Question

Principle: Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property with an intention to take it, is said to commit theft.

Facts: Y cuts down a tree on Z's ground, with the intention of dishonestly taking it out of Z's possession without Z's consent. Y could not take away the tree.

• A. Y can be prosecuted for theft
• B. Y cannot be prosecuted for theft
• C. Y can be prosecuted for attempt to theft
• D. Y has neither committed theft nor attempted to commit theft

Hint:

The definition stops at "moves that property", it never requires carrying it away. Ask what severing a standing tree does to its character and its position at the same instant.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

Most people who get this wrong do so because they picture theft as somebody running off with a thing. The Principle does not say that. Its operative words are "moves that property with an intention to take it". Moving is the act it punishes. Getting away with the goods is not mentioned anywhere in the definition, so it cannot be a requirement.

Now think about the tree. While its roots are in Z's soil it is attached to the land, and attached things are not movable property. Cutting it changes that in an instant. The severance turns the tree into movable property and, in the same stroke, moves it. So the moment the axe finishes its work, every ingredient lines up at once: dishonest intention (the facts give it to us), movable property (created by the cut), in Z's possession (it stood on Z's ground), without Z's consent (the facts say so), and moved with intention to take it (the cut itself). The offence was finished right there, on Z's ground, with the tree still lying where it fell.

1. Y can be prosecuted for theft: Correct. All five ingredients were satisfied at the moment of severance, and nothing that happened later can undo a completed offence.
2. Y cannot be prosecuted for theft: This inserts a carrying away requirement that the Principle never states. Read the words again, they stop at "moves".
3. Y can be prosecuted for attempt to theft: An attempt is what you charge when the offence stopped short of completion. This one did not stop short, it was complete at the cut, so calling it an attempt undercharges Y.
4. Y has neither committed theft nor attempted to commit theft: Impossible on these facts, which spell out that Y acted with the intention of dishonestly taking the tree out of Z's possession without consent.

Let's summarize:

• The definition punishes moving property, not successfully removing it.
• A standing tree is attached to the earth and so is not movable property.
• Severing the tree makes it movable and moves it in the same act.
• Theft was therefore complete before Y ever tried to carry it off.

The answer is option (A).