Abetment convictions need clear proof of instigation or aid, and a prejudicial charge variance can invalidate the trial.

A conviction for abetment of miscarriage requires clear proof of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid; unreliable testimony and a letter lacking any link to such conduct were insufficient, so the conviction failed for want of legal proof. A variance between the charge and the conviction is not fatal unless prejudice is shown; however, where the defence had no notice of the distinct allegation ultimately relied on, and prejudice was likely, the conviction could not stand. The accused was therefore acquitted because the prosecution did not prove abetment and the erroneous charge caused prejudice in the trial.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the conviction for abetment of miscarriage was sustainable on the evidence, and (ii) whether the conviction could stand when the appellant was charged with abetting one person but convicted for abetting another, without shown prejudice.

Issue (i): Whether the conviction for abetment of miscarriage was sustainable on the evidence.

Analysis: The conviction depended mainly on the testimony of a highly unreliable witness and on a letter that did not connect the appellant with any instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid in causing miscarriage. The medical evidence established the cause of death, and the relationship between the appellant and the deceased was also accepted, but those circumstances by themselves did not prove abetment. No trustworthy evidence established that the appellant procured or encouraged the miscarriage.

Conclusion: The conviction was not sustainable on the evidence and failed for want of legal proof of abetment.

Issue (ii): Whether the conviction could stand when the appellant was charged with abetting one person but convicted for abetting another, without shown prejudice.

Analysis: A variance in charge is not fatal unless prejudice is caused. Here, the defence was directed throughout to meeting the allegation that the appellant had abetted the co-accused, and he had no notice that he would have to answer a distinct accusation of abetting the deceased herself. On the facts, there was a reasonable likelihood of prejudice.

Conclusion: The conviction could not be sustained because the error in charge caused prejudice to the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the appellant was acquitted because the prosecution failed to prove abetment and the erroneous charge caused prejudice in the trial.

Ratio Decidendi: A conviction for abetment requires clear legal proof of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid, and a conviction based on a materially erroneous charge cannot stand where the accused is shown to have been prejudiced in his defence.

---