Mere preparation versus attempt: preliminary digging was held insufficient to sustain the conviction.

Mere preparation does not amount to attempt unless the accused performs an overt act sufficiently proximate to the offence. Here, the proved conduct showed only preliminary digging to remove earth and reach a stone slab; no actual act towards moving the slab was established. The court treated this as preparation rather than attempt, with the result that the conviction was set aside and the accused was acquitted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused had made an attempt, as distinct from mere preparation, so as to sustain the conviction.

Analysis: The accused had only made preliminary diggings to remove earth and reach the stone slab. No act amounting to an actual attempt to move the slab was proved. The conduct remained at the stage of preparation, and an attempt would have required some further overt act directed towards moving the stone.

Conclusion: The conviction could not be sustained because the proved facts showed only preparation and not attempt.

Final Conclusion: The conviction was set aside and the accused was acquitted.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere preparation does not amount to attempt unless the accused has performed an overt act sufficiently proximate to the commission of the offence.

---