Judgment Sahai, J. 1. This appeal is directed against a judgment of the Sessions Judge of Patna. He has convicted all the four appellants under Sec. 457 read with Sec.380, Penal Code, and has sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. He has further convicted appellant Jadunandan Gope under Sec.323, Penal Code but has not passed any separate sentence under that section. Against appellant Sampat Dusadh, he has recorded a conviction under Sec.324, Penal Code and a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and he has ordered this sentence to run consecutively with the sentence under Sec. 457 read with Sec.380, Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case is that, on the night of the 7/8th September. 1951, Lilku Hajam (P. W. 6) was sleeping in the deorhi (passage-room) of his house. A lantern was burning and a buffalo was also tied in the deorhi. At about midnight, Lilku heard the sound of the buffalo getting up and woke up. He then saw all the four appellants going towards his courtyard. He raised an alarm of Chor, chor and, thereupon, the appellants rushed towards him. On account of fear, he ran out of his house. The appellants pursued him and overtook him in the lane. Appellant Jadunandan assaulted him there with a lathi and appellant Sampat Dusadh struck him on the head with a garasa. The other two appellants remained standing with some utensils in their hands. On hearing the alarm raised by Lilku, Ramchander (P. W. 4), Chalitar (P. W. 2) and Awadh (P. W. 7), came there. The appellants fled and the three witnesses just mentioned chased them for a short distance. None of the appellants could, however, be caught. Lilku did not go to the police station at night because he was injured and the night, which was a night in the month of Bhado, was dark. A river had also to be crossed in going to the Police station. He left for the police station early in the morning and lodged first information report (Ex. 1) at 10 A. M. The distance between village Gahra where Lilkus house is situated and the police station at Naubatpur is eight miles. Sub-Inspector Jogendra Prasad (P. W. 8) investigated into the case and. after completing investigation, submitted charge-sheet. 3. He left for the police station early in the morning and lodged first information report (Ex. 1) at 10 A. M. The distance between village Gahra where Lilkus house is situated and the police station at Naubatpur is eight miles. Sub-Inspector Jogendra Prasad (P. W. 8) investigated into the case and. after completing investigation, submitted charge-sheet. 3. The defence of the appellants is that the entire prosecution case is false and that the appellants have been falsely implicated at the instance of three persons, namely (1) Sudama Babu, an influential landlord of the neighbourhood, (2) Chanderman Gope and (3) Ramdhari Singh, another landlord. (After discussion of the evidence His Lordship came to the conclusion that there was sufficient evidence to prove the case against the appellants. The judgment then proceeds) : 4. Dr. Hasan has argued a point of law also. It appears that appellants Jadunandan, Balchand and Banwari were charged under Sec.392, Penal Code, and appellant Sampat under Sections 392/397, Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the appellants of these charges and has recorded a conviction against them under Sec. 457, Penal Code, and against one of them under Sec.323 and against another under Sec.324, Penal Code. Dr. Hasans argument is that the learned Sessions Judge acted illegally in convicting the appellants under these sections when the charges were under Sections 392 and 392/397, Penal Code. 5. The relevant part of the charge against three of the appellants under Section 392 is as follows : "That you, on or about the 7th/8th day of September 1951 at village Gahra, P. S. Naubatpur, Dist. Patna, committed robbery of the utensils worth about Rs. 20.00 which were the property of P. W. 1 Lilku Hajam then in his possession and which you robbed him of in his dwelling house at about 12 P. M." 6. The relevant part of the charge against appellant Sampat under Sections 392/397, Penal Code, is to the following effect : "That you, on or about the 7th and 8th day of September, 1951 at village Gahra, P. S. Naubatpur, Dt. Patna, committed robbery of utensils, worth Rs. 20/-, which were the property of Lilku Hajam (P. W.) and which were in his possession and that at the time of committing the said robbery, you used a deadly weapon, to wit a garasa....." Dr. Patna, committed robbery of utensils, worth Rs. 20/-, which were the property of Lilku Hajam (P. W.) and which were in his possession and that at the time of committing the said robbery, you used a deadly weapon, to wit a garasa....." Dr. Hasans argument is, firstly, that the ingredients of an offence under Section 457 are quite different from those of an offence under Sec.392 and, secondly, that an offence under Sec. 457, which is punishable with imprisonment for fourteen years, is a graver offence than an offence under Sec.392, Penal Code, which is punishable with imprisonment for ten years only. In support of his argument, he has drawn my attention to the case of -- Queen-Empress V/s. Dala Tala, Rat Un Cr C 221 (A). In that case, the accused persons were charged Under Sec.397, Penal Code, but the jury returned a verdict of not guilty under that section and a verdict of guilty against them for the offence of house breaking by night and theft in a dwelling : house and of abetment of those offences. Their Lordships held that all the particulars constituting the minor offence of house breaking by night and theft in a dwelling house are not included in the definition of robbery and, hence, the accused persons could not be convicted of those offences or abetment thereof in view of Sec.238, Criminal P. C. That case has ho application to this case because, in the present case, the learned advocate for the State has relied upon Sections 236 and 237 to justify the appellants conviction under Sec. 457 read with Sec.380, Penal Code. Hence that case has no application to this case. 7. Another case which has been relied upon by Dr. Hasan is the case of -- Nga Kaung Nyein V/s. Emperor, 13 Cri LJ 429 (UB) (B). In that case, the accused was charged under Sec.392, Penal Code, but was convicted under Sec. 458 of the Penal Code. It was held that a charge of robbery could not include the offence of house breaking by night and that the offence under Sec. 458 was a graver offence than the one under Sec.392, Penal Code. The learned Judicial Commissioner, who gave the decision, converted the conviction of the accused from Sec. 458 to Sec.392, Penal Code. It was held that a charge of robbery could not include the offence of house breaking by night and that the offence under Sec. 458 was a graver offence than the one under Sec.392, Penal Code. The learned Judicial Commissioner, who gave the decision, converted the conviction of the accused from Sec. 458 to Sec.392, Penal Code. The learned Judicial Commissioner has said in one part of his judgment that Sections 236 and 237 cannot be read apart from Sec.238. If he meant by this observation that Sections 236 and 237 were controlled by Sec.238 as he appears to have done, I respectfully disagree. In my opinion, Sections 236 and 237 are meant to apply I to one, set of circumstances and Sec.238 to another though they may overlap in some cases. 8. Dr. Hasan has also relied upon the decision in the case of -- Makkhan V/s. Emperor, AIR 1945 All 81 (C). In that case, the learned Judge, considered the application of Sec.236 and Sec.237 as also Sec.238 to the case before him. So far as Sections 236 and 237, Criminal P. C., are concerned, his Lordship observed that these sections were not at all applicable to the facts before him because, on the facts alleged, there could be no doubt as to the nature of the offence committed. Dr. Hasan has relied upon an observation made in that case which is as follows : "The whole object of framing a charge is to enable the defence to concentrate its attention on the case that he has to meet, and if the charge is framed in such a vague manner that the necessary ingredients of the offence with which the accused is convicted are not brought out in the charge then to my mind the charge is defective." 9. I am in entire agreement with this observation but, in my opinion, the charge framed in the case before me is not at all vague. 10. I am in entire agreement with this observation but, in my opinion, the charge framed in the case before me is not at all vague. 10. Sec.236, Criminal P. C., is as follows : "If a single act or series of acts is of such a nature that it is doubtful which of several offences the facts which can be proved will constitute, the accused may be charged with having committed all or any of such offences, and any number of such charges may be tried at once; or he may be charged in the alternative with having committed some one of the said offences." 11. Sec.237 is to the following effect : "If, in the case mentioned in Sec.236, the accused is charged with one offence, and it appears in evidence that he committed a different offence for which he might have been charged under the provisions of that section, he may be convicted of the offence which he is shown to have committed, although he was not. charged with it." 12. On a reading of these two sections, it is perfectly clear that, even if a person is charged with having committed an offence under one section of the Indian Penal Code, he can be convicted of another offence provided that the facts which the prosecution proposed to prove against him were certain and the only doubt was as to which of the offences he has committed : the one with which he was charged or the one for which he has to be convicted. I may quote in this connection an observation made by Biswas J. in the case of -- Goloke Behari Takal V/s. Emperor, AIR 1938 Cal 51 (D) at p. 69. The observation is as follows : "The uncertainty must necessarily be an uncertainty arising out of a postulated set of facts, not an uncertainty regarding the facts which the prosecution may be ultimately able to establish. As I understand it, Section 237 does not deal with a case where the evidence falls short of proving the offence which the prosecution had set out to prove; that would be governed by Sec.238 if it could be made to apply." This observation has been cited with approval in this Court, in the case of -- Bijo Gope V/s. Emperor, AIR 1945 Pat 376 (E). Even if we do not look to the allegations of facts made by the prosecution in the present case and we confine ourselves to the facts alleged only in the charges framed against them, it appears clear that the facts may constitute an offence under Sec.392 as well as an offence under Sec. 457. The ingredients of an offence under Sec. 457 are (1) that the accused committed lurking house-trespass by night, and (2) that the same was committed for the purpose of committing theft. It has been clearly stated in the charges that the appellants committed robbery of utensils worth Rs. 20. Hence, the fact that the purpose was to commit theft has been alleged. It has also been mentioned in the charge under Sec.392 that the robbery was committed in the house of Lilku at midnight. Thus the element of committing lurking house-trespass by night has also been alleged. In these circumstances, I have no doubt at all that Sections 236 and 237, Criminal P. O. apply and the learned Sessions Judge did not commit any legal error in recording a conviction against the appellants under Sec. 457 read with Sec.380, Penal Code. The decision in the case of -- Mathura V/s. Emperor, AIR 1927 Oudh 196 (P) supports the view that I have taken. 13 In view of the appellants conviction under Sections 457/380 I do not think that any separate conviction against any of them under Sec.323 or Section 324, Penal Code is necessary. I, therefore, set aside the conviction of Jadunandan under Sec.323 and the conviction and sentence recorded against Sampat under Sec.324. The conviction of all the appellants under Sec. 457 read with Sec.380 and the sentences passed against them under that section are maintained. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed in part.