Answer & Solution
Answer: Option
A
Solution:
Under Indian Penal Code (IPC), an act amounts to an attempt to murder (Section 307) when there is both a clear intention (mens rea) to cause death and an act (actus reus) done towards its execution that is capable of causing death in the ordinary course of nature.
In this case, X had the intention to kill Y, which satisfies the requirement of mens rea. However, the act done — supplying powdered sugar — was factually incapable of causing harm or death.
This raises the principle of “impossibility” in criminal law. There are two types:
1. Factual impossibility: When the intended crime cannot be completed due to a factual mistake (e.g., giving sugar instead of poison).
2. Legal impossibility: When the act, even if completed, would not constitute a crime (e.g., attempting to smuggle something that turns out to be legal).
Indian courts generally do not punish acts that fall under factual impossibility unless the act is dangerously close to committing the actual offence.
In this case, though X believed he was committing a lethal act, the act of giving powdered sugar is inherently harmless. The action lacks the capability to cause death and does not cross the threshold from preparation to a real, dangerous attempt.
As held in various rulings, an attempt must be proximate to the crime and must involve a real, practical danger. Mere intention, coupled with an act that cannot possibly cause harm, does not amount to attempt under IPC.
Hence, in the absence of a real threat to life or bodily harm, X is not guilty of any offence under IPC.
Therefore, the correct answer is: No offence.
