Case – Asgarali Pradhania v. Emperor, 1933
Case Summary
| Citation | Asgarali Pradhania v. Emperor, 1933 |
| Keywords | |
| Facts | The complainant was 20 years of age. She was living in her father’s house. Asgarali Pradhania was a neighbour who had lent money to her father and was on good terms with him. He was a married man with children. According to the complainant he promised to marry her. As a result, sexual intercourse took place, and she became pregnant. She asked him to fulfil his promise, but he demurred 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 powder. After he had gone, she tasted the powder, but finding it salty and strong, she had spat it out. The following night the appellant came again and finding that she had not taken either the powder or the liquid, he pressed her to take them, but she refused saying that she was afraid for her own life. Thereupon he 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 neighbors came, the appellant fled. The police were informed, and upon analysis, sulphate of copper was detected in the powder, but the amount was not ascertained. No poison was detected in the liquid. |
| Issues | Whether activity of accused crossed stage of preparation? |
| Contentions | |
| Law Points | It is beyond dispute that there are four stages in every crime, the intention to commit, the preparation to commit, the attempt to commit, and if the third stage is successful, the commission itself. Intention alone, or intention followed by preparation are not sufficient to constitute an attempt. But intention followed by preparation, followed by any act done towards the commission of the offence is sufficient. Act done towards the commission of the offence are the vital words in this connection. In each of the illustrations to Section 511, there is not merely an act done with the intention to commit an offence which is unsuccessful because it could not possibly result in the completion of the offence, but an act is done ‘towards the commission of the offence,’ that is to say the offence remains incomplete only because something yet remains to be done, which the person intending to commit the offence is unable to do, by reason of circumstances independent of his own volition. If there is fault of accused and act could not completed, that act will not amount to attempt. There is difference between ‘does an act towards the commission of the offence’, and ‘an act towards the commission of something which cannot result in hurt to another’. There are following examples which do not come under category attempt: If one who believes in witchcraft puts a spall on another575, or burns him in effigy, or curses him with the intention of causing him hurt, and believing that his actions will have that result, if a man with intent to hurt another by administering poison prepares and administers some harmless substance, believing it to be poisonous, he cannot be convicted of an attempt to do so. In these examples accused is not liable for attempt because what he does is not an act towards the commission of that offence, but an act towards the commission of something which cannot, according to ordinary human experience result in hurt to another, within the meaning of the Penal Code. His failure to cause hurt is due to his own act or omission, that is to say, his act was intrinsically useless, or defective, or inappropriate for the purpose he had in mind, owing to the undeveloped state of his intelligence, or to ignorance of modern science. His failure was due, broadly speaking, to his own volition. What he did was not an act done towards the commission of the offence of causing a miscarriage. It was only preparation. It was not an attempt. 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. High Court observed that Asgarali Pradhania cannot in law, be convicted of an attempt to cause a miscarriage. He was acquitted. |
| Judgement | |
| Ratio Decidendi & Case Authority |
Full Case Details
To do
