JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

RESEARCH PROJECT ON STAGES IN THE COMMISSION OF

CRIME

CRIMINAL LAW

HUMBLY SUBMITTED TO : DR. SADIYA

SUBMITTED BY : VINAY SHARMA

2ND YEAR
 INDEX

1. INTRODUCTION OF CRIME
2. ELEMENTS OF CRIME
3. STAGES OF CRIME
INTENTION
PREPARATION
ATTEMPT
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ATTEMPT AND
PREPARATION
ACCOMPLISHMENT

CASES

1. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V. MAYOR HANS GEORGE

2. NIRANJAN SINGH V. JITENDRA BHIMRAJ
3. K.M NANAVATI V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
4. OM PRAKASH V. STATE OF PUNJAB
5. SUREINDRA KUMAR KOHLI V. UNION OF INDIA
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I WOULD LIKE TO EXPRSS MY SPECIAL THANKS OF GRATITUDE TO MY TEACHER

DR. SADIYA, WHO GAVE ME THE GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY TO DO THIS

WONDERFUL ASSIGNMENT ON STAGES OF CRIME AND ALSO HELPED ME IN

THE COMPLETION OF MY ASSIGNMENT . I CAME TO KNOW ABOUT SO MANY NEW

THINGS, I AM REALLY THANKFUL TO HER .

 INTRODUCTION

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 uses the word 'Offence' in place of

crime. Section 40 of the IPC defines Offence as an act punishable

by the Code. An Offence takes place in two ways, either by

commission of an act or by omission of an act.

When a Crime is done, any member of the public can institute

proceedings against the person accused of the offence. Only in

certain exceptional cases, the persons concerned alone can institute

the criminal proceedings. Example of such crimes include

Matrimonial cases, dowry cas, defamatiosen etc.

 Elements of Crime

Four main Elements :-

1.Human BeingThe first essential element of a Crime is that it

must be committed by a human being. In case, the crime is
committed by an animal, its owner is subject to Civil/Tortious
liability.

2.MensReaA crime is done with a criminal intent. Mensrea is the

mental intention, ill intention, or fudge the defendant's state at the

time of offense, sometimes called the guilty mind. In the IPC,

1860, Mensrea is expressed as "ACTUS NON FACIT REUM NISI

MENS SIT REA" as a fundamental principle for penal liability.

Intent and Act, both must concur to constitute a crime. An act itself

is no crime, unless it is coupled with an evil / criminal intent.

3.ActusReusThere should be an external act. The Act and the

mensrea should be concurrent and related.

 4.InjuryThere should be some injury or the act should be

prohibited under the existing law. The act should carry some kind

of punishment.

As it was held in the case of state of

maharashtavsmayerhansgeorge1 that the common law doctrine

of mensreais not applicable to statutory crimes in india. However ,

K subbarao J , after examining a plethora of judicial dicta dealing

with the dealing with the applicability of the doctrine of mensrea to

statutory crimes, in his dissenting opinion, observed that though it

is a well settled principle of common law that mensreais an

essential ingredient of a criminal offence , a statute can exclude it.

But it is sound rule of construction adopted in England and also

accerpted in india to construe a statutory provision creating an

offence in conformity with the common law rather than against it

unless statute expressly or by necessary implication excluded

mensrea. There is thus a presumption that mensrea is an essential

ingredient of a statutory offence. It, nevertheless mayrebuted by

1
AIR 1965 SC 722
 the express words of a statute creating the offence or by necessary

implication.

STAGES OF A CRIME

If a person commits a crime voluntarily or after preparation the

doing of it involves four different stages. In every crime, there is

first intention to commit it, secondly, preparation to commit it,

thirdly, attempt to commit it and fourthly the accomplishment. The

stages can be explained as under:-

1. Intention- Intention is the first stage in the commission of an offence

and known as mental stage. Intention is the direction of conduct

towards the object chosen upon considering the motives which suggest

the choice. But the law does not take notice of an intention, mere

intention to commit an offence not followed by any act, cannot

constitute an offence. The obvious reason for not prosecuting the

accused at this stage is that it is very difficult for the prosecution to

prove the guilty mind of a person. As in the case of

 niranjansinghvsjitendrabhimraj2accused wanted to eliminate two

persons by name raju and keshav for gaining supremacy in the

underworld , they were charged for committing terrorist offence under

TADA , in this context Supreme Court held that from the evidence it

was clear that the intention of the accude person eas to eliminate the

rivals and supremacy in the under world so that they may be known as

the bullies of the locality and would be dreaded as such but it cannot

be said that there intention was to strive terror in the people or a

section of people , the consequence of such killing is bound to cause

panic and fear, but the intention of committing the crime cannot be

said to strike terror in the people or any section of the people.

Therefore, in the absence of an intention to strike terror,even if the

consequence of their act resulted in creating terror, it acquitted the

accused.

2. Preparation- Preparation is the second stage in the commission of a

crime. It means to arrange the necessary measures for the commission

of the intended criminal act. Intention alone or the intention followed

2
AIR 1990 SC 1962
by a preparation is not enough to constitute the crime. Preparation has

not been made punishable because in most of the cases the prosecution

has failed to prove that the preparations in the question were made for

the commission of the particular crime.

If A purchases a pistol and keeps the same in his pocket duly loaded in

order to kill his bitter enemy B, but does nothing more. A has not

committed any offence as still he is at the stage of preparation and it

will be impossible for the prosecution to prove that A was carrying the

loaded pistol only for the purpose of killing B.

Preparation When Punishable- Generally, preparation to commit

any offence is not punishable but in some exceptional cases

preparation is punishable, following are some examples of such

exceptional circumstances-

Preparation to wage war against the Government - Section 122, IPC

1860;
 Preparation to commit depredation on territories of a power at peace

with Government of India- Section 126, IPC 1860;

Preparation to commit dacoity- Section 399, IPC 1860;

Preparation for counterfeiting of coins or Government stamps-

Sections 233-235, S. 255 and S. 257;

Possessing counterfeit coins, false weight or measurement and

forged documents. Mere possession of these is a crime and no

possessor can plead that he is still at the stage of preparation- Sections

242, 243, 259, 266 and 474

As in the case of K.M Nanavativs state of Maharashta3The crux of

the case was whether Nanavati shot Ahuja in the "heat of the moment"

or whether it was a premeditated murder. In the former scenario,

Nanavati would be charged under the Indian penal code for culpable

homicide, with a maximum punishment of 10 years. This is because

3
AIR 1962 SC 605
he could have invoked exceptions 1 and 4 of section 300 of IPC

(which defines murder). Exception 1 states:"Culpable homicide is not

murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by

grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who

gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by

mistake or accident.

Exception 4 states:"Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed

without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a

sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue

advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.

Explanation It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the

provocation or commits the first assault."

In the latter scenario (i.e. premeditated murder), Nanavati would be

charged with murder, with the sentence being death or life

imprisonment. Nanavati pleaded not guilty and his defence team

argued it a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, while

the prosecution argued it was premeditated murder.

The jury in the Greater Bombay Sessions Court had only task: to

pronounce a person as 'Guilty' or 'Not Guilty' under the charges. They

could not indict any accused nor could punish the accused. The jury in

the Greater Bombay sessions court pronounced Nanavati as not guilty

under section 302 under which Nanavati was charged, with an 81

verdict. Mr. RatilalBhaichand Mehta (the sessions judge) considered

the acquittal as perverse and referred the case to the Bombay High

Court.

The prosecution argued that the jury had been misled by the presiding

judge on four crucial points:

The onus of proving that it was an accident and not premeditated

murder was on Nanavati.

Was Sylvia's confession grave provocation for Nanavati, or any

specific incident in Ahuja's bedroom or both?

The judge wrongly told the jury that the provocation can also come

from a third person.

The jury was not instructed that Nanavati'sdefence had to be proved,

to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt in the mind of a

reasonable person.

The court accepted the arguments, dismissed the jury's verdict and the

case was freshly heard in the high court. Without any proper study

comparing existing judicial systems and without any effort to improve

the system, it was claimed that jury had been influenced by media and

was open to being misled, the Government of India abolished jury

trials after this case.

3. Attempt- Attempt is the direct movement towards the commission

of a crime after the preparation is made. According to English law, a

person may be guilty of an attempt to commit an offence if he does an

act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the

offence; and a person will be guilty of attempting to commit an

offence even though the facts are such that the commission of the

offence is impossible. There are three essentials of an attempt:-

Guilty intention to commit an offence;

Some act done towards the commission of the offence;

The act must fall short of the completed offence

Attempt Under The Indian Penal Code, 1860- The Indian Penal

Code has dealt with attempt in the following four different ways-

Completed offences and attempts have been dealt with in the same

section and same punishment is prescribed for both. Such provisions

are contained in Sections 121, 124, 124-A, 125, 130, 131, 152, 153-A,

161, 162, 163, 165, 196, 198, 200, 213, 240, 241, 251, 385, 387, 389,

391, 394, 395, 397, 459 and 460.

 Secondly, attempts to commit offences and commission of specific

offences have been dealt with separately and separate punishments

have been provided for attempt to commit such offences from those of

the offences committed. Examples are- murder is punished under

section 302 and attempt to murder to murder under section 307;

culpable homicide is punished under section 304 and attempt to

commit culpable homicide under section 308; Robbery is punished

under section 392 and attempt to commit robbery under section 393.

Thirdly, attempt to commit suicide is punished under section 309;

Fourthly, all other cases [where no specific provisions regarding

attempt are made] are covered under section 511 which provides that

the accused shall be punished with one-half of the longest term of

imprisonment provided for the offence or with prescribed fine or with

both. As mentioned in the case of om Prakash vs state of

 punjab4Supreme Court was called upon to adjudge the propriety of

conviction of the husband for attempting to kill his wife by

deliberately failing to give her food , the accused whose relations with

his wife were strained deliberately and systematically straved his wife

and denied her food for days together , with the help of his relative he

also prevented her from leaving the house , owing to continuous

undernourishment and starvation she was reduced to a mere skeleton ,

one day however she managed to escape from the house as her

husband forgot to lock her room before leaving the house , she got

herself admitted to a hospital, the doctor who found her seriously ill

informed the police ,after prolonged treatment and blood transfusion

she recovered , the police registered a case under 307 IPC.

Differences between Preparation & Attempt

Both preparation and attempt are the physical

manifestations of the criminal intention.

4
AIR 1961 SC 1782
 An attempt goes a lot farther than preparation towards the

actual happening of crime.

In preparation, there is a possibility that the person may

abandon his plan, but attempt leaves no room for that.

In general, preparation involves collecting material

resources, and planning for committing an act while

attempt signifies a direct movement towards

commission after the preparations are made.

4. Accomplishment Or Completion - The last stage in the

commission of an offence is its accomplishment or completion. If the

accused succeeds in his attempt to commit the crime, he will be guilty

of the complete offence and if his attempt is unsuccessful he will be

guilty of an attempt only. For example, A fires at B with the intention

to kill him, if B dies, A will be guilty for committing the offence of

murder and if B is only injured, it will be a case of attempt to murder.

As also in the case of nitharii.eSurendrakumarkohlivs union of

indiaOn 12 February 2009, both the accusedMoninder Singh

Pandher and his domestic servant SurinderKoliwere found guilty of

the 8 February 2005 murder of RimpaHaldar, 14, by a special sessions

court in Ghaziabad. This verdict left the Central Bureau of

Investigation (CBI) red faced, as the CBI had earlier given a clean chit

to Moninder Singh Pandher in all its chargesheets. Both the accused

Moninder Singh Pandher and SurinderKoli were given the death

sentence on 13 February 2009, as the case was classified as "rarest of

rare".On 4 May 2010, Koli was found guilty of the 25 October 2006

murder of Arti Prasad, 7, and given a second death sentence eight days

later.

On 27 September 2010, Koli was found guilty of the 10 April 2006

murder of RachnaLal, 9, and given a third death sentence the

following day.On 22 December 2010, Koli was found guilty of the

June 2006 murder of Deepali Sarkar, 12, and given a fourth death

sentence.

On 15 February 2011, the Supreme Court upheld the death sentence of

SurinderKoli. On 24 December 2012, Koli was found guilty of the 4

June 2005 murder of Chhoti Kavita, 5, and given a fifth death

sentence.In February 2011, the Supreme Court of India upheld their

death sentence. In July 2014, the President of India rejected the mercy

petitions filed by 6 convicts. On 3 September 2014, the Court issued a

death warrant against Koli in Nithari case. On the evening of 4

September 2014 SurinderKoli was transferred to Meerut Jail because

of the absence of hanging facilities at Dasna Jail, Ghaziabad. He was

to be hanged on 12 September 2014.The Supreme Court of India

stayed the death sentence for one week after a petition was filed for

same. On 29 October 2014, the Supreme Court bench headed by the

Chief Justice of India H. L. Dattu rejected the death sentence review

petition stating that the court had not committed any error in

judgement.[45] On 28 January 2015, the High Court bench headed by

Chief Justice D. Y. Chandrachud and Justice P. K. S. Baghel

commuted the death sentence of SurinderKoli to life imprisonment on

the ground of "inordinate delay" in deciding his mercy petition. The

Allahabad HC will hear a petition by SurinderKoli, seeking

commutation of death sentence. In one of the first six cases, the HC

had reduced his punishment to life. In 2014, the SC had stopped his
hanging at a midnight hearing, saying inordinate delay in execution

was valid grounds for commutation.On 10 September 2009, the

Allahabad high court acquitted Moninder Singh Pandher and

overturned his death sentence. He was not named a main suspect by

investigators initially, but was summoned as co-accused during the

trial. Pandher faces trial in five cases out of the remaining 12, and

could be re-sentenced to death if found guilty in any of those killings.

The same day Pandher was acquitted, the Allahabad high court upheld

the death sentence for SurinderKoli, the former domestic servant of

Pandher. On 24 July 2017, both Koli and Pandher have been awarded

the death sentence (case #8 out of 16) in the latest hearing by the CBI

Court at Ghaziabad.
 BIBILIOGRAPHY

1. CRIMINAL LAW : PSA. PILLAI

2. THE INDIAN PENAL CODE : K.D. GAUR

3. THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE : BM PRASAD and

MANISH MOHAN

4. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : RATANLAL and

DHIRAJLAL