27/06/2015

Case:[1958]1LNS40

[1958]1LNS40
[1958]1MLJ159

MUNAHBINTIALIv.PUBLICPROSECUTOR
HIGHCOURT,IPOH
THOMSON,CJWHYATT,(S)CJGOOD,J
FMCRIMINALREFERENCENO4OF1957
14MARCH1958

PENAL CODE SS 312 AND 511 Attempt to cause miscarriage Whether necessary for Court to be
satisfiedthatthewomaniswithchildbeforetheCourtproceedstoconvict.
Case(s)referredto:
AsgaralliPradhaninv.RILR61Cal54
Lamontv.Strathearn[1933]JC33
PeggyAnderson[1928]JC1
Rv.Brown,10QBD381
Rv.Collins9CoxCC497L&C471475
Rv.LuzmanNaryanJoshi[1899]2BomLR286
Rv.MangeshJiva'jiILR11Bom376
Rv.PercyDalton33CrAppR110
Rv.Rings&Ors17CoxCC491
Rv.Scudder172ER565
Rv.VinayekNarayenBhatye[1899]LR2Bom304
Rv.Whitchurch24QBD420
Semple[1937]JC41

Counsel:
FortherespondentAbdulKadirbinYusof(FC)

JUDGMENT
ThomsonCJ:
ThiswasanappealfromadecisionoftheSessionsCourtatIpohwhichcamebeforeusforrehearingby
reasonoftheJudgebeforewhomitcameoriginallyhavinggrantedacertificateunders.34oftheCourt
Ordinance.
Theappellantwasoriginallychargedwiththefollowingcharge:
That you on 19 October 1956 at about 3.00 p.m. at No J 60, Lorong Silibin, Ipoh in the State of
Perak voluntarily caused one Female Chinese named Chee Yew Cheng then being with child to
miscarry,suchmiscarriagenotbeingcausedbyyouingoodfaithforthepurposeofsavingthelifeof
the said Chee Yew Cheng, and thereby committed an offence punishable under s. 312 of Penal
Code.
AtthecloseofthecasefortheprosecutionthelearnedPresidentwassatisfiedthattherewasevidence
to show that the accused had used an instrument on the woman mentioned in the charge and in
consequence had caused her some time later to suffer a substantial haemorrhage. He was not,
http://www.cljlaw.com/Members/PrintCase.aspx?CaseId=1632377345&SearchId=8aedyla

1/9

27/06/2015

Case:[1958]1LNS40

however,satisfiedthattherewasevidencetoshowthatthewomanwaspregnantwhentheinstrument
wasuseduponherorthatthehaemorrhagecontainedproductsofconception.Heaccordinglyframeda
newchargeinthefollowingterms:
That you on or about 19 October 1956 at No J 60, Lorong Silibin, Ipoh voluntarily attempted to
causeoneCheeYewChengtohaveamiscarriageandinsuchattemptdidanacttowitinsertingan
instrument into her vagina and thereby committed an offence punishable unders. 312 and s. 511
PenalCode.
Thetrialproceededonthenewchargeandintheeventtheappellantwasconvictedonitandsentenced
tothreemonths'imprisonment.
Againstthatconvictionandsentencetheappellantappealedandinduecourseherappealcameonfor
hearingbeforeShepherdJ.Heallowedtheappealonthegroundthattheprosecutionhadfailedtoprove
thatthewomanwaswithchild.Sometimelater,however,HisLordshiphaddoubtsastothecorrectness
ofhisdecisionandaccordinglyofhisownmotiongaveacertificateunders.34oftheCourtsOrdinance
thatthedeterminationoftheappealinvolvedapointwhichitwasdesirableinthepublicinteresttohave
determinedbytheCourtofAppeal.
InconsequencetheappealcamebeforethisCourtforrehearingatlpohon24Februarylastandwas
dismissedbyamajority.
Myownviewsonthepointinvolvedcanbestatedveryshortly.
MY_FS_ACT_1997_574312Section312ofthePenalCodereadsasfollows:
Whoevervoluntarilycausesawomanwithchildtomiscarryshall,ifsuchmiscarriagebenotcaused
ingoodfaithforthepurposeofsavingthelifeofthewomanbepunishedwithimprisonmentofeither
descriptionforatermwhichmayextendtothreeyears,orwithfine,orwithbothandifthewoman
bequickwithchildshallbepunishedwithimprisonmentofeitherdescriptionforatermwhichmay
extendtosevenyears,andshallalsobeliabletofine.
The only observation I would make regarding that section is that it is quite clear that the expression
"causes a woman with child to miscarry" means to cause her to lose from the womb prematurely the
products of conception and that therefore there can be no offence under the section unless there are
productsofconception.Tocauseawomanwhoisnotpregnanttosufferahaemorrhagemayormaynot
beanoffenceundersomeothersectionoftheCode(Iexpressnoopiniononthepoint),itiscertainlynot
anoffenceunderthissectionunlessthehaemorrhagecontainsproductsofconception.
The question of attempts to commit offences is dealt with bys. 511 of the Penal Code, the material
portionsofwhichreadasfollows:
WhoeverattemptstocommitanoffencepunishablebythisCodeorbyanyotherwrittenlaw....
andinsuchattemptdoesanyacttowardsthecommissionofsuchoffence,shall,wherenoexpress
provisioninmadebythisCodeorbysuchotherwrittenlaw,asthecasemaybe,forthepunishment
ofsuchattempt,bepunishwithsuchpunishmentasisprovidedfortheoffence:..........
ILLUSTRATIONS
(a)Amakesanattempttostealsomejewelsbybreakingopenabox,andfindsaftersoopeningthe
boxthatthereisnojewelinit.Hehasdoneanacttowardsthecommissionoftheft,andthereforeis
guiltyunderthissection.
(b) A makes an attempt to pick the pocket of Z, thrusting his hand into Z's pocket. A fails in the
attemptinconsequenceofZ'shavingnothinginhispocketAisguiltyunderthissection.
The argument for the prosecution here was that what the present appellant did was punishable as an
offence by reason of the provisions of this section. It was said that there was a very close analogy
betweentheillustrationsappendedtothesectionandthefactsofthepresentcase.Theseillustrations
areofcoursebasedupontheEnglishcaseofReg.v.Ring&Ors.17CoxCC491whereitwasheld,for
reasonswhichwerenotstated,thatitwaswronglydecidedinReg.v.Collins,9CoxCC497L&C471,
475,thatanattemptatfelonycouldnotbecommittedbyapersonputtinghishandintoanother'spocket
forthepurposeofcommittingafelony,therebeingatthetimenothinginthepocket.
Theanalogybetweenthepresentcaseandtheillustrationstos.511isattractive.Ananalogy,however,
is not an argument and in any event this analogy is a bad one. There may be a notional similarity
betweenattemptingtoremoveanonexistentcoinfromawoman'shandbagandattemptingtoremove
http://www.cljlaw.com/Members/PrintCase.aspx?CaseId=1632377345&SearchId=8aedyla

2/9

27/06/2015

Case:[1958]1LNS40

nonexistentproductsofconceptionfromherwomb.Butthereisallthedifferenceintheworldbetween
something which is in fact impossible but which if possible would be an offence and something which
cannotpossiblybeanoffenceinanycircumstancewhatsoever.
Itwillbeobservedthats.511 does not define an attempt. It only states what attempts are themselves
offences.Itsaysineffectthatbeforeanattemptisitselfanoffenceitmustsatisfytwoconditions.Thefirst
oftheseisthatitmustbeanattempttocommitanoffencepunishablebythePenalCodeorbyanyother
writtenlaw.Theotheristhattheremustbeanacttowardsthecommissionoftheoffence.
In other words, before an offence is punishable it must be an attempt to do something which is an
offence punishable under the Penal Codeor some other written law. It follows that an attempt to do
something which is not an offence is not punishable. As was said by Birkett, J in the case of Percy
Dalton,33CrApp.R110:
Stepsonthewaytothedoingofsomething,whichisthereafterdone,andwhichisnocrime,cannot
beregardedasattemptstocommitacrime.
Thepresentcaseseemstocomefairlyandsquarelywithinthesewords.Whattheappellantdidwasto
passaninstrumentandtherebycausethewomaninthecasetohaveahaemorrhagebutdidnotamount
tocausinghertomiscarrybecauseshewasnotwithchild.
ThematterwasdealtwithinmuchthesamewayinthecaseoftheQueenEmpressv.MangeshJiva'ji
ILR11Bom376inwhichthefactswerestrikinglysimilartothoseinthepresentcase.Theaccusedwas
chargedwithcriminalintimidationincontraventionofs.507oftheCode,theallegationagainsthimbeing
thathehadsentalettertotheRevenueCommissionercontainingathreatthatifacertainforestofficer
whowassaidtobeapersoninwhomtheCommissionerwasinterestedwasnotremovedelsewherehe
wouldbekilled.TheSessionsJudgefoundthattheletterwasinfactsentbutthattheforestofficerwas
not a person in whom the Commissioner was interested. He accordingly acquitted the accused of the
offence of criminal intimidation but convicted him of an attempt to commit that offence. The conviction
wasquashedandBirdwood,Jinthecourseofhisjudgmentmadethefollowingobservations(atp.381):
Itappears,therefore,thattheactintendedanddonebytheaccusedlackedanessentialelementof
theoffenceofcommittingcriminalintimidation........butitdoesnotfollowthattheaccusedcouldstill
be legally convicted of an attempt to commit that offence. It is possible to attempt to commit an
impossible theft, and so offence against the Code, because theft is itself an offence against the
Code,andmay,therefore,beattemptedwithinthemeaningoftheCode.Butnocriminalliabilitycan
be incurred under thePenal Code by an attempt to do an act, which, it done, would not be an
offenceagainsttheCode.Inthepresentcase,therefore,iftheaccusedwasnotguiltyofcommitting
criminalintimidation,becausetheactintendedanddonebyhimlackedaningredientofthatoffence,
hecouldnotbeguiltyoftheattemptofwhichhehasbeenconvicted.
IwouldaddthattherewouldappeartobenoEnglishcasedirectlybearingonthepointalthoughinthe
caseoftheQueenv.Whitechurch,24QBD420.LordColeridge,CJexpresseddoubtastowhethera
womanwhowasnotinfactwithchildcouldbeindictedforanattempttoprocureabortiononherself.In
Scotland,however,whileasinEnglanditmaybeanoffencetoattempttostealwherethereisnothing
steal (Lamont v. Strathearn [1933] JC 1 it has been held that a woman must be pregnant before the
crimeofattemptingtoprocureabortioncanbecommitted(PeggyAnderson[1928]JC41andSemple
[1937]JC41.
InScotland,procuringabortionisacrimeatCommonLawandnotaStatutoryoffence.NeverthelessI
findintheseScotscasessupportfortheviewIhavetakeninthepresentcase.InPeggyAndersonLord
Andersonsaid:
Inachargeofprocuringorattemptingtoprocureabortion....theprosecutormustlibel,and,to
secureaconviction,mustprovethatthepatientwaspregnant.Thispropositionseemstobemade
good by consideration of what is involved in the crime and by having regard to the presumptive
reasonswherebytheactsresultinginabortionareregardedascriminal.Abortion,inthesenseof
the criminal law, is held to be criminal because its successful accomplishment results in the
destructionofpotentialhumanlife.
InthelatercaseofLamont,LordSandsreferredtothecaseofPeggyAnderson[1928]JC1anddealt
withthedistinctionbetweenattemptingtoprocuretheabortionofawomannotpregnantandattempting
tostealfromapocketwhichhasnothinginitinthefollowingpassage:
http://www.cljlaw.com/Members/PrintCase.aspx?CaseId=1632377345&SearchId=8aedyla

3/9

27/06/2015

Case:[1958]1LNS40

Achargeofattemptatcriminalabortionisachargeofanattempttomakeapregnantwomanabort.
A charge of an attempt to steal is a charge of attempting to steal anything of value that might be
found.Thecompletedactsmaybeonthesamefooting.Onecannotcauseabortionifthewombbe
emptyorstealavaluableifthepocketisempty.Buttheattemptsmaybeonadifferentfooting.As
regardsabortionIunderstandthattheviewtakenwasthatattempttocommitabortionmustbean
attempttocauseapregnantwomantoabort.Apregnantwomanisaconditionoftheoffence.On
the other hand, in the case of attempted theft from a pocket, that is an attempt to steal whatever
maybefoundthere.Apocketwhichmaycontainsomethingofvalueistheonlycondition.
FortheforegoingreasonsIwouldhaveallowedtheappeal.
JUDGMENT
Whyatt(S)CJ:
Thequestionfordecisioninthisreferenceiswhetherapersoncanbeconvictedofanattempttocausea
woman to have a miscarriage if the woman is not pregnant at the time the attempt is made. The
PresidentoftheSessionsCourtthoughtthataconvictioncouldberecordedinsuchcircumstancesthe
learned Judge, on appeal, held otherwise, but certified that the point was one which should be
determinedbytheCourtofAppeal.
Ifthisquestiondependedsolelyuponthelawsoflogic,therewouldbemuchtobesaidfortheviewthat
a person cannot attempt to commit an offence if the offence itself cannot be committed but it is in the
provisions of the Penal Code and in the judicial decisions interpreting those provisions, rather than in
simplelogic,thattheansweristobefound.TherelevantprovisionsofthePenalCodereadasfollows:
Section312.Whoevervoluntarilycausesawomanwithchildtomiscarryshall......bepunishedwith
imprisonment....whichmayextendtothreeyears......andifthewomanbequickwithchild,shall
bepunishedwithimprisonment.....whichmayextendtosevenyears.........
Section 511. Whoever, attempt's to commit an offence punishable by this Code .... and in such
attempt does any act towards the commission of such offence shall .... be punished with such
punishmentasisprovidedfortheoffence....providedthatanyimprisonmentimposedshallnot
exceedonehalfofthelongesttermprovidedfortheoffence.
ILLUSTRATIONS.
(a)Amakesanattempttostealsomejewelsbybreakingopenabox,andfindsaftersoopeningthe
boxthatthereisnojewelinit.Hehasdoneinacttowardsthecommissionoftheftandthereforeis
guiltyunderthissection.
(b) A makes an attempt to pick the pocket of Z by thrusting his hand in Z's pocket. A fails in the
attemptinconsequenceofZ'shavingnothinginhispocketAisguiltyunderthissection.
It appears to me that the analogy between the two illustrations, in particular Illustration (b), and the
presentcaseisexactforifitbeanoffencetothrustahandintoaperson'spocketwithintenttosteal,
notwithstandingthatthepocketisempty,itisequallyanoffence,inmyview,toinsertaninstrumentinto
a vagina with intent to cause a miscarriage, notwithstanding that the uterus is empty. Moreover the
CourtsinIndia,construingpreciselysimilarprovisionsintheIndianPenalCode,haveinterpretedthemin
thiswidesense.Aslongagoas1887inthecaseoftheQueenEmpressv.Jiva'ji,ILR11Bom.,birdwood
Jsaid:"Nodoubtanattempt,withinthemeaningofs.511oftheIndianPenalCode,ispossible,even
whentheoffenceattemptedcannotbecommittedaswhenaperson,intendingtopickanotherperson's
pocket,thrusthishardintothepocketbutfindsitempty.Thatsuchanactwouldamounttoacriminal
attempt, appears from the illustration to s. 511. But in doing such an act, the offender's intention is to
commit a complete offence and his act only falls short of the offence by reason of an accidental
circumstancewhichhaspreventedthecompletionoftheoffence."Sointhepresentcase,theoffender's
intentionwastocommitthecompleteoffenceofcausingawomantohaveamiscarriagebutheractfell
short of the offence by reason of the accidental circumstance that the woman was not pregnant. This
interpretation of the Illustration to s. 511 was endorsed as recently as 1933, in the case of Asgaralli
Pradhaninv.Emperor,ILR61Cal54whereLortWilliamsJafterreferringtotheIllustration(b),said:
"Hetriestostealbutisfrustratedbyafact,namelytheemptinessofthispocket,whichisnotinanyway
duetoanyactoromissiononhispart."Thesamemaybesaidoftheaccusedinthepresentcase:she
triedtocauseawomantohaveamiscarriagebutshewasfrustratedbyafact,namely,theemptinessof
theuterus,whichwasnotinanywayduetoanyactoromissiononherpart.
http://www.cljlaw.com/Members/PrintCase.aspx?CaseId=1632377345&SearchId=8aedyla

4/9

27/06/2015

Case:[1958]1LNS40

IwouldaddthatthecaseofAsgaralliPradhaninv.Emperor,supraisalsoofimportancesinceitremoves
any doubt (if indeed there is room for doubt) that s. 511 and the Illustrations are general in their
application and apply to an attempt to cause a miscarriage under s. 312. It is true that LortWilliams J
held in that case that there was no attempt to cause miscarriage because the drug which was
administered was harmless but it is implicit throughout the judgment that s. 511 and the principles
embodied in the illustrations are wide enough to cover a case where an act is done towards the
commissionofanoffenceagainsts.312,notwithstandingthatthecompleteoffencecannotbecommitted
byreasonofsomefactunknowntoandindependentofthepersonwhoseekstocommittheoffence.
The argument based upon the construction of s. 511 of the Penal Code and the Illustrations to that
section, is, in my opinion, sufficient to dispose of this case but out of deference to the arguments
addressedtotheCourtontheEnglisheases,Iwillmakeabriefreferencetothisaspectofthesubject.
TheEnglishlawasitexiststodayisconciselysummarisedinVol.10ofHalsbury,(SimondsEdn.)atp.
308 in the following terms: "a person may be guilty of an attempt to commit an offence though that
offencecouldnot,inthecircumstances,havebeencommitted."Butthiswasnotalwaysso.In1864,in
thecaseofRv.Collins,9CoxCC497L&C471,475,aprisonerwasindictedforattemptingtocommit
felonybyputtinghishandinto,awoman'spocketwithintenttostealthepropertyinthepocketbutas
there was no proof that there was anything in the pocket, it was held that the prisoner could not be
convictedoftheattempt.In1892thiscasewasconsideredinReg.v.Ring&Ors.17CoxCC491.In
thatcasetheprisonerswerechargedwithattemptingtostealfromapersonunknownandtheevidence
establishedthattheyhustledawomanboardingatrainandtriedtofindherpocketbutitwasnotproved
thattherewasanythinginthepocket.Itwasarguedonbehalfoftheprisoners,ontheauthorityofReg.
v.Collins,supra,thattherewasnocaseagainstthembutLordColeridgeCJsaid:"Thiscasewasstated
toascertainwhetherornotReg.v.Collinsisgoodlaw".ThatcasewasoverruledbyReg.v.Brown10
QBD381,acasedecidedbyfiveJudges,andsincethiscasewillalsobedecidedbyfiveJudges,oneof
whomwasoneoftheJudgeswhodecidedReg.v.Brown,thelearnedJudgewhostatedthecasewill
have the satisfaction of knowing that now nine Judges hold that Reg. v. Collins is bad law". There is,
therefore,nodoubtthattheEnglishlawnowisthatapersonmaybeguiltyofanattempttocommitan
offenceeventhoughthecommissionofthefulloffencemaybeimpossible.
Itshould,however,berememberedthattheprincipledoesnotapplywherethereisanexpressstatutory
Provisiondealingwithanattempttocommitanoffenceinsuchcases,ofcourse,thequestionwhether
anattempthadbeenmadesoastoconstituteanoffencedependsuponthewordingofthestatute.An
exampleofsuchacaseisprovidedbyRv.Scudder,172ER565whereaprisonerwasacquittedonan
indictmentoradministeringadrugtoawomantoprocureanabortion,thewomannotbeingwithchildat
allalthoughtheprisonerthoughtshewas,becausetheCourtheldthatonthetrueconstructionofs.2of
theStatuteofGeorgeIIIunderwhichthechargewasbrought,itwasnecessary,inordertoconstitutethe
offence,thatthewomanshouldbewithchild.Perhapsamorestrikingexampleoftheeffectofspecial
statutoryprovisionsincasesofthiskindisprovidedbythecaseofReg.v.Whitchurch,24QBD420.In
that case a charge was preferred under s. 58 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, which
expresslyprovidesthatifawomanadministersdrugstoherselfwithintenttoProcurehermiscarriage,it
isacrimeonlyintheeventofthewomanbeingwithchild,whereasifotherpersonsadministerdrugstoa
womanwithintenttoprocuremiscarriage,theactiscriminal,whetherthewomaniswithchildornot.The
Court held that although, under that section, a woman could not be convicted of procuring her own
abortion, if she was not with child, she could nevertheless be convicted of conspiring with others to
procure abortion on herself, since in the case of the others it was an offence to administer drugs with
intenttoprocuremiscarriage,whetherthewomanbeorbenotwithchild.Thiscase,therefore,turned
uponthespecialwordingofs.2oftheOffencesagainstthePersonAct1861,anddoesnotestablishany
generalprinciple.
ThepositionunderEnglishlaw,therefore,appearstobethatapersoncanbeconvictedofanattemptto
commitanoffenceeventhoughthecommissionofthefulloffenceisimpossiblebutthattherearecertain
statutoryencroachmentsonthisprincipleasexemplifiedinthetwocasescitedabove.Theforegoingis,I
think,asufficientreviewoftheEnglishcasescitedtotheCourtinthecourseofargument.Theyareno
doubtofinterestbuttheyarenotstrictlyspeaking,adrem.Thequestiontobedecidedinthisreference
depends in my view, not upon the English cases, but upon the interpretation to be placed onss.
312and511 of the Penal Code and the Illustrations thereto, such interpretation being assisted by the
decisionsoftheCourtsofIndiaonpreciselysimilarprovisionsoftheIndianPenalCode.Forthereasons
given earlier in this judgment I am of the opinion that s. 511 and the principles embodied in the
http://www.cljlaw.com/Members/PrintCase.aspx?CaseId=1632377345&SearchId=8aedyla

5/9

27/06/2015

Case:[1958]1LNS40

IllustrationsapplytothepresentcaseandIwould,therefore,answerthequestionreferredtothisCourt
bystatingthat,inmyview,inachargeofattemptingtocauseawomantohaveamiscarriageitisnot
necessaryfortheCourttobesatisfiedthatthewomaniswithchildbeforetheCourtproceedstoconvict.
JUDGMENT
GoodJ:
InthiscasetheaccusedwaschargedintheSessionsCourt,Ipoh,asfollows:
That you on 19 October 1956 at about 3.00 p.m. at No J 60, Lorong Silibin, Ipoh, in the State of
Perak voluntarily caused one female Chinese named Chee Yew Cheng then being with child to
miscarry,suchmiscarriagenotbeingcausedbyyouingoodfaithforthepurposeofsavingthelifeof
the said Chee Yew Cheng, and thereby committed an offence punishable under s. 312 of Penal
Code.
Attheendoftheprosecutioncase,thelearnedPresidentnotbeingsatisfiedthatithadbeenestablished
thatthecomplainantwaspregnantandhadhadamiscarriage,alteredthechargetothefollowing:
That you on or about 19 October 1956 at No. J 60, Lorong Silibin, Ipoh, voluntarily attempted to
causeoneCheeYewChengtohaveamiscarriageandinsuchattemptdidanacttowitinsertingan
instrument into her vagina and thereby committed an offence punishable unders. 312ands. 511
Penalcode.
On that charge he convicted the accused and sentenced her to three months, imprisonment. She
appealedandthelearnedJudgeallowedtheappealongroundswhichheStatedasfollows:
Inmyview,whilstonachargeofanattempttocommitanoffencetheprosecutionisnotrequiredto
prove the fact of the abortion, it is nevertheless still necessary to prove, that is to say, to lead
evidence from which it may properly be inferred that the woman was with child. In this task the
prosecution, in the estimation of the learned President, had signally failed. That, in my view,
disposesofthematter,andIcanonlyconcludethattheamendmentofthechargemighthavebeen
duetoamisapprehensionviz.themisapprehensionthatitwouldnotbenecessarytoprovethese
factsinordertosupportthechargeasamended.
My conclusion, therefore, is that the appellant was wrongly convicted and her appeal must be
allowed.
Subsequently,however,hedecidedtorefertothisCourtunders.34oftheCourtsOrdinance,1948,the
followingpointoflaw:
Whether in a charge of attempting to cause a woman to have a miscarriage contrary to ss.
312and511ofthePenalCodeitisnecessaryfortheCourttobesatisfiedthatthewomaniswith
childbeforetheCourtproceedstoconvict.
Section312ofthePenalCodeprovidesasfollows:
Whoevervoluntarilycausesawomanwithchildtomiscarryshall,ifsuchmiscarriagebenotcaused
in good faith for the purpose of saving the life of the woman, be punished with imprisonment of
eitherdescriptionforatermwhichmayextendtothreeyears,orwithfine,orwithbothandifthe
woman be quick with child, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
whichmayextendtosevenyears,andshallalsobeliabletofine.
Section511dealswithattemptstocommitoffencesinthefollowingterms:
WhoeverattemptstocommitanoffencepunishablebythisCodeorbyanyotherwrittenlawwith
penalservitudeorimprisonmentorfineorwithacombinationofsuchpunishments,orattemptsto
causesuchanoffencetobecommitted,andinsuchattemptdoesanyacttowardsthecommission
of such offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Code or by such other written
law,asthecasemaybe,forthepunishmentofsuchattempt,bepunishedwithsuch
punishment an is provided for the offence: Provided that any term of penal servitude or
imprisonmentimposedshallnotexceedonehalfofthelongesttermprovidedfortheoffence.
Theillustrationstos.511areimportantandIthinkitnecessarytosetthemout
(a)Amakesanattempttostealsomejewelsbybreakingopenabox,andfindsaftersoopeningthe
boxthatthereisnojewelinit.Hehasdoneanacttowardsthecommissionoftheft,andthereforeis
guiltyunderthissection.
http://www.cljlaw.com/Members/PrintCase.aspx?CaseId=1632377345&SearchId=8aedyla

6/9

27/06/2015

Case:[1958]1LNS40

(b)AmakesanattempttopickthepocketofZbythrustinghishandintoZ'spocket.Afailsinthe
attemptinconsequenceofZ'shavingnothinginhispocketAisguiltyunderthissection.
It is perhaps unfortunate that both these illustrations deal with cases of attempted theft, but I see no
reason for supposing that the principle which they set out is related to the offence of attempted theft
alone. If this was so, they would be ad hoc illustrations and useless as statements of principle. In my
view,theymustbeconstruedasbeingofgeneralapplicationalthoughtheexampleschosenhappenedto
beexamplesofcasesofattemptedtheft.
ThequestionwasconsideredinEnglandinthecaseofReg.v.Collins&Ors,9CoxCC497L&C471,
475.Inthatcase,oneoftheprisonerswasprovedtohaveputhishandintothegownpocketofalady
butitwasnotprovedthattherewasanypropertyinthepocketatthetime.Theevidenceshowedthat
theotherprisonerswereconcernedinthetransaction.Onachargeofattemptedthefttheywerefound
guilty by the jury but the Judge stated a case for the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeal. The
AppellateCourtquashedtheconvictionanditisnecessarytosetoutthejudgmentofCockburnCJwhich
givesthereasonsforthisdecision.
Weareallofopinionthatthisconvictioncannotbesustained,andinsoholdingitisnecessaryto
observe that the judgment proceeds on the assumption that the question, whether there was
anything in the pocket of the prosecutrix which might have been the subject of larceny, does not
appear to have been left to the jury. The case was reserved for the opinion of this Court on the
question,whether,supposingapersontoputhishandintothepocketofanotherforthepurposeof
larceny,therebeingatthetimenothinginthepocket,thatisanattempttocommitlarceny?Weare
farfromsayingthat,ifthequestion,whethertherewasanythinginthepocketoftheprosecutrixhad
beenlefttothefoundthattherewas,andinwhichcasetheconvictionjury,therewasnoevidence
onwhichtheymighthavewouldhavebeenaffirmed.But,assumingthattherewasnothinginthe
pocketoftheprosecutrix,thechargeofattemptingtocommitlarcenycannotbesustained.Thiscase
isgovernedbythatofiReg.v.M'Pherson,andwethinkthatanattempttocommitafelony,canonly
be made out when, if an interruption had taken place, the attempt could have been carried out
successfully,andthefelonycompletedoftheattempttocommitwhichthepartyischarged.Inthis
case,iftherewasnothinginthepocketofthe
prosecutrix,inouropiniontheattempttocommitlarcenycannotbeestablished.Itmaybeillustrated
by the case of a person going into a room, the door of which he finds open, for the purpose of
stealing whatever property he may find there, and finding nothing in the room, in that case no
larcenycouldbecommitted,andthereforenoattempttocommitlarcenycouldbecommitted.Inthe
absence, therefore, of any finding by the jury in this case, either directly, or inferentially by their
verdict, that there was any property in the pocket of the prosecutrix, we think that this conviction
mustbequashed.
Thatcasewasheardin1864.In1892inthecaseofReg.v.Ring&Ors.17CoxCC491onvirtually
identicalfacts,fiveJudgesheldthatReg.v.Collins&Ors.,suprawasbadlaw.
In an Indian case in 1887 Queen Empress v. Mangesh Jiva'ji, ILR 11 Bom 376, the accused was
convictedofanattempttocommitcriminalintimidationunderthefollowingcircumstances.Theaccused
had been for some time employed as a clerk in the Forest Department, but was dismissed by the
Divisional Forest Officer, Mr. MacGregor, for neglect of duty. He applied to be reinstated, but Mr.
MacGregor refused. Thereupon the accused fabricated a petition, purporting to be written by the
inhabitantsofcertainvillages,andsentitbyposttotheRevenueCommissioner,SouthernDivision.The
petition contained, among other things, a threat that, unless Mr. MacGregor were transferred to some
otherdistrict,hewouldbekilled.TheappellateCourtreversedtheconvictionandsentenceforreasons
whichappearfromthefollowingpassagefromthejudgmentofBirdwoodJ:
Nodoubt,anattempt,withinthemeaningofs.511oftheIndianPenalCode(ActXLVof1860),is
possible, even when the offence attempted cannot be committed as when a person, intending to
pickanotherperson'spocket,thrustshishandintothepocket,butfindsitempty.Thatsuchanact
wouldamounttoacriminalattempt,appearsfromtheillustrationstos.511.Butindoingsuchan
act, the offender's intention is to commit a complete offence, and his act only fails short of the
offencebyreasonofanaccidentalcircumstancewhichhaspreventedthecompletionoftheoffence.
Inthepresentcase,itcannotbesaidthattheaccusedintendedtodomorethanheactuallydid.He
intendedtosendafabricatedpetitiontotheCommissioner,containingathreatdirectedagainstMr.
MacGregor. And that intention, assuming the facts to be as found by the Sessions Judge, he
http://www.cljlaw.com/Members/PrintCase.aspx?CaseId=1632377345&SearchId=8aedyla

7/9

27/06/2015

Case:[1958]1LNS40

carriedoutcompletely.If,therefore,hecommittedanoffenceatall,hecommittedtheoffencewhich
he intended to commit not an attempt, but the offence attempted. The Sessions Judge has
however,foundthattheoffenceattemptedwasnot,asamatteroffactandlaw,committed,because
thepersontowhomthepetitionwassentbytheaccusedwasnothimselfthreatened,andwasnot
"interested"inthepersonthreatened.Itappears,therefore,thattheactintendedanddonebythe
accusedlackedanessentialelementoftheoffenceofcommitcriminalintimidationasdefinedins.
503ofIndianPenalCode(ActXLVof1860).Butitdoesnotfollowthattheaccusedcouldstillbe
legally convicted of an attempt to commit that offence. It is possible to attempt to commit an
impossibletheft,andsooffendagainsttheCode,becausetheftis
itself an offence against the Code, and may, therefore, be attempted within the meaning of the
Code.ButnocriminalliabilitycanbeincurredundertheCodebyanattempttodoanact,which,if
done,wouldnotbeanoffenceagainsttheCode.Inthepresentcase,therefore,iftheaccusedwas
notguiltyofcommittingcriminalintimidation,becausetheactintendedanddonebyhimlackedan
ingredientofthatoffence,hecouldnotbeguiltyoftheattemptofwhichhehasbeenconvicted."
For the purposes of the present case, I think it is important to emphasise the words: "It is possible to
attempttocommitanimpossibletheft,andsooffendagainsttheCode,becausetheftisitselfanoffence
againsttheCode,andmay,thereforebeattemptedwithinthemeaningoftheCode."Ontheanalogyof
this proposition, with which I am respectfully in complete agreement, it seems to me to be possible to
attempt to cause an impossible miscarriage and still offend against the Code because the voluntary
causingofamiscarriageisitselfanoffenceagainsttheCodeandmay,therefore,beattemptedwithin
themeaningoftheCode.
Thevitaloperativewordsofs.511inmyviewarethewords:"andinsuchattemptdoesanyacttowards
thecommissionofsuchoffence."InQueen,empressv.LuzmanNaryanJoshi[1899]2BomLR286,Sir
Lawrence Jenkins, CJ, defined "attempt" as "an intentional preparatory action which failed in its object
throughcircumstancesindependentofthepersonwhoseeksitsaccomplishment."AndthesameJudge
inQueenEmpressv.VinayekNarayenBhatye[1899]2BomLR304defined"attempt"as"whenaman
does an intentional act with a view to attain a certain end, and fails in his object through some
circumstanceindependentofhisownwill."ThesetwodefinitionswerereferredtobyLortWilliamsJin
his judgment in Asgaralli Pradhanin v. Emperor, ILR 61 Cal. 54. In Asgaralli's case, which was
concerned with a charge of attempting to cause a miscarriage, the accused was proved to have
attempted to administer to the complainant two chemicals, a liquid and a powder, for the purpose of
procuringamiscarriagebuttherewasnoevidencetoshowthateitherofthechemicalswascapableof
operatingasanabortifacientandonappealagainstconviction,theappellateCourtheldthatonthefacts
theappellantcouldnotbeconvictedofanattempttocauseamiscarriagebecausewhathedidwasnot
an"actdonetowardsthecommissionoftheoffence"ofcausingmiscarriage.
Neither the liquid nor the powder being harmful, they could not have caused a miscarriage. The
appellant'sfailurewasnotduetoafactorindependentofhimself.
In the present case, the circumstances are different. The evidence clearly showed that it was the
intentionoftheappellanttobringaboutamiscarriageandshecouldnothavemadetheattemptunless
shebelievedthecomplainanttobepregnant.Ifthecomplainantwasnotpregnant,thenthefailureofthe
attempt was due to a factor independent of the appellant herself. Her attempt was prevented or
frustratedbythenonexistenceofacircumstancewhichshebelievedtoexist.AsIseeit,sheisinexactly
thesamepositionasthewouldbepickpocketwho,believingthatthereisormaybesomethingcapable
ofbeingstoleninthepocketwhichhedecidestopick,attemptstostealitandfindshisattemptfoiledbya
circumstanceindependentofhimself,namely,thenonexistenceofanythingcapableofbeingstolen.The
circumstancesofthepresentcaseseemtometobeexactlycoveredbytheillustrationstos.511ofthe
PenalCode, even though these illustrations speak of attempts to commit a different type of offence. I
would,therefore,answerthequestionreferredtousfordeterminationbythelearnedappellateJudgein
thenegativeandwouldaffirmtheconvictionandsentenceofthelowerCourt.
Appealdismissed.
[1958]1MLJ159

http://www.cljlaw.com/Members/PrintCase.aspx?CaseId=1632377345&SearchId=8aedyla

8/9

27/06/2015

Case:[1958]1LNS40

Disclaimer|PrivacyPolicy|TermsofTrade|Terms&ConditionsofUse|LicenceAgreement
|FAQ|Sitemap
Copyright2015CLJLegalNetworkSdnBhd.
Email:enquiries@cljlaw.comTel:60342705421Fax:60342705402

http://www.cljlaw.com/Members/PrintCase.aspx?CaseId=1632377345&SearchId=8aedyla

9/9