Under Section 62 of the BNS, 2023, Y purchases a bottle of cyanide with the explicit intention to poison his business rival, Z. He conducts multiple reconnaissance missions to Z's residence to determine the optimal time to administer the poison through Z's food. On the night before executing his plan, while preparing the poison mixture in his kitchen, Y experiences a genuine change of heart. He throws all the poison down the drain, destroys his notes and plans, and writes a confession letter to the police. Which of the following correctly determines Y's criminal liability?

Explanation: Section 62 of the BNS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 511 IPC) provides punishment for attempting to commit an offence "in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence." However, the doctrine of locus paenitentiae (doctrine of withdrawal or opportunity to repent) operates as an important principle in attempt jurisprudence. Under this doctrine, if a person voluntarily abandons the attempt before committing the substantive offence and genuinely desists, they may be protected from liability. Y's actions—throwing away the poison, destroying plans, and making a confessional statement—demonstrate genuine abandonment and voluntary desistance from the criminal enterprise. While purchase of poison and reconnaissance activities might establish proximity to the offence, Y's complete withdrawal before the actual administration of poison invokes the locus paenitentiae doctrine. The distinction between mere preparation and actionable attempt is crucial here: Y never engaged in the direct act of administering poison or placing it in Z's food. Thus, option (C) correctly applies the legal principle protecting voluntary abandonment.