CASE BRIEF ON

ASGARALI PRADHANIA v EMPEROR

COURT: HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA

JUDGES: JOHN LORT WILLIAMS AND G.D. Mc NAIR

DECIDED ON: 21st July 1933

FACTS

F1 The complainant had been divorced by consent and then living in her father’s house. The
appellant was a neighbor and had good terms with the complainant’s father.

F2 The appellant used to give presents to the complainant and had sexual intercourse with the
promise of marrying the complainant. The complainant got pregnant, to which the appellant
provided her with the powder of sulphate of copper and a red-colored liquid to cause
miscarriage.

F3 The complainant when refused to take the powder and liquid, was then forced by the
appellant to consume the same. But the complainant started shouting and hence the appellant fled
away.

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

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

A1 That the complainant herself wanted to get the uterus empty as she wanted to destroy the
foetus but she was afraid of the ill-effects of the process to herself. Thus she herself was a
wrong-doer.

1|Page
A2 The medical evidence proved that the combination of the copper sulphate with the non-fatal
liquid has no direct effect on the uterus until taken in large quantity. Therefore the facts itself
proved that the act does not amount to attempt to cause miscarriage.

HELD
It was held that since the act of the appellant does not amount to the commission of the offense,
which was causing miscarriage, therefore, the appellant was acquitted.

RATIO
The judgment was delivered by Justice John Lort Williams and Justice G.D. Mc Nair assented to
it. The court reached to this conclusion as the failure of the appellant’s act was because of the
external reason that means the force to the failure of his act was independent and hence the act
can be brought under the ambit of Section 312/511 of I.P.C.

LEARNING OUTCOME
The crime involves four stages;

i) Intention
ii) Preparation
iii) Attempt
iv) If Attempt successful, commission of the offense.

Therefore, the ambit of the word ‘Attempt' is very wide. Illustrations in Section 511 of IPC, tells
about the differentiation as to whether an act becomes attempt and when cannot be counted
under commission. But still, there is a little confusion regarding which act to be called attempt.
For example, (a) putting a gun on someone's forehead (b) pulling the trigger. Now in the first
instance, it may or may not be called an attempt. In the same way, in the second instance, it is
again difficult to conclude whether the attempt is to put fingers on the trigger or pulling the
trigger because pulling the trigger has already converted the act into commission. There have
been many theories, as discussed in the case. Everyone has his version of defining the word
‘Attempt'. It is again a problem as to which act to be made penultimate. Therefore, the word
attempt is ambiguous and it is interpreted as per the intention of the act committed.

2|Page