SUBJECT: LAW OF CRIMES-I

NAME: SOURIKA JANA

PRN: 20010223063
GROUP III
DIVISION D
COURSE: BA LLB
BATCH: 2020-2025

ANSWER 1
Introduction
Under the Indian Penal Code, preparation and attempt are both considered
crimes and attract penal provisions. Attempt can be divided into three types:
general, specific and attempt with commission of offence. Here we have the
attempt is specific in nature as there was mens rea which was specific in
nature. His victim was specific and a certain modus operandi with no
uncertainty. Hence his intention was a direct or specific intention.

Issue
Vysakh, the defendant and Shweta had some animosity between them which
led to Vysakh conspiring to kill her. He acquired a license for a gun and drove to
Shweta’s house. He waited in the garden hoping that Shweta would come out.
Falling to spot her, he broke into the house in search for her. He heard certain
voices from the living room and thinking it to be her, fired several shots. The
room was empty and only some glasses broke due to firing. Upon close
inspection it was found that Shweta and her family were out leaving the
television on which drew the attention of Vysakh.
1. Would Vysakh be liable for any criminal attempt?
2. Can he take any defense?

RULES
Under the Indian penal code, 1860 --
“307. Attempt to murder. —Whoever does any act with such intention or
knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death,
he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to
fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable
either to 1[imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is hereinbefore
mentioned.”

ANALYSIS
ISSUE 1
There are four elements of a crime fulfillment of which a person is charged
under criminal law.
1. Offender and Victim.
2. Actus Reus
3. Mens rea
4. Effect of the crime.
The maxim actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea states that there can be
no culpable offense without a guilty mind.
To establish attempt to murder, we need to first establish that there was
intention or knowledge for committing the act. Secondly there was an act of
trying to commit the murder.
Both actus reus and Mens Rea need to be established.
Actus Reus: Here the man had taken all the necessary steps needed to commit
the act. He had procured a license of a gun for shooting the potential victim. He
drove to the house and was hiding, waiting for an oppurtunity. Unable to find
her, he committed trespass and fired several shots breaking the glass.
Mens rea: The existence of mens rea or the guilty mind at the time of
commission of the actus reus will alone make the act an offence.
Here the mens rea is clearly visible. He wanted to commit murder and had
procured all the necessary means to do so. Hence, he can be charged under the
section for attempt to murder as there was no actual death.
The stage of a crime include:
1. Intention
2. Preparation
3. Attempt
4. commission
It is difficult to prove when the action has gone from preparation to attempt.
We can apply the last step theory while trying to prove it was not at the
preparation stage but the attempt stage. As per this test, anything short of last
step is preparation and not attempt. However, if proved the culprit reached at
last step then it is attempt. This is because as long as there is a step remaining
for completion of the crime, the person can abandon it. This is also known as
Proximity Rule.
In the judgement of Abhayanand Mishra Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1961 SC
1698,
Facts: The defendant has fraudulently acquired permission to sit for exams in a
university saying that he was a teacher which he was not. He had submitted the
application form and was about to receive his admit card when the university
caught on. He was tried for cheating under S420 of IPC read with S511.
Held: the court held that the moment he dispatched it, he entered the realm of
attempting from preparation. He did succeed in deceiving the university and
induced it to receive the admit card. He would have committed the act if the
university had not caught on. Hence it counts as cheating and not preparation.
ISSUE 2
Here the defendant cannot take the defense of impossibility.
Factual impossibility is not a defense but legal impossibility is. Here the absence
of the object or target doesn’t pardon the defendant from the penal provisions
for attempting to commit the crime.
In the judgement R vs King 1892,
The defendant had attempted to steal from the handbag of a woman and was
found with his hand inside it.
He was convicted for attempt of theft.
If Shweta and her family were not out then he surely would have committed the
crime. Hence there is no defense available to him.

CONCLUSION
Vyaskh will be charged under criminal attempt for murder. There is no defense
available to him.
ANSWER 2
INTRODUCTION
Accident- The word “accident” is derived from the Latin word accidere,
signifying “fall upon, befall, happen, chance”. An effect is said to be accidental
when the act by which it is caused is not done with the intention of causing it,
and when its occurrence as a consequence of such act is not so probable that a
person of ordinary prudence ought, under the circumstances in which it is done,
to take reasonable precaution against it.
An essential feature of necessity and the subsequent provision is that the
happening must be one to which human fault does not contribute. It implies the
idea of something not only unintended but something which was so little
expected that it came as a surprise.
Necessity- An act which would otherwise be a crime may in some cases be
excused if the person accused can show that it was done only in order to avoid
consequences which could not otherwise be avoided, and which, if they had
followed, would have inflicted upon him or upon others whom he was bound to
protect inevitable and irreparable evil, that no more was done than was
reasonably necessary for that purpose, and that the evil inflicted by it was not
disproportionate to the evil avoided.
ISSUE
Rahul and Makarand were driving on the highway in a very cold and foggy
weather where the visibility was very poor about 5m. They were driving within
the speed limit but on the higher side 95Km/Hours. There was a warning
displayed for Neel Gia which is a legally protected animal. They saw some big
animal crossing on the road and assuming it to be the neel gai he decided to
stop the car lest the passengers and animal would both die. As he pushed the
breaks, multiple cars behind his crashed onto one another and resulted in 4
deaths and 7 grievous injuries and a dead animal which was a cow.
1. Will the defendant be arrested for rash and negligent driving?
2. Are there any defenses available to him?

RULES
Even if the Indian justice system hold a person guilty for their crimes, there are
times when the person is not responsible. This is due to the fact hat the
circumstances justified the committing of the offense or that there was no mens
rea for the same. The defenses are hence divided into justifiable and excusable
defense. In excusable defense Those exceptions from which the bad character
or bad intention of the person committing the crime cannot be inferred are said
to be excusable exception to the crime. Justifiable defenses are those which are
provided in cases where the act of accused is justified under the law.
The Indian penal code 1860 prescribes,
“80. Accident in doing a lawful act. —Nothing is an offence which is done by
accident or misfortune, and without any criminal intention or knowledge in the
doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care
and caution. Illustration A is at work with a hatchet; the head flies off and kills
a man who is standing by. Here, if there was no want of proper caution on the
part of A, his act is excusable and not an offence.
81. Act likely to cause harm, but done without criminal intent, and to prevent
other harm. —Nothing is an offence merely by reason of its being done with the
knowledge that it is likely to cause harm, if it be done without any criminal
intention to cause harm, and in good faith for the purpose of preventing or
avoiding other harm to person or property. Explanation. —It is question of fact
in such a case whether the harm to be prevented or avoided was of such a
nature and so imminent as to justify or excuse the risk of doing the act with the
knowledge that it was likely to cause harm.”

ANALYSIS
The defendant can take the defense of accident and necessity.
The defendant had no criminal intention to cause the accident. He was driving
well within the speed limit with due care and caution.
The elements of necessity are:
 They were forced with a choice of evils and choose the lesser evil.
 They acted to prevent imminent harm
 They reasonably anticipated a direct causal relationship between their
conduct and the harm to be averted.
 And, they had no legal alternatives to violating the law

The visibility was poor with barely 5m visible along with extreme fog. At this
point if a cow, which has close resemblance to the Neel gai, comes infront of
him, it is only justified that he will try to hit the brakes as it was a legally
protected animal and killing so will attract imprisonment of two years. Hence,
we can take the defense that the action of him was a necessity to save the
endangered animal. Hitting the break has a direct causal relationship with
saving the animal and there were no legal alternatives available.
Hence, he would not be liable under rashness or negligence either.
In R v Rose, (1884) 15 Cox CC 540,
The accused was charged with the murder of his father. It was proved that the
mother and father had strained relationship and she screamed for murder as his
father threatened to knife her. Hence it was a necessity for the child to protect
his mother and was justified in shooting his father as it was a necessity. He had
no necessary intention to kill his father even though there was no evidence that
the father was holding a knife.
The stopping of the car resulted in 4 people dying and 7 receiving grievous
injuries. Even though it was unfortunate, the defendant must not be held liable
for it. The visibility was low because of the weather with barely 5m visible. In
this situation it is indeed very hard to see what is behind your car. In addition,
he was driving within the speed limit so he cannot be charged for rashness or
negligence.
Applying the litmus test, it is a reasonable action according to a just and
prudent man to hit the breaks if he comes across an animal while driving.
In M. P. v. Rangaswami AIR 1952 Nag 268: 1952 Cri LJ 1191,
An employee in an Ammunition Depo, went along with his co-employees
towards the place of occurrence with the intention of shooting a hyena which
was seen in that locality on the previous day and which they honestly believed
had reappeared there. On that day visibility was poor due to drizzling of rain.
On the bona fide belief that the moving object seen by them was a wild animal
and not a human being, and not anticipating the presence of any human being
at that place at that time the accused fired a gun shot at the moving object,
and to their surprise the object aimed at was found to be a human being who
died at the spot. The court acquitted them.
The victim can allege that he was committing an unlawful action as his driving
license had expired. However, the police found that his only other companion
was drunk and hence he was left with no other choice but to drive.
CONCLUSION
The defendant will not be charged for rash and negligent driving. He can avail
the defenses of accident under excusable exceptions and necessity under
justifiable defense.