In our society, a crime often takes place which are against the principle of humanity. A person convicted for a crime has a certain criminal liability. The general principles i.e. Actus reus and Mens rea, play significant role in deciding criminal liability.
There are lots of evils in our society, one among them is crime. There is no universal accepted definition of crime, however certain acts of an individual or group of people, which harm the people or disturb peace and tranquility of the society can be termed as crimes. The person, who commits a crime, is punished as per law, so that such activities do not repeat in future. In general, following acts can be considered as a crime like attack on public order, abuses or obstructions of public property, causing injuries to public, attacking individuals and annexing their rights, attack upon the property of individuals, or upon rights associated with, etc.
Thus, crime can be of dual nature i.e. civil or criminal. Sometimes, a crime in one country may not be crime in any other country, as crime is decided by the statute of the nation. According to sociologist, a crime can be against human body, property, public place, religion, and family, morals of society and conservation of resources of society.
Definitions of Crime
According to Sir William Blackstone, “Crime is an act committed or omitted in Violation of public law forbidding or commanding it.”
According to Sergeant Stephen, “A crime is a violation of right, considered in reference to the civil tendency of violation as regards the community.”
According to John Gillin, “An act that has shown to be actually harmful to Society or that is believed to be socially harmful by a group of people that has the power to enforce its beliefs, and that places such an act under the ban of positive penalties.”
According to Prof. SW Keeton, “A crime today would seem to be any undesirable act, which the State finds most convenient to correct by the institution of proceeding for the infliction of a penalty, instead of leaving the remedy to the discretion of some injured person.”
According to Section 40 of the IPC, “An offence denotes a thing made punishable by the code.”
According to Halsbury’s Law of England, “A crime is an unlawful act or default which is an offence against the public and renders the person guilty of the act or default liable to legal punishment.”
According to BA Wrotley, “A crime is an offence against the law, and is usually an offence against morality, against a man’s social duty to his fellow being members of society; it renders the offender liable to punishment.”
When a person do or perform certain act, there can be positive, negative or neutral consequences. A person is liable for consequences of his/her act. In law, criminal liability can be defined as a liability or responsibility of a person, for a crime when he or she has acted with criminal intent, as opposed to acting accidentally or lacking the ability to act deliberately.
If liability is proven in court, then one will be sentenced accordingly. In deciding criminal liability, the actus reus and the mens rea play a chief role.
General Principles of Criminal Liability
There are two general principles of criminal liability i.e. Actus reus and Mens rea.
These are discussed below:
Actus reus is the first general principle of criminal liability. It is a Latin term, which means ‘guilty act’. It is also referred as the external element or the objective element of a crime. According to statute, it refers to the act or omission that comprises the physical elements of a crime.
In his criminal law, Glanville Williams stated that “actus reus includes all the external circumstances and consequences specified in the rule of law as constituting the forbidden situation.”
Therefore, we can say that it include everything except mental element. It consists of both positive and negative elements.
The characteristics and constituents of actus reus are decided by the criminal law of the country, that’s why they vary from one country to another. Definition of crime, as adopted by the law plays a very significant role in deciding requirement of actus reus.
Principle of Actus Reus in the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Offences related with the principle of actus reus, in the Indian Penal Code are as follows:
- Place: Section 441 to 462 of the IPC, deals with the various offences related with places, which include criminal trespass, house trespass and breaking, dishonestly breaking open respectable containing property, etc
- Time: Section 456 to 458 of the IPC contains offences of lurking trespass or house-breaking by night in order to commit an offence. Such offence fall in category of actus reus in respect of both place and time.
- Person: Section 359 to 374 of the IPC contains offences of kidnapping and abduction, procuring of minor girls etc, such offence is actus reus in respect of the person.
- Consent: The offences which take place without consent are also included in actus reus. Example of such offences is rape, non-consensual penetration, etc.
- Possession: Possession of stolen property constitute the actus reus (Section 410 to 412 of IPC) and mere possession of certain things amount to actus reus of the offence under Section 233 to 235, 257, 242, 243, 259 and 266 of IPC.
- Preparation: Actus reus also includes preparation to commit an offence under Section 122, 126 and 399 of IPC.
Mens rea is another general principle of the criminal liability. It is a Latin word which means ‘guilty mind’, just opposite of actus reus. In Laymen language, it can be defined as a mental element of a person’s intention to commit a crime. Mental condition is one of the basic ingredients for committing a crime. Therefore, we can say that mens rea is motive force behind the criminal act. The degree of mens rea varies from one crime to another. In the cases of murder, forcible sexual assault, stealing property, homicide, etc, there was intention in the mind of culprit to commit these offences.
The doctrine of mens rea is based on the latin maxim actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means ‘the act does not make one guilty unless the mind is also guilty’. According to this maxim, physical action is not sufficient to constitute a crime. Moreover, propounder of mens rea has acknowledged that every person has the capacity to choose between right and wrong. An Individual can utilize his wisdom and prudence to choose the right direction. After making choice, he has to take responsibility for the same. Human beings are born free and they have freedom to act freely.
Principle of Mens Rea in the Indian Penal Code, 1860
The Indian Penal Code does not explicitly mention offences related with the principle of mens rea. However, there are certain words used in different offences which indicate element of mens rea. These words are wrongful gain or wrongful loss, dishonestly, fraudulently, reason to believe, criminal knowledge or intention, intentional cooperation, voluntarily, malignantly, wantonly, maliciously, etc. The general exceptions embodied in the Chapter IV of the IPC include acts which, otherwise would constitute an offence, ceases to be so under certain circumstances set out in this chapter.
Types of Criminal Liability
Criminal liability can be categorized into three types i.e. individual, group and constructive liability, which are as follows:
Individual Criminal Liability
An offence or unlawful activity can be committed by an individual or group of individuals. When an individual commit a crime, he/she is responsible for criminal liability of a committed crime.
For example, there are four friends A, B, C and D. They live in a same flat, and study in same college. One day, A beats D because of some issue between them. In this case, A will be liable for unlawful act, B and C will not have any liability. Hence, case of A is perfect example of an individual criminal liability.
Group Criminal Liability or Joint Liability
Group criminal liability is just contradictory to individual criminal liability. In crimes, where two or more people are involved in the commission of crime, in such cases all the people are liable for committing a crime. In group liability, along with direct participant, indirect participants are also caught, though punishment in crime, committed by group, can be same for all or different based on their role in the crime.
Most of the planned or organized crimes come under the category of group criminal liability. In the Indian Penal Code, 1860, provisions regarding group liability have been covered under joint liability. Section 34 to 38 of the IPC, 1860, embodies the principle of joint liability in committing crime.
Acts Done by Several Persons in Furtherance of Common Intention (Section 34)
When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
Section 35 of the Act
This section covers ‘An act which is criminal by reason of its being done with a criminal knowledge or intention’.
As per the provisions of this section, whenever an act, which is criminal only by reason of its being done with a criminal knowledge or intention, is done by several persons, each of such persons who joins in the act with such knowledge or intention is liable for the act in the same manner as if the act were done by him alone with that knowledge or intention.
Effect Caused Partly by Act and Partly by Omission (Section 36)
Wherever the causing of a certain effect, or an attempt to cause that effect, by an act or by an omission, is an offence, it is to be understood that the causing of that effect partly by an act and partly by an omission is the same offence.
For example, A intentionally causes Z’s death, partly by illegally omitting to give Z food, and partly by beating Z. A has committed murder.
Co-operation by Doing One of Several Acts Constituting an Offence (Section 37)
When an offence is committed by means of several acts, whoever intentionally co-operates in the commission of that offence by doing anyone of those acts, either singly or jointly with any other person, commits that offence.
For example, A and B agree to murder Z by severally and at different times giving him small doses of poison. A and B administer the poison according to the agreement with intent to murder Z. Z dies from the effects of the several doses of poison, so administered to him. Here, A and B intentionally co-operate in the commission of murder and as each of them does an act by which the death is caused, they are both guilty of the offence though their acts are separate.
Persons Concerned in Criminal Act may be Guilty of Different Offences (Section 38)
Where several persons are engaged or concerned in the commission of a criminal act, they may be guilty of different offences by means of that act.
For example, A attacks Z under such circumstances of grave provocation that his killing of Z would only be culpable homicide not amounting to murder. B, having ill-will towards Z and intending to kill him, and not having been subject to the provocation, assists A in killing Z.
Here, though A and B are both engaged in causing Z’s death, B is guilty of murder, and A is guilty only of culpable homicide.
Constructive liability is quite similar to the group or joint liability. It is based on the principle that a person is liable, in law, for the consequences of an act of another, even though he has not done it himself. Many times, it has been found that a person who committed crime was just an instrument, while actual and principal offender was another person. A case of an abetment is perfect example of constructive liability.
In Alauddin Mian v. State of Bihar case, explaining the importance of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the Supreme Court has observed that this section creates constructive liability and makes every member of the unlawful assembly, liable for the offence or offences committed in the course of the occurrence, provided that the same was/were committed in prosecution of the common object or was/were such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed.
In Rama Pasi and Another v. State of U.P. case, court held that Section 149 prescribes for vicarious or constructive criminal liability for all members of an unlawful assembly, where an offence is committed by any member of such an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object.
Moreover, a person may be constructively liable for an offence under following sections of IPC
- Under Section 34, Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
- Under Section 121A, being a member of a conspiracy to commit such an offence.
- Under Section 141, being a member of an unlawful assembly, the members whereof knew that an offence was likely to be committed. It include to resist the execution of any law, or of any legal progress, to overawe by criminal forces, or show of criminal force, to commit any mischief or criminal trespass, to take any person or property in possession and to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do.
Stages of Crime
Committing a crime is a full-fledged process consisting of several stages, though there are some exceptions to it, when some criminal activities take place immediately on a spot. In premeditated crimes, there are four distinct stages which are as follows:
It is the first stage in the commission of a crime; it is also referred as the mental and psycho stage. In this stage, person (offender) decides that he has to do some criminal act. Moreover, offender decides the motive and chalks out plan for committing a crime. Many intellectuals name this stage as contemplation stage. No law in world, contain any provision for punishing a person who has generated intention for doing some criminal act, as it is mental concept, which cannot be proved in court.
After intention, stage of preparation comes, which plays an instrumental role in the commission of a crime. In this stage, an offender arranges the necessary resources for the execution of the intentional criminal act.
For example, if a person wants to kill another person, because of any reason, in preparatory stage, that person can make arrangement for weapon, hire people or any other thing depending on his capacity.
Usually, a preparation to commit a crime is not punishable, however in certain cases, it can be punishable, such as preparation to wage war against the government (Section 122), against friendly foreign country (Section 126) and to commit robbery or dacoity (Section 399).
Attempt is the third stage in the commission of crime. It is first explicit stage for committing crime. It can be defined as a direct movement towards the execution of a crime after the stage of intention and preparation.
According to Sir Stephen, an attempt to commit a crime is an act termed with intention to commit it and forming part of a series of acts which could constitute the offence, if it were not interrupted.
An attempt to crime has been covered in the IPC, in three different ways:
In some cases, punishment for completed offence and their attempt is same, has been provided under Section 121, 124, 124(A), 125, 130, 131, 152, 153(A), 161, 162, 163, 165, 196, 198, 200, 213, 239, 240, 241, 251, 335, 337, 391, 398 and 460.
In many cases, different punishments have been provided for the completed offence and its attempt. Such cases are under Section 302, 304, 307, 308, 392, 393 and 309.
Rest of the cases is covered under Section 511.
It is the last stage in the commission of crime. This stage is considered to be taken place, when an offender is successful in committing his/her intention. Depending on the situation, if offence is completed, then person will become guilty and if unsuccessful, he will be guilty of his attempt.
Crimes are of different types, one among them is inchoate crime. These are also called by names such as preliminary crime, inchoate offence and incomplete crimes. It can be defined as an act or omission taken towards committing a crime or acts that constitute indirect participation in a crime. Earlier inchoate crime was considered as a minor crime, but now it is considered as a serious crime. There are actions which may not be a crime in and off itself, however actions may act as a purpose of furthering or advancing a crime.
Types of Inchoate Crime
Inchoate crime is categorized into three types viz. abetment, criminal conspiracy and attempt, which are discussed below:
In simple words, abet means to encourage or assist to do something wrong, especially in the context of committing a crime. Abetment includes help, co-activity and support within its ambit. Many times, a person does not want to do certain criminal acts, however under the influence or abetment by another person, that person can commit crime.
In the case of Sanju v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the honorable Supreme Court defined abet as meaning to aid, to assist or to give aid, to command, to procure, or to Counsel, to countenance, to encourage or to set another one to commit.
Generally, a person who has committed it is liable for it, but principle of abetment emphasizes that one who helped criminal or provided him assistance, can also be held liable. Provisions Related to Abetment in the IPC, 1860
Following sections of the IPC are related with the abetment.
Abetment of a Thing (Section 107)
A person abets the doing of a thing, who:
- instigates any person to do that thing, or
- engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing, or
- intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
For example: A, a public officer, is authorized by a warrant, from a Courts of Justice to apprehend Z. B knowing that facts and also that C is not, Z, wilfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby, intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here, B abets by instigation the apprehension of C.
Abettor (Section 108)
A person abets an offence, who abets either the commission of an offence, or the commission of an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence with the same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor. To constitute the offence of abetment, it is not necessary that the act abetted should be committed, or that the effect requisite to constitute the offence should be caused.
For example, A instigates B to murder C. B refuses to do so. A is guilty of abetting B to commit murder.
It is not necessary that the person abetted should be capable by law of committing an offence, or that he should have the same guilty intention or knowledge as that of the abettor, or any guilty intention or knowledge.
For example, A, with a guilty intention, abets a child or a lunatic to commit an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence, and having the same intention as A. Here A, whether the act be committed or not, is guilty of abetting an offence.
Section 109 of the Act
This section deals with ‘Punishment of abetment, if the act abetted is committed in consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment’. As per the provisions of this section, whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence.
For example, A instigates B to give false evidence. B, in consequence of the instigation, commits that offence. A is guilty of abetting that offence, and is liable to the same punishment as B.
Section 110 of the Act
This section deals with ‘Punishment of abetment, if person abetted does act with different intention from that of abettor’. As per the provisions of this section, whoever abets the commission of an offence shall, if the person abetted does the act with a different intention or knowledge from that of the abettor, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence which would have been committed, if the act had been done with the intention or knowledge of the abettor and with no other.
Liability of Abettor when One Act Abetted and Different Act Done (Section 111)
When an act is abetted and a different act is done, the abettor is liable for the act done, in the same manner and to the same extent as if he had directly abetted it. Provided the act done was a probable consequence of the abetment, and was committed under the influence of the instigation, or with the aid or in pursuance of the conspiracy which constituted the abetment.
For example, A instigates B to burn Z’s house. B sets fire to the house and at the same time commits theft of property there. A, though guilty of abetting the burning of the house, is not guilty of abetting the theft; for the theft was a distinct act, and not a probable consequence of the burning.
Abettor when Liable to Cumulative Punishment for Act Abetted and for Act Done (Section 112)
If the act for which the abettor is liable under the last preceding section is committed in addition to the act abetted, and constitutes a distinct offence, the abettor is liable to punishment for each of the offences.
For example, A instigates B to resist by force a distress made by a public servant. B, in consequence, resists that distress. In offering the resistance, B voluntarily causes grievous hurt to the officer executing the distress. As B has committed both the offence of resisting the distress, and the offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt, B is liable to punishment for both these offences; and if A knew that B was likely voluntarily to cause grievous hurt in resisting the distress. A will also be liable to punishment for each of the offences.
Section 113 of the Act
This section deals with ‘Liability of abettor for an effect caused by the act abetted different from that Intended by the abettor’. As per the provisions of this section, when an act is abetted with the intention on the part of the abettor of causing g particular effect, and an act for which the abettor is liable in consequence of the abetment, causes a different effect from that intended by the abettor, the abettor is liable for the effect caused, in the same manner and to the same extent as if he had abetted the act with the intention of causing that effect provided, he knew that the act abetted was likely to cause that effect.
For example, A instigates B to cause grievous hurt to Z. B, in consequence of the instigation, causes grievous hurt to Z, Z dies in consequence. Here, if A knew that the grievous hurt abetted was likely to cause death, A is liable to be punished with the punishment provided for murder.
Abettor Present When Offence is Committed (Section 114)
Whenever any person who if absent would be liable to be punished as an abettor, is present when the act or offence for which he would be punishable in consequence of the abetment is committed, he shall be deemed to have committed such act or offence.
Section 115 of the Act
This section deals with ‘Abetment of offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, if offence is not committed’. As per the provisions of this section, whoever abets the commission of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, shall, if that offence be not committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
If act causing harm be done in consequence, and if any act for which the abettor is liable in consequence of the abetment, and which causes hurt to any person, is done, the abettor shall be liable to imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to fourteen years, and shall also be liable to fine.
For example, A instigates B to murder Z. The offence is not committed. If B had murdered Z, he would have been subject to the punishment of death or imprisonment for life. Therefore, A is liable to imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and also to a fine; and if any hurt be done to Z in consequence of the abetment, he will be liable to imprisonment for a term which may extend to fourteen years, and to fine.
Section 116 of the Act
This section deals with Abetment of offence punishable with imprisonment, if offence be not committed. As per the provisions of this section, whoever abets an offence punishable with imprisonment shall, if that offence be not committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for that offence for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term provided for that offence; or with such fine as is provided for that offence, or with both.
For example, A offers a bribe to B, a public servant, as a reward for showing A some favour in the exercise of B’s official functions. B refuses to accept the bribe. A is punishable under this section.
Abetting Commission of Offence by the Public or by more than Ten Persons (Section 117)
Whoever abets the commission of an offence by the public generally or by any number or class of persons exceeding ten, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
For example, A affixes in a public place a placard instigating a sect consisting of more than ten members to meet at a certain time and place, for the purpose of attacking the members of an adverse sect, while engaged in a procession. A has committed the offence defined in this section.
Concealing Design to Commit Offence Punishable with Death or Imprisonment for Life (Section 118)
Whoever intending to facilitate or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby facilitate the commission of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, voluntarily conceals, by any act or illegal omission, the existence of a design to commit such offence or makes any representation which he knows to be false respecting such design, if offence is committed, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or, if the offence is not committed, with imprisonment of either description, for a term which may extend to three years, and in either case shall also be liable to fine.
For example, A, knowing that dacoity is about to be committed at B, falsely informs the Magistrate that a dacoity is about to be committed at C, a place in an opposite direction and thereby misleads the Magistrate with intent to facilitate the commission of the offence. The dacoity is committed at B in pursuance of the design. A is punishable under this section.
Concealing Design to Commit Offence Punishable with Imprisonment (Section 120)
Whoever, intending to facilitate or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby facilitate the commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment, voluntarily conceals, by any act or illegal omission, the existence of a design to commit such offence, or makes any representation which he knows to be false respecting such design, shall if the offence is committed, be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth, and, if the offence is not committed, to one-eighth, of the longest term of such imprisonment, or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both.
A criminal conspiracy is a common inchoate crime. It can be defined as a secret pact or agreement between two or more people to commit an unlawful act or to accomplish a lawful end by unlawful means. According to criminal law, a person can be convicted for planning a conspiracy even if the actual crime was never committed.
For example, A is enemy of businessman B, A plans to kill B, A buys weapon and start following person B to find right moment to kill him. A can be charged with conspiracy to commit murder of B, regardless of whether the killing itself is ever attempted or completed.
In order to punish a person for criminal conspiracy, there should be sufficient evidence to show that two or more than two people were in agreement to commit a crime.
Provisions related to Criminal Conspiracy in the IPC, 1860
Following sections of the IPC are related with the criminal conspiracy
Definition of Criminal Conspiracy (Section 120A)
When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done:
- an illegal act, or
- an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy.
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
Punishment of Criminal Conspiracy (Section 120B)
Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence. [Section 120B (1)]
Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both. [Section 120B (2)]
The Supreme Court, in Koppula Venkat Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, observed that:
“The word ‘attempt’ is not itself defined, and must, therefore, be taken in its ordinary meaning. An attempt to commit an offence is an act, or a series of acts, which leads inevitably to the commission of the offence, unless something, which the doer of the act neither foresaw nor intended, happens to prevent this. An attempt may be described to be an act done in part-execution of a criminal design, amounting to more than mere preparation, but failing short of actual consummation, and possessing, except for failure to consummate, all the elements of the substantive crime”.
There are some tests upheld by courts of India for distinguishing attempt to commit an offence from the stage of preparations. A few of them are the Proximity Rule, Doctrine of Locus Poenitentiae and the Equivocally Test.
Provisions related to Attempt in the IPC, 1860
Following sections of the IPC are related with the attempt
Section 511 of the Act
This section deals with ‘Punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment’.
As per the provisions of this section, 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.
Section 121 of the Act
This section deals with “Waging, or attempting to wage war, or abetting waging of war, against the government of India”.
As per the provisions of this section, whoever wages wa; against the (Government of India), or attempts to wage such war, or abets the waging of such war, shall be punisheq with death, or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
Waging War Against any Asiatic Power in Alliance with the Government of India (Section 125)
Whoever wages war against the Government of any Asiatic Power in alliance or at peace with the Government of India or attempts to wage such war, or abets the waging of such war, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.
Abetting Mutiny, or Attempting to Seduce a Soldier, Sailor or Airman from his Duty (Section 131)
Whoever abets the committing of mutiny by an officer, soldier, sailor or airman in the Army, Navy or Air Force of the Government of India or attempts to seduce any such officer, soldier, sailor or airman from his allegiance or his duty, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Attempt to Murder (Section 307)
Whoever does any act with such intention of 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 10 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 imprisonment for life or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
Attempt to Commit Culpable Homicide (Section 308)
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 culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
Attempt to Commit Robbery (Section 393)
Whoever attempts to commit robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.