I think (3) is the part you are all arguing about. Let me see if I understand this correctly:
What (3) says is that if the court finds the woman not pregnant, then she can appeal and if the appeal court finds that, indeed, the woman is actually pregnant (meaning the original finding that she is not pregnant "should be set aside"), then her sentence is converted to life imprisonment, which is the same as if she was confirmed pregnant the first time.
Nothing wrong with that, unless I understood it wrongly.
(3) If the woman is found not to be pregnant, she may appeal under the Supreme Court of Judicature Act to the Court of Criminal Appeal against such finding, and that Court, if satisfied that for any reason the finding should be set aside, shall quash the sentence passed on her, and instead of it pass on her a sentence of imprisonment for life. "
What (3) says is that if the court finds the woman not pregnant, then she can appeal and if the appeal court finds that, indeed, the woman is actually pregnant (meaning the original finding that she is not pregnant "should be set aside"), then her sentence is converted to life imprisonment, which is the same as if she was confirmed pregnant the first time.
Nothing wrong with that, unless I understood it wrongly.