ASGARALI PRADHANIA vs EMPEROR Case Summary 1933 Calcutta HC

ASGARALI PRADHANIA vs EMPEROR Case Summary 1933 Calcutta HC

In Asgarali Pradhania vs Emperor case, it was held that there should be a commission of the crime to call it as an ‘attempt’ which has not been taken place, therefore appellant cannot be convicted and should be acquitted.

COURT:

Calcutta High Court

CITATION:

AIR 1933 Cal 893

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED ON:

July 21st, 1933

BENCH:

Justice Lord Williams, Justice G.D. Mc Nair

RELEVANT ACT AND PROVISIONS:

  1. Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
  2. Section 58 of the Person Act, 1861.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

  1. Complainant was 20 years divorced lady living with her father and used to sleep in the cook shed.
  2. The appellant was a neighbor was has lent some money to the complaint father.
  3. Complaint claims that the appellant used to give gifts and made a promise to marry her. As a result, they both have sexual intercourse and complaint became pregnant. Complainant asks appellant to fulfill the promise of marriage but he refused.
  4. Appellant suggests miscarrying the child and provided him some red liquid and a packet of powder. Complainant taste that powder with red liquid and find that salty and strong and spat it out.
  5. On not taking that liquid and powder (copper sulphate) appellant, start forcing him, due to which complainant started screaming. Her father and nearby neighbors ran over to help him, but appellant fled.

ISSUES FRAMED:

Whether it held the appellant liable for an attempt to cause miscarriage to the complainant?

JUDGEMENT:

Court held that the liquid and powder given by the appellant are not harmful to miscarry the child. Therefore, the appellant cannot be convicted on the ground to attempt to cause a miscarriage under section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Hence, the appellant was acquitted.

CASES REFERRED:

  1. Raman Chettiar v. Emperor, AIR 1927
  2. Queen-Empress v. Gopala (1893)
  3. Empress v. Ganesh Balvant (1910) 34 Bom 378
  4. Queen-Empress v. Luxman Narayan Joshi (1900) 2 Bom LR 286
  5. R. v. Cheeseman (1862)

CONCLUSION:

The judgement comes in the appellant’s favor. From this case, we can learn one important thing: that mere intention cannot be a sufficient ground to prove a person guilty. To make a person liable, there must be the completion of the offence. Also, the aggrieved party helps in a better understanding of the facts of the case.

Found Asgarali Pradhania case summary useful? Check out other landmark IPC Case summaries here >>> IPC Case Summaries.

Check out our YouTube Channel for free legal videos >>> LAW PLANET YT

Share on print
Print PDF
Share on whatsapp
WhatsApp
Share on email
Email
Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Shubham Garg

Shubham Garg

See Legal News, Judgements, Jobs Monthwise

Recent Posts

About Us

Law Planet is specially created for law enthusiasts. We provide courses for various law exams. We also write about law to increase legal awareness amongst common citizens.

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR BLOG!