An acquittal cannot be reversed unless the evidence compels an irresistible conclusion of guilt.

The appellant complained that her husband assaulted her abdomen while she was pregnant, causing bleeding and miscarriage, and that he and his family had also harassed her over a dowry demand.

The trial court convicted the husband under Section 498A IPC but acquitted him of offences under Sections 494 and 313 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

In her appeal against acquittal, the appellant relied principally on her testimony and medical documents, supported by evidence from a hospital compounder.

1. Whether the evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that the husband caused the appellant’s miscarriage by assault, so as to warrant interference with his acquittal under Section 313 IPC.

2. Whether the acquittal under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act warranted appellate interference.

The appeal concerned Section 313 IPC, which criminalises causing a woman with child to miscarry without her consent, subject to the statutory requirements of that offence, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, concerning giving or taking dowry and demanding dowry, respectively.

The Court applied the settled principle governing appeals against acquittal: an appellate court should not interfere unless the evidence supports an irresistible conclusion of guilt; the judgment cited no specific precedent for that principle.

The Court found that the complainant’s account was not sufficiently corroborated to establish that an assault caused the miscarriage. The prescription was not proved through its author, the treating doctor was not examined, and the compounder’s evidence did not inspire confidence; no injury report established abdominal injury.

In light of these evidentiary deficiencies and the applicable restraint in an appeal against acquittal, the Court found no basis to disturb the trial court’s findings. It did not separately analyse the evidence relating to the Dowry Prohibition Act charges.

It stated that it had made no comment on the husband’s conviction under Section 498A IPC, which was the subject of a separate appeal, and directed that the records be sent with that appeal.