https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197019 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. en-us Tue, 29 Jul 1969 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Dec 2017 14:23:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197019 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 29 Jul 1969 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197019