( 316 )
KENSINGTON v. EDIRISINGHE.
P. G., Nawdlapitiya, 25,469.
Criminal offence—Difference between “ preparation ” and “ attempt^' to
Preparation to commit an offence consists in devising and arrang-ing the means or resources necessary for its commission ; attemptis the direct movement towards the commission after preparation.
HE complainant, Edward Kensington, Superintendent of
Dombagastenrie estate in Kotmale, charged the accused,D. T. Edirisinghe, a building contractor, with causing hurt andwith attempt to voluntarily cause hurt by means of a knife. ThePolice Magistrate acquitted the accused of the first count, butfound him guilty of the second, and sentenced him to six months'rigorous imprisonment. The accused appealed against the con-viction and sentence.
I set aside and acquit. The act of the accused in running to aSinhalese kangany and asking for his knife perhaps showed anintention to use the knife if it had been given to him, but it wasnot an attempt to cause hurt to the person of Mr. Kensington, withwhom the accused immediately before had a quarrel, in which theMagistrate finds both were equally to blame. I refer theMagistrate to Maine’s Criminal Law of India, chapter XV., p. 853,where the law is, I think, clear and plain. Maine quotes thispassage: “ Between the preparation for the attempt and the“ attempt itself there is a wide difference. The preparation“ consists in devising and arranging the means or resources“ necessary for the commission of the offence ; the attempt is the“ direct movement towards the commission after the preparations“ are made. To illustrate : a party may purchase and load a gun“ with the declared intention to shoot his neighbour, but until“ some movement is made to use the weapon upon the person of“ his intended victim there is only preparation and not an“attempt.” '
KENSINGTON v. EDIRISINGHE