X with an intention to steal the pocket of Y puts his hand in Y’s pocket and finds nothing. Is he liable for any offence?

Facts of the Case

X, with the intention to commit theft, put his hand into Y’s pocket expecting to steal some property. Upon searching, he discovered that there was nothing in the pocket. No property was actually stolen because Y’s pocket was empty. The question arises whether X is criminally liable for his act, despite the theft not being completed.

Issues in the Case

1. Whether X can be held liable even though no property was found or stolen?
2. Whether putting a hand into someone’s pocket with the intention to steal amounts to an offence under IPC?
3. Which sections of IPC are applicable in case of an attempted theft?
4. Whether impossibility of theft (empty pocket) provides a defence to X?

Legal Principles Applicable

A. Theft — Section 378 IPC

• Theft requires dishonest intention to take movable property belonging to another without consent.
• In this case, no property existed in Y’s pocket. Therefore, theft is not completed.

B. Attempt to Commit Theft — Section 511 IPC

• Section 511 IPC punishes attempts to commit offences under IPC.
• Ingredients:
  1. Intent to commit an offence (mens rea)
  2. Direct overt act towards commission of the offence (actus reus)
  3. Failure to complete the offence due to extraneous factors
• Here:
  • X had dishonest intention to steal.
  • He performed a direct act by putting his hand into Y’s pocket.
  • Theft could not be completed because the pocket was empty — an extraneous factor beyond X’s control.
• Legal Principle: Impossibility of theft does not absolve liability if intention and overt act are present.

C. Judicial Principle

• Indian courts consistently hold that:
  A person is guilty of attempt to commit theft if he performs acts directed towards committing theft, even if the theft is impossible due to circumstances unknown to him.

D. Distinction Between Preparation and Attempt

• Preparation (e.g., planning to steal) is not punishable.
• Attempt (direct step to commit theft) is punishable.
• Here, X’s act qualifies as attempt, not mere preparation.

Possible Judgement

Finding

X is liable for attempt to commit theft under Indian law.

Offence Committed

• Attempt to commit theft — Section 378 read with Section 511 IPC

Reasoning

1. X had intention to steal (mens rea).
2. He performed a direct act towards theft by putting his hand into Y’s pocket.
3. The theft failed not due to lack of intent or action, but because the pocket was empty (extraneous circumstance).
4. All ingredients of attempt under Section 511 IPC are satisfied.

Punishment

• Under Section 511 IPC:
  • Imprisonment up to half of the maximum term prescribed for theft under Section 378 IPC, or
  • Fine, or
  • Both.

Note: Theft under Section 378 IPC is punishable up to 3 years imprisonment, so attempt may attract up to 1½ years imprisonment.

About lawgnan

For more clear, exam-ready explanations of criminal law concepts such as attempt, theft, impossibility, and IPC interpretations, visit Lawgana.in. We provide structured notes, case law analysis, section-wise interpretation, and practical illustrations ideal for law students, judiciary aspirants, and competitive exam candidates. Lawgana.in is designed to simplify complex legal principles through easy language and high-quality content. Strengthen your conceptual understanding, enhance your exam preparation, and stay updated with essential legal explanations. Explore comprehensive criminal law resources and improve your learning experience today on Lawgana.in.