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

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
Y chops down a tree standing on Z's land, meaning to carry it off dishonestly, but in the end he does not manage to take it away. The question is whether the offence of theft is complete even though nothing left the ground.

Step 2: Key Formula or Approach:
List the ingredients the Principle demands, then tick them off.
One, an intention to take dishonestly.
Two, the thing taken must be movable property.
Three, it must be out of the possession of some person.
Four, without that person's consent.
Five, and this is the one that decides the question, the accused must move that property with an intention to take it.
Read the fifth ingredient closely. The Principle says "moves that property", not "takes that property away" and not "carries it off". Moving is enough. Successful removal is not part of the definition.

Step 3: Detailed Explanation:
Apply the ingredients to Y. The facts hand us the intention outright, they say he acted "with the intention of dishonestly taking it out of Z's possession". So ingredient one is present. They also say it was without Z's consent, so ingredient four is present. The tree stood on Z's ground, so it was in Z's possession, and ingredient three is present.
Now the interesting part, ingredients two and five together. A tree rooted in the earth is not movable property, it is attached to the ground. The moment Y severs it, two things happen at once. The tree becomes movable property, and the very act of severing moves it. So the act of cutting simultaneously creates the movable property and supplies the required moving.
With all five ingredients satisfied at the instant of severance, theft was complete right then. What happened afterwards does not matter. The fact that Y could not carry the tree away is simply a later failure, and the Principle never asked for successful carrying away.

Step 4: Checking the wrong options:
Option (B) says no theft at all. It reads a carrying away requirement into the Principle that the words do not contain.
Option (C) says attempt to theft. An attempt is charged when the full offence was not completed. Here the full offence was completed at severance, so an attempt charge understates what happened.
Option (D) says neither theft nor attempt, which ignores the dishonest intention that the facts state in plain words.

Step 5: Final Answer:
Theft was complete the moment Y severed the tree, so Y can be prosecuted for theft. That is option (A).