Attempt Under IPC

A crime might be committed with forethought or on the spur of the moment. In general, a
person who commits a crime in the latter situation goes through four separate and sequential
steps. They are: (i) the formation of the desire to commit it; (ii) the preparations for
committing the intended crime; (iii) the effort to commit it; and (iv) the performance of the
intended crime if the third stage is successful. The first two stages, namely the stage of
conception or purpose and the stage of preparation, are generally unpunished under criminal
law.

Criminal law does not apply to the mere intention or thought of committing a crime. It is
impossible for anyone to 'see into the hearts of criminals' in order to determine and verify
their bad motives.

Similarly, the stage of preparation, which essentially entails creating or preparing tools or
procedures necessary for the conduct of the intended crime, is not punished in most cases.
Apart from the difficulty of demonstrating the intention, it would be impossible to
demonstrate in most situations that the preparation was motivated by malice or was aimed at
doing a specific improper or criminal act. This is because a person who initially intended to
commit an infraction may, before actually attempting to conduct it, give up or abstain from
doing so, either out of dread of the repercussions or a desire to avoid punishment.

What is an attempt to commit a crime?

After making preparations, an attempt to commit a crime is simply a direct movement

towards the commission of the intended crime. Neither a mere desire to commit a crime,
however blameworthy it may be, nor the means provided to conduct it, however effective
they may be, constitute an offence until some acts, thought to be essential in the eyes of the
doer, are taken to carry out the intended crime. If a criminal conduct is committed while it is
still in the planning stages, the perpetrator is often immune from prosecution. It becomes
indictable when it passes through the stage of preparation and takes the perpetrator closer to
his desired goal or evil intent but falls short of the intended offence.

In essence, attempting to commit a crime is "an intended but undone act."

Why is an attempt to commit a crime punishable under IPC?

1|Page
Even if there is no injury, criminal culpability for attempts may be justified. The attempted
commission of a crime is just as dangerous to legally protected interests as the completed act.
A criminal attempt not only endangers bodily and proprietary security, but it also violates the
right to security.

An Attempt to commit a crime--an Inchoate crime?

An attempt to commit a crime is thus an offence in and of itself, even if the intended crime is
not carried out. A person is punished for acting in furtherance of his evil intention and design,
in order to carry out the contemplated crime. He becomes culpable simply by manifesting his
intention (mens rea) to commit the intended (but unaccomplished) prohibited harm through
some acts (actus reus).

Section 511 of the IPC

Section 511 of the Penal Code, which is the lone provision in the last chapter titled "Of
Attempts to Commit Offenses," makes an attempt to commit an offence punishable. It
establishes general principles governing attempts in India.

Section 511 says, “Punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with
imprisonment for life or other imprisonment.--Whoever attempts to commit an offence
punishable by this Code 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 Code 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.”

‘Attempt'--Meaning and Essential Elements

It's worth noting that the IPC doesn't define the term 'attempt.' A person who 'does any act
towards the commission of the offence' is punished under Section 511. An effort to commit
an offence under the IPC appears to be a direct movement towards commission of the offence
that was thwarted due to circumstances beyond the doer's control.

There are three essentials that are required to be proved by the prosecution in order to convict
the perpetrator:

2|Page
  First and foremost, he had the purpose or mens rea to commit the envisaged or
intended crime.
 Second, he has done something or taken a step forward (i.e., something or taking a
step that was more than merely preparatory to the conduct of the intended offence)
toward the performance of the contemplated offence.
 Third, he failed to commit the desired offence for reasons beyond his comprehension
or control.

When does preparation end and attempt begin?

The Supreme Court addressed in detail whether only those acts undertaken would fall under
the coverage of section 511, which should be a penultimate or final act to permit completion
of the offence, in Abhay Anand Mishra v State of Bihar1.

In this instance, the accused applied to Patna University for permission to sit for the MA
degree test as a private candidate. He sent credentials proving that he had a BA degree and
that he had taught in a certain school to substantiate his eligibility. He also submitted
certifications pretending to be from the school's headmaster and the Inspector of Schools to
support his application. His application was accepted by the institution, and he was given an
entrance card. However, the University learned that the certificates were forged and that the
accused was not a teacher. This was discovered to be correct. It was also discovered that the
accused was forbidden from taking any university exams for a period of time after engaging
in corrupt behaviour during a university examination. He was charged with forgery and
attempting to cheat by the institution. Only for attempting to defraud the institution was he
found guilty by the trial court. The case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court, rejecting the appellant's claim that he had not reached the level of
preparation for 'cheating' the university, found the accused guilty of an offence under sections
420 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code. It was decided that the accused's preparation was
complete when he prepared the application for submission to the university, and that the
moment he despatched it, he had entered the domain of attempted 'cheating.'

Tests to determine whether an act amounts to mere preparation or an

attempt to commit an offence

1
1895 I F & F 511

3|Page
Various standards have been established and used by Indian courts to discern between an
attempt to commit a crime and preparations for it. The Proximity Rule, the Doctrine of Locus
Poenitentiae, and the Equivocality Test are just a few of the more well-known ones addressed
here.

 The Proximity Rule - This rule states that the act or sequence of acts performed in
order to commit the substantive offence must be proximal to the intended offence;
only then may the defendant be held liable. The defendant in R v. Taylor lighted a
matchstick near a haystack to burn it down, but quenched the fire when he realised
someone was looking at him. Because the defendant's act was so close to the crime,
he was prosecuted. If he hadn't ignited the matchstick, he wouldn't be held responsible
for the attempted crime.
 Doctrine of Locus Poenitentiae - The notion of locus poenitentiae relates to the
potential of a person who, after making plans to commit an offence, decides not to do
so due to a change of heart or any other sort of compulsion or fear. Thus, if a person
gives up the intention of committing a crime on his own initiative before the illegal
conduct is carried out, the act will be considered a mere preparation rather than an
attempt. In the case of Malkiat Singh v State of Punjab 2, the Supreme Court used this
doctrine to acquit the driver and helper of a truck who had been convicted by a lower
court of attempting to smuggle paddy out of Punjab. The accused, a driver and a
cleaner, were stopped driving a truck carrying 75 bags of paddy at the Samalkha
barrier post in Punjab, roughly 14 miles from the Punjab-Delhi border. A note from
the consigner in Punjab to the consignee in Delhi was also found in the driver's
possession. They were charged with violating the Punjab Paddy (Export Control)
Order 1959 for attempting to export paddy. The Supreme Court overturned the
defendants' convictions, ruling that their actions were still in the planning stages.
The Supreme Court, however, decided in State of Maharashtra v Mohammad
Yakub3 that the locus poenitentiae test proposed in the Malkiat Singh case is not a
general rule and must be applied specifically to the facts of that case.
 The Equivocality Test - The equivocality test, which is a continuation of the
proximate rule and the doctrine of locus poenitentiae, holds that an act done toward
the commission of an offence constitutes an attempt to commit the offence if, and
only if, it unequivocally indicates the doer's intention to achieve the criminal object. It
2
AIR 1970 SC 713
3
(1980) 3 SCC 57

4|Page
 is an attempt if what is done shows without a reasonable question that the end is
towards which it is directed; otherwise, it is merely a preparation. This can be
observed in the case of State v. Parasmal4

Attempting an Impossible Act

The legal framework relating to the law of attempts outlined in the IPC does not address an
attempt to perform an act that is impossible to perform. Nonetheless, a close examination of
section 511's illustrations (a) and (b) reveals that a person can be charged with attempting to
steal gems from an empty jewel box or items from an empty pocket. The most important
factor is the person's belief and intention before to performing a specific action. It makes no
difference whether the individual is breaking open a box in the hopes of taking gems he
believes are within, or the one who picks another's pocket in the hopes of picking (or lifting)
whatever valuables are inside.

A Person 'On the Job' May Be Held Guilty

When considering an attempt to commit an impossible act, it's crucial to determine whether
the accused was actually 'on the job,' that is, whether he had progressed beyond the stage of
planning and was now actively attempting to carry out the planned or desired action by acting
on the intent, or attempting to achieve his goal. As previously stated, the impossibility of
something does not prevent it from being attempted. As a result, a man attempting to break
open the best of steel safes with entirely improper or inadequate tools would still be guilty of
attempting to steal, even if he would be unlikely to succeed. If the person was captured while
'on the job,' he was criminally responsible. Apart from the impossibility of achievement, the
person could not be held accountable if he had never worked on the job in the first place.

4
AIR 1969 Raj 65

5|Page