Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Criminal attempt is a crucial aspect of criminal law, addressing situations where an individual intends to commit a crime but fails to complete it. Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code deals with attempt to commit murder, while the general principles governing attempt are found in Sections 511 and 39 of the IPC. The core principle is that merely intending to commit a crime is insufficient; there must be an overt act demonstrating a movement towards the commission of the crime. However, the act must be ‘proximate’ to the intended result. This means there must be a sufficiently close causal connection between the act done and the intended consequence for it to be considered a criminal attempt. This principle is often debated and clarified through judicial interpretations.
Understanding Criminal Attempt
Criminal attempt, as a concept, bridges the gap between mere intention (mens rea) and completed crime (actus reus). It recognizes that the law should punish individuals who demonstrate a strong commitment to committing a crime, even if the crime is not fully carried out. The IPC doesn’t explicitly define ‘attempt’ but the courts have interpreted it to mean an act done with the intention to commit a crime, moving towards its completion, but falling short due to reasons beyond the accused’s control.
The Doctrine of Proximate Cause
The requirement that the act caused must be ‘proximate’ to the intended result is central to establishing criminal attempt. This means the act must be directly connected to the intended crime and must demonstrate a substantial step towards its completion. It’s not enough to simply have the intention or even prepare for the crime; the act must be such that, if it had not been interrupted, it would have resulted in the commission of the crime. The degree of proximity required is a matter of judicial interpretation, and depends on the specific facts of each case.
Illustrative Case Law
Mahbub Khan v. State of Rajasthan (1968 AIR 1968 SC 1589)
This landmark case significantly clarified the concept of ‘proximate cause’ in the context of attempt to commit murder. The accused fired at the complainant, but the bullet missed and hit a wall. The Supreme Court held that the act of firing, even though it didn’t directly hit the complainant, was a ‘proximate’ act towards the intended result of murder. The Court emphasized that the act must be such that it demonstrates the intention to commit the crime and is directly connected to it. The Court rejected the argument that the act was too remote to constitute an attempt.
State of Maharashtra v. Mohamad Hussain (1988 AIR 1988 SC 1401)
In this case, the accused purchased a knife and went to the house of the complainant with the intention to kill him. However, he was apprehended before he could reach the complainant’s house. The Supreme Court held that merely purchasing a knife and going towards the complainant’s house was not sufficient to constitute an attempt to commit murder. The Court emphasized that there must be some overt act demonstrating a movement towards the commission of the crime, and the act must be ‘proximate’ to the intended result. The Court distinguished this case from Mahbub Khan, highlighting the importance of the specific facts and circumstances.
Om Prakash v. State of Punjab (1969 AIR 1969 SC 133)
This case involved an attempt to commit robbery. The accused collected weapons and assembled a group, but were apprehended before they could reach the target. The Court held that the mere assembly of a group and possession of weapons was not sufficient to constitute an attempt to commit robbery. There needed to be a further act demonstrating a movement towards the commission of the robbery, such as approaching the target or taking steps to break into the premises.
Factors Determining Proximity
- The nature of the act: The more directly the act is connected to the intended crime, the more likely it is to be considered proximate.
- The intention of the accused: The accused’s state of mind is crucial. The prosecution must prove that the accused intended to commit the crime.
- The surrounding circumstances: The context in which the act was committed is important.
- The degree of preparation: While preparation alone is not enough, the extent of preparation can be a factor in determining proximity.
Distinction between Preparation and Attempt
It’s important to distinguish between preparation and attempt. Preparation involves acts done to facilitate the commission of a crime, such as gathering tools or scouting the location. Attempt, on the other hand, involves acts that demonstrate a substantial step towards the commission of the crime. The line between preparation and attempt can be blurry, and the courts often consider the totality of the circumstances to determine whether an act constitutes an attempt.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the principle of ‘proximate cause’ is fundamental to establishing criminal attempt under Indian law. The act committed must be directly connected to the intended crime and demonstrate a substantial step towards its completion. Judicial interpretations, particularly in cases like <em>Mahbub Khan</em> and <em>Mohamad Hussain</em>, have clarified the nuances of this principle, emphasizing the importance of considering the specific facts and circumstances of each case. Determining proximity remains a complex task, requiring careful consideration of the accused’s intention, the nature of the act, and the surrounding context.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.