mplainant two chemicals, a liquid and a powder, for the

purpose of procuring a miscarriage but there was no evidence to show that either of the chemicals

was capable of operating as an abortifacient; and on appeal against conviction, the appellate Court

held that on the facts the appellant could not be convicted of an attempt to cause a miscarriage

because what he did was not an "act done towards the commission of the offence" of causing

miscarriage.

"Neither the liquid nor the powder being harmful, they could not have caused a miscarriage. The

appellant's failure was not due to a factor independent of himself."

In the present case, the circumstances are different. The evidence clearly showed that it was the

intention of the appellant to bring about a miscarriage and she could not have made the attempt

unless she believed the complainant to be pregnant. If the complainant was not pregnant, then the

failure of the attempt was due to a factor independent of the appellant herself. Her attempt was

prevented or frustrated by the non-existence of a circumstance which she believed to exist. As I see

it, she is in exactly the same position as the would-be pick-pocket who, believing that there is or may

be something capable of being stolen in the pocket which he decides to pick, attempts to steal it and

finds his attempt foiled by a circumstance independent of himself, namely, the non-existence of

anything capable of being stolen. The circumstances of the present case seem to me to be exactly

covered by the illustrations to section 511 of the Penal Code, even though these illustrations speak
of

attempts to commit a different type of offence. I would, therefore, answer the question referred to

us for determination by the learned appellate Judge in the negative and would affirm the conviction

and sentence of the lower Court.

Appeal dismissed.

artikel ini sambungan dari yang atas sila gabungkan dan keluarkan isi2 penting,isu2 penting,proses
kes ini,nama2 pihak yang terlibat dan kedudukan meraka dalam kes ini

ChatGPT

Isu-Isu Penting:

Interpretasi undang-undang berkaitan dengan percubaan melakukan jenayah.

Keperluan untuk membuktikan bahawa seorang wanita hamil sebelum mahkamah boleh
meneruskan pendakwaan.
Perbezaan antara undang-undang di England dan undang-undang di India dalam kes ini.

Prinsip dan kesimpulan mahkamah berkenaan dengan kesalahan percubaan melakukan jenayah.

Proses Kes Ini:

Tertuduh dituduh atas dua pertuduhan yang berbeza: pertama, atas tuduhan menyebabkan seorang
wanita hamil keguguran; kedua, atas tuduhan cubaan untuk menyebabkan seorang wanita
mengalami keguguran.

Pada akhir kes pendakwaan, mahkamah menukar tuduhan kepada cubaan untuk menyebabkan
keguguran, kerana tidak dibuktikan bahawa wanita tersebut hamil dan mengalami keguguran.

Tertuduh didapati bersalah oleh mahkamah sesi dan dijatuhi hukuman penjara tiga bulan.

Tertuduh merayu keputusan tersebut, dan hakim rayuan membenarkan rayuannya atas alasan
bahawa pendakwaan gagal membuktikan bahawa wanita tersebut hamil.

Hakim rayuan kemudian merujuk perkara undang-undang kepada Mahkamah atas soalan undang-
undang tertentu.

Nama-Nama Pihak yang Terlibat dan Kedudukan Mereka Dalam Kes Ini:

Tertuduh: Tidak dinyatakan namanya dalam teks.

Wanita yang Dituduh: Chee Yew Cheng.

Hakim Presiden: Beliau adalah yang memutuskan pertukaran tuduhan dan meneruskan
pendakwaan.

Hakim Rayuan: Beliau membenarkan rayuan tertuduh atas alasan pendakwaan gagal membuktikan
kehamilan wanita tersebut.

Hakim Mahkamah Rayuan: Tidak dinyatakan namanya, tetapi beliau mengeluarkan keputusan yang
menyokong hukuman asal terhadap tertuduh.

Penyiasat dan Pendakwa: Tidak dinyatakan namanya dalam teks, tetapi mereka terlibat dalam
proses pendakwaan dan penyelesaian kes.