, buying poison, or
conspiring with others. However, the law generally does not punish mere preparation because it
is still ambiguous and does not pose an immediate threat. Preparation can often be legally
insufficient to prove the actual commitment to crime, as there remains a significant likelihood
that the person may abandon the plan.

Exceptions to this general rule exist in cases where preparation itself poses a substantial risk to
society or clearly indicates a strong resolve to commit a crime. Indian law, for instance,
criminalizes preparation in specific circumstances, such as waging war against the state or
making counterfeit currency. However, outside these limited cases, preparation remains legally
insufficient for punishment.

3. Attempt

Attempt represents the critical stage where an individual crosses from preparation into active
criminal conduct. Attempt in criminal law is characterized by direct actions that move beyond
preparation and approach the commission of the intended offense. At this point, the criminal plan
has reached a degree of certainty and poses a clear danger to society or individuals.
Consequently, an attempt is punishable because it demonstrates the offender’s concrete steps
toward a crime and confirms their firm commitment to the criminal act.

The legal distinction between preparation and attempt can sometimes be subtle, leading courts to
rely on various tests to establish whether an act qualifies as an attempt. These include:

 Proximity Test: This test examines how close the act is to the final commission of the
crime. Actions that are proximate or closely linked to the crime’s occurrence are more
likely to be classified as an attempt.
 Last Act Test: This test considers whether the offender has completed the last act
necessary before the intended crime. If the individual is only one step away from
completing the crime, it likely constitutes an attempt.
 Unequivocality Test: If the offender’s actions leave no room for doubt regarding their
criminal intent, it may be considered an attempt.

Under Indian law, Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) governs attempts for crimes where
no specific provision exists. For instance, if a person fires a gun at another intending to kill but
misses, they may still be prosecuted for attempted murder under Section 307 of the IPC.

The importance of punishing attempt lies in both its preventative function and the moral
culpability it entails. Attempts are seen as sufficiently harmful and risky to society, necessitating
early intervention to prevent potential harm. Furthermore, attempts reflect the individual’s firm
resolve to breach societal norms, justifying punishment even if the crime was unsuccessful.
4. Completion (Commission)

The final stage, completion, is where the crime is fully committed as intended. This stage
encompasses both the actus reus (criminal act) and mens rea (criminal intent), and the crime is
fully realized. For instance, if someone intended and acted to commit theft and succeeded in
taking someone else’s property, the crime is completed, and the individual is now liable for the
entire offense rather than just an attempt.

By emphasizing the transition from preparation to attempt, we see that attempt stands as a key
threshold in criminal law. It not only reflects the serious intent of the accused but also serves to
protect society by enabling legal action before the crime's completion. This balance allows the
law to penalize potentially harmful behavior while maintaining a fair threshold that respects
individual autonomy until a tangible, dangerous action occurs.

LEGAL TEST TO DETERMINE CRIME

In criminal law, the distinction between preparation and attempt is critical. An attempt is an act
that is done with the intent to commit a crime but falls short of completing it. To determine
whether an individual’s actions constitute an attempt, courts employ several legal tests. These
tests are designed to distinguish between mere preparation and the actual attempt, which is
punishable under law. Here are some of the key tests:

1. Proximity Test

The Proximity Test is based on the principle that an act must be sufficiently close to the
commission of the crime to be considered an attempt. The key factor is how near the defendant
has come to completing the crime. Under this test, the act must be more than mere preparation
and must have advanced toward the commission of the offense. This test focuses on the physical
proximity of the act to the final crime. In Abhayanand Mishra vs. State of Bihar (1961), the
court emphasized that for an attempt to be punishable, the act must come very close to the final
act of the crime.

2. Last Act Test

The Last Act Test involves determining whether the defendant has completed the last act
required to commit the crime. In cases where an individual has taken all necessary steps and is
on the brink of completing the offense, but is interrupted, their actions can be considered an
attempt. This test applies when the defendant has performed all actions leading up to the offense,
with the final act being interrupted by external circumstances. However, this test has been
criticized for being too narrow, as it fails to account for situations where the crime may have
been prevented before the final act.

3. Unequivocality Test

The Unequivocality Test focuses on whether the defendant's actions unequivocally demonstrate
an intention to commit the crime. This test is often used to determine whether the conduct of the
accused was so clear and direct that there was no reasonable doubt that the individual was
attempting to commit the crime. The act must be such that, if continued, would inevitably lead to
the commission of the offense. This test emphasizes the clarity of intent through the actions, as
seen in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Mohd. Yakub (1980).

4. Locus Poenitentiae (Opportunity to Repent) Test

The Locus Poenitentiae test asks whether the defendant had an opportunity to withdraw from the
act before it progressed to a completed crime. It examines if the individual could have turned
back or stopped their actions at any point before the crime was committed. This test
acknowledges that sometimes, even though the defendant takes significant steps toward
committing the crime, they still have a window to abandon their plans and desist. If the
opportunity to desist exists, the defendant may be absolved of the charge of attempt, as the crime
was not completed.
These legal tests collectively help courts determine when an attempt has occurred and whether it
should be punishable. They ensure that only acts that represent a substantial and direct effort to
commit a crime are categorized as attempts.

INDIAN CASES ON ATTEMPT IN CRIME

1. Abhayanand Mishra v. State of Bihar (1961)

 Facts: In this case, the accused was charged under Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code
(IPC) for attempting to murder a public servant, which was an offense punishable under
Section 307 of the IPC. The accused had made threats to kill the public servant but had
not carried out the actual murder.
 Issue: The main issue was whether the accused had crossed the threshold of preparation
to actually commit the offense or whether they had merely engaged in preparatory acts.
 Ruling: The court held that mere preparation does not amount to an attempt. For an act to
be classified as an "attempt," it must be more than just a preparatory act and must directly
move towards the commission of the offense. The case reinforced the Proximity Test,
which considers how close the act is to the completion of the crime.
 Significance: This case is important because it clarifies the line between preparation and
attempt. The court emphasized that the acts of the accused must have a direct connection
with the commission of the crime, and preparation alone is insufficient to constitute an
attempt.

2. Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994)

 Facts: In this case, the accused was charged with an attempt to murder after having
attacked a victim with a sharp weapon. However, the attack was not fatal, and the
question was whether the accused had crossed the line from preparation to attempt.
 Issue: The case dealt with whether the accused's actions could be categorized as an
attempt or merely preparatory acts.
  Ruling: The court ruled that even though the attack did not result in death, the act of
attempting to kill was enough to be classified as an attempt under Section 511 of the IPC.
The court highlighted that attempt does not require the offense to be completed; it
suffices that the accused has engaged in actions that are directly linked to committing the
crime.
 Significance: This case emphasized that an attempt to commit a crime is punishable
under Section 511, even if the crime itself is not completed. The court made it clear that
the focus is on the defendant's intention and the actions taken to carry out the crime, not
on the ultimate success of the crime.

3. State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub (1980)

 Facts: The accused, Yakub, was charged with attempting to cause a communal riot. He
was involved in organizing a meeting with the intent of inciting violence, but before any
actual violence could occur, the police intervened.
 Issue: The issue was whether the acts of organizing the meeting and inciting violence
could be considered an "attempt" to commit a riot.
 Ruling: The court ruled that in order for an offense to be classified as an attempt, it must
be shown that the acts were unequivocal and unmistakably directed towards the
commission of the crime. In this case, the accused’s actions were deemed sufficient to
constitute an attempt to incite violence.
 Significance: This case is crucial for understanding the Unequivocality Test. The court
emphasized that the actions of the accused must be so clear and direct that they
unequivocally indicate the criminal intent. This test helps differentiate between mere
preparatory acts and actual attempts.

4. V. D. Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra (2003)

 Facts: The accused was charged with attempting to commit murder after an attack on the
victim with a weapon. The victim survived, but the issue was whether the accused's
actions met the legal requirements for an attempt.
  Issue: The court had to decide whether the acts of the accused were merely preparatory or
whether they had progressed to the stage of an attempt.
 Ruling: The court held that an attempt to commit an offense is completed when the
accused has done something that brings them closer to the completion of the crime, even
if the crime itself is not completed. The court clarified that it is not necessary for the
victim to be harmed for an attempt to be constituted; the intent and directness of the
action matter.
 Significance: This case is important because it reinforces the principle that attempts can
be punished under Indian law even if the crime does not result in harm. The ruling
highlights that the intent and the proximity of the act to the commission of the crime are
key factors in determining whether an attempt has occurred.

5. Ravinder Singh v. State of Punjab (1973)

 Facts: The accused was charged with attempting to commit theft. He was caught before
he could complete the act of stealing, but he had already broken into the house.
 Issue: Whether the act of breaking into the house, without stealing anything, could be
considered an attempt under Section 511.
 Ruling: The court held that breaking into a house with the intention to steal, even if no
property was stolen, amounts to an attempt to commit theft. The court applied the Last
Act Test, which suggests that an act that is the final step before completing the crime can
be classified as an attempt.
 Significance: This case is significant because it illustrates how the Last Act Test applies
to criminal attempts. The test focuses on the final act done by the accused that directly
leads to the commission of the crime. It shows that even if the ultimate crime (theft) is
not completed, the preparatory act can still be classified as an attempt.

These cases highlight the different legal tests (Proximity Test, Unequivocality Test, Last Act
Test, etc.) used to determine whether an attempt has occurred. Each case helps clarify the
circumstances under which a preparatory act is elevated to the status of an attempt under Indian
criminal law.

Statutory Provisions in Indian Law on Attempt

In Indian criminal law, attempt is primarily dealt with under sectione 62 of BNS though specific
attempts to commit certain offenses are also separately addressed under various provisions of the
IPC.
1. Section 62of the BNS: General Provision on Attempt
Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Sanhita with imprisonment for life or
imprisonment, or to cause such an offence to be committed, and in such attempt does any act
towards the commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Sanhita
for the punishment of such attempt, be punished with imprisonment of any description provided
for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the imprisonment for life or, as the
case may be, one-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence, or with
such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both.

Illustrations. (a) A makes an attempt to steal some jewels by breaking open a box, and finds after
so opening the box, that there is no jewel in it. He has done an act towards the commission of
theft, and therefore is guilty under this section.

(b) A makes an attempt to pick the pocket of Z by thrusting his hand into Z’s pocket.A fails in the
attempt in consequence of Z’s having nothing in his pocket. Ais guilty under this section.

Distinction Between Attempt and Preparation

The Indian Penal Code recognizes that not all acts of the accused leading towards the
commission of a crime are attempts. For an act to qualify as an attempt, it must move beyond
preparation and be a step towards the completion of the offense. If the accused is still in the
preparatory stage, no criminal liability arises.
  Preparation: Preparation refers to the initial steps taken by a person to commit a crime,
such as acquiring tools or gathering materials.
 Attempt: An attempt occurs when the person has taken a substantial step towards
committing the offense but has been unsuccessful.

For instance, if someone buys a weapon with the intent to commit murder but is arrested before
using it, this would be preparation. If the person actually uses the weapon but fails to kill the
victim, that would be an attempt to commit murder under Section 109.

4. Punishment for Attempt

 In cases where an attempt is made to commit an offense but it does not succeed, the
punishment will often be less severe than the punishment for the completed crime. This is
seen in Section 62, where the law provides for a lesser punishment compared to the full
offense.
 However, the punishment is still significant to reflect the seriousness of attempting a
crime. For example, the attempt to commit murder can result in up to 10 years of
imprisonment, as per Section 109, even if the crime is not completed.

5. Judicial Interpretation

 Courts have often dealt with the interpretation of attempt, especially with regard to the
proximity test (i.e., how close the act was to the completion of the crime) and the
unequivocality test (i.e., whether the act unmistakably shows the intent to commit the
crime).
 In cases like Abhayanand Mishra v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court emphasized
that an act that is a step towards the commission of a crime must be more than mere
preparation and must be evaluated based on the proximity to the final act.
6. Defenses to an Attempt

 Abandonment of the Attempt: In some cases, an individual may abandon the attempt
before it is completed. This defense is not always accepted, but in certain jurisdictions, if
a person voluntarily withdraws from the criminal act, it can prevent liability.
 Mistake of Fact: If the accused had a false belief regarding a fact, which, if true, would
have made their actions lawful, they may be acquitted of the attempt.

CONCLUSION

The concept of attempt in criminal law plays a crucial role in ensuring that individuals are held
accountable for their criminal intent, even if they have not fully completed the act. Punishing
attempts helps deter crime at an early stage, preventing the eventual harm that may result from
completed offenses. It also reflects society's interest in curbing the potential threat posed by
individuals who have taken substantial steps toward committing a crime, thereby ensuring public
safety.

The law distinguishes between mere preparation and actual attempt, focusing on actions that go
beyond preliminary steps. This distinction ensures that only those who are genuinely on the
verge of completing a criminal offense are punished, safeguarding the principle of fairness in
criminal law. Section 62 OF BHARTIYA NYAYA SANHITA captures this concept,
criminalizing attempts to commit offenses that do not culminate in completion, while
recognizing the unique circumstances surrounding inchoate offenses.

Moreover, addressing attempts in the criminal justice system acts as a preventive measure,
providing legal authorities with the means to intervene before a crime is fully realized. The
deterrent effect of criminalizing attempts serves not only as a warning to would-be offenders but
also as a reinforcement of society’s commitment to justice and security. Thus, the concept of
attempt ensures that the criminal justice system functions efficiently, addressing both the act and
the intent behind crimes.
REFERENCES