LAW 505 – CRIMINAL LAW 1

SUMMARY OF CASE

Name: Nur Fatehah binti Zolkifli

Student ID: 2019128527

ASGARALI PRADHANIA v EMPEROR AIR 1933 Cal 893
Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 1933
21 July 1933
Lort-Williams and McNair JJ.

i. Summary of the facts

The appellant was convicted under Section 312 and 511 of Indian Penal
Code of an attempt to cause a miscarriage. The 20 years of age
complainant who is divorced by consent lives with her father in a
cookhouse shed. The a was a neighbour who was a married person with
children. He was on good terms with her father, and always lent him
money. According to the complainant, he gave her presents, and
intended to marry her. As a result, sexual intercourse took place
and she got pregnant. She asked him to fulfil his promise but he refused
and suggested that she should take drugs to procure a miscarriage. One
night, he brought her a bottle half full of a red liquid and a paper packet
containing a powder. After he left, she tasted the powder. The complainant
found it to taste really salty and strong. So, she spat it out. Though she
didn’t take the red liquid. The appellant after noticing that she has not
taken the liquid then urged her to take them, but she refused saying that
she was afraid for her own life, and that the powder irritated her tongue.

The appellant then asked her to open her mouth, and approached her with
the bottle, and took hold of her chin. But she snatched the bottle from him
and cried out loudly, and her father and some neighbours came, and the
appellant fled. Upon analysis, the police were informed that sulphate of
copper was detected in the powder, but the amount was not ascertained.
However, no poison was detected in the liquid. According to
the medical evidence, copper sulphate has no direct action on the uterus,
and is not harmful unless taken in sufficiently large quantities, when it may
induce abortion.
 Issue

Whether the appellant was liable for the attempt to cause miscarriage to
the complainant

Held

The court held that the facts do not constitute as an attempt to cause
miscarriage as there is no evidence that the liquid or powder was capable
of causing miscarriage. Hence, the appellant cannot be convicted of an
attempt to do so.

ii. Legal Principle

On the facts stated in this case, the appellant cannot, in law, be convicted
of an attempt to cause a miscarriage. What the appellant did was not an
“act “done towards the commission of the offense” of causing a
miscarriage and neither the liquid nor the powder is harmful to do so and it
couldn’t have caused a miscarriage. The appellant's failure ’was not due to
a factor independent of himself. Therefore, the appellant is not guilty of an
attempt to cause miscarriage under section 511 of IPC. Hence, he was
acquitted. 

The judgment was delivered by Justice John Lort William and Justice G.D.
Mc. Nair in favor of the appellant. They inferred that the appealing party's
failure was not because of the factor autonomous of himself but because
of external reasons that are the force of failure was independent in itself.
Furthermore, the attempt too must be towards the commission of an
offense. In this way, the conviction and sentence must be set aside and
the appellant ought to be acquitted. Consequently, the action is brought
under Section 312/511, IPC.