[1] Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code (32nd enlarged edn, LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur 2012) 1794.

[2] Just as in cases of pre-viable abortions being non-criminal and WD during the same stage being an offence.

[3] Assuming that their foetuses were non viable at the time of the concerned homicide.

[4] Refer to ch 6. ‘Confinement of Pregnant Women  for  Protection  of Unborn’ for details.

[5] Nova D Janssen, ‘Foetal Rights and the Prosecution  of  Women  for using Drugs during Pregnancy’ (2002) 48 Drake Law Review 741.

[6] Refer to ch 6 for suggestions for improvement in MTPA, 1971.

[7] Attorney General’s Reference (No 3 of 1994) (1998) AC 245, 254. Here, the accused had stabbed a PW in the abdomen, causing her to go into premature labour. She gave birth to a live child who survived for 121 days. In this particular case, the foetus did achieve live birth and thus the rights attached to all human beings crystallised at that point. The logic of Attorney General makes live birth mandatory if any criminal liability for harm or homicide to the foetus has to be fixed.

[9] Because advancement in medical technology made it possible to save a foetus of 24 weeks gestation in case of pre-mature birth.

[10] The offence of child destruction is not abortion, legal or illegal (which is referred to as unlawful procurement of miscarriage in section 58 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861).

[11] Child Destruction is also not murder, manslaughter  or  infanticide either.