1933 (7) TMI 16 - HC - Indian Laws

Court acquits appellant in miscarriage attempt case, finding no act towards offense. Conviction set aside.

Asgarali Pradhania Versus Emperor

The court found that the complainant was not an accomplice and dismissed the argument. The appellant was acquitted of the charge of attempting to cause a ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the complainant was an accomplice.2. Whether the facts proved constitute an attempt to cause miscarriage under Section 312/511, I.P.C.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the complainant was an accomplice:The appellant argued that the complainant was an accomplice and her evidence was not corroborated. The court examined the facts and concluded that the complainant could not be regarded as an accomplice. The court noted that she was willing to destroy the foetus but was afraid of the consequences to herself. The court found some corroboration of her evidence in the discovery of the drugs and the appellant's flight, which was observed by several witnesses. Therefore, the court dismissed this argument.2. Whether the facts proved constitute an attempt to cause miscarriage under Section 312/511, I.P.C.:The appellant was convicted under Section 312/511, I.P.C., for an attempt to cause a miscarriage. The court delved into the legal definition of 'attempt' within the meaning of Section 511, I.P.C., which states: 'Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code with transportation or imprisonment, or to cause such an offence to be committed and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence shall be punished.'The court referenced several cases to define 'attempt':- In R. v. McPherson (1857) D B 202, it was held that an attempt must be to do that, which if successful, would amount to the felony charged.- In R. v. Cheeseman (1862) L C 140, it was stated that there is a difference between preparation antecedent to an offence and the actual attempt.- In R. v. Collins (1864) 33 LJM 177, it was held that an attempt to commit felony can only be made out where, if no interruption had taken place, the attempt could have been carried out successfully.The court noted that the Indian Penal Code, as drafted by Lord Macaulay and his colleagues, did not intend to follow these decisions. The court referred to the case of Empress v. Riasat Ali (1881) 7 Cal 352, which held that definitions in McPherson's and Cheeseman's cases were sound. The court also cited R. v. Brown (1889) 24 QBD 357 and R. v. Ring (1892) 17 Cox 491, where dissatisfaction with the decisions in Collins and Dodd was expressed, and they were overruled.The court emphasized that in India, there are four stages in every crime: intention, preparation, attempt, and commission. Intention alone or intention followed by preparation is not sufficient to constitute an attempt. There must be an act done towards the commission of the offence. The court illustrated this with examples:- If a man thrusts his hand into another's pocket with intent to steal, he does an act towards the commission of the offence of stealing, even if the pocket is empty.- If a person administers a harmless substance believing it to be poisonous, he cannot be convicted of an attempt to cause hurt.The court concluded that the appellant's actions did not amount to an 'act done towards the commission of the offence' of causing a miscarriage because neither the liquid nor the powder was harmful. The appellant's failure was not due to a factor independent of himself. Therefore, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.Separate Judgment:G.D. McNair, J. concurred with the judgment delivered by John Lort Williams, J. and agreed with the reasoning and conclusion.