Judgment R. P. SAXENA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filed under S. 374, Cr. P. C. against the judgment dated 31-3-1980 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balotara, whereby he convicted the appellants for offence under S. 306, IPC and sentenced each of them to three years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -in default, to further undergo six months R. I. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY, the relevant facts are that on 1-7-1979, on the written report of Chananamal (P. W. 15) alleging the death of his daughter-in-law, Smt. Maya, due to drowning in the water tank , an enquiry under S. 174, Cr. P. C. was initiated by the SHO, Barmer. It may be mentioned here that the said report of Chananamal was not filed in the Court along with the challan and it was reported that the same was missing. On 1-7-1979, Rewamal (P. W. 2), the father of the deceased, also submitted a written report to the Collector, Barmer alleging therein that he had married his daughter Maya to appellant Anil Kumar about 1 1/2 months ago and given dowry as per his financial capacity. However, Chananamal, his wife Vidhya Devi and Anil Kumar (appellants) used to cruelly treat Maya. He alleged that on 1-7-1979 they had committed her murder by pressing her neck, putting her to fire and thereafter drowning her in the water tank situated in their house. The District Magistrate, sent the said report to the Superintendent of Police, Barmer, who in his turn directed the SHO to take immediate legal action. It appears that Rewamal also submitted a written report Ex. P. 4, which was received by the SHO, P. S. Barmer on 2-7-79, alleging that appellants used to torture his daughter Maya and demanded more dowry; that on 22-6-79, appellant Anil Kumar had told Chandra Prakash in the bus that he was not happy with his wife Maya; that again on 30-6-1979 Anil had told his neighbour Kalumal that his wife Maya was ugly and black in colour and also brought less dowry and as such he intended to kill her and that thereafter he would marry with some other beautiful girl. It was also mentioned in the said report that on 1-7-1979 one Chandan Mal s/o Gyan Mal of Balotara had phoned Roopchand and informed him that his daughter Maya had died after sustaining burn injuries and that in such circumstances, he apprehended that Maya had been murdered by Anil Kumar, his father Chananamal and mother Vidhya Devi. ( 3 ) SURAJ Karan, Dy. S. P. (P. W. 8), who conducted the enquiry under S. 174, Cr. P. C. suspected that it was not a case of suicide but that of committing murder and destroying the evidence thereof. He, therefore jotting down detailed reasons by his order Ex. P. 9 directed the SHO to register a case. Thereupon, case u/ S. 302 and 201, IPC was registered on 5-7-l979. ( 4 ) THE dead body of Smt. Maya was found floating in the water tank situated in the house of appellants. In appellants bath room, a tin and a bucket containing kerosene oil, burnt match sticks and a match box were found lying. Dr. B. L. Chordiya (P. W. 12), who conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of Smt. Maya, opined that the cause of death was asphyxia due to drowning with shock due to extensive antemortem 90% burns over her body. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellants before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer, who in his turn committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge. ( 5 ) THE appellants were charged for the offences under Ss. 302 and 201 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty. The learned Sessions Judge, after trial acquitted the appellants u/s. 302 and 201, IPC but found them guilty for offence under S. 306, IPC and sentenced them as above. Hence, this appeal. ( 6 ) I have heard the learned counsel for appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor at length and carefully perused the record of the lower court. ( 7 ) SHRI R. P. Vyas, the learned counsel for the appellants has vigorously contended that admittedly neither any charge for offence under S. 306, IPC was framed against appellants nor any specific question was put to them while recording their plea u/ S. 313, Cr. P. C. Thus, the learned Sessions Judge, without affording any opportunity to the appellants, has convicted them for offence under S. 306, IPC, which has caused great prejudice to them. P. C. Thus, the learned Sessions Judge, without affording any opportunity to the appellants, has convicted them for offence under S. 306, IPC, which has caused great prejudice to them. His next contention is that even from the evidence recorded in this case, necessary ingredients to constitute the offence u/s. 306, IPC have not at all been proved. He has urged that offence u/s. 306, IPC is not a minor offence pertaining to offences punishable under Ss. 302 and 201, IPC. ( 8 ) ON the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has asserted that from the evidence recorded in this case, it is fairly established that the appellants used to torture Smt. Maya and that this possibility cannot be ruled out that they had abetted and forced her to commit suicide. He has, however, conceded that neither a specific charge under S. 306, IPC was framed nor circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence pertaining to the said offence were put to the appellants while recording their plea under S. 313, Cr. P. C. But he has asserted that during the course of final arguments, the learned trial Judge had given full opportunity of hearing to the appellants to defend themselves with regard to the offence punishable under S. 306, IPC. ( 9 ) I have given my most anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made before me. ( 10 ) SECTION 222 of the Criminal Procedure Code lays down that when a person is charged with an offence consisting of several particulars, a combination of some only of which constitutes a complete minor offence, and such combination is proved, but the remaining particulars are not proved, he may be convicted of the minor offence, though he was not charged with it. It further lays down that when a person is charged with an offence and facts are proved, which reduced it to a minor offence, he may be convicted of the minor offence, although he is not charged with it. ( 11 ) THUS, this section applies to cases where the charge of an offence consisting of several particulars, some of which when combined and proved form a complete minor offence. When that is the case, the accused may be convicted of the minor offence, though not charged. ( 11 ) THUS, this section applies to cases where the charge of an offence consisting of several particulars, some of which when combined and proved form a complete minor offence. When that is the case, the accused may be convicted of the minor offence, though not charged. The principle is that the graver charge gives notice to the accused of all the circumstances going to constitute the minor offence of which he may be convicted. But when the circumstances constituting the major offence do not necessarily and according to the definition of the offence imputed by that charge constitute the minor offence, this principle no longer applies, because notice of the former does not involve notice of all that constitute the latter. ( 12 ) IT is needless to mention here that the major and minor offences must be cognate offences, which have the main and principal ingredients in common. Therefore, an accused charged with one offence cannot be convicted of an offence of an entirely distinct and different type of offence merely because the facts proved constitute a minor offence for the simple reason that he had no notice of the offence and was not provided the opportunity for defending himself for such a different and distinct offence. Thus, an accused charged for the offence of committing murder cannot be convicted for forgery or misappropriation of fund, which are not the minor offences with respect to the charge of murder. ( 13 ) THE term, "minor offence" has to be interpreted in its ordinary sense and not technical sense. The test is not the gravity of punishment. When a person is charged with an offence, consisting of several particulars and if all the particulars are proved, then it will constitute the main offence, while if only some of those particulars are proved and their combination constitutes a minor offence, the accused can be convicted of the minor offence, though he was not charged with it. Thus, a minor offence within the meaning of S. 222, Cr. P. C. would not be something independent of the main offence or an offence merely involving lesser punishment. The minor offence should be composed of some of the ingredients constituting the main offence and be a part of it. Thus, a minor offence within the meaning of S. 222, Cr. P. C. would not be something independent of the main offence or an offence merely involving lesser punishment. The minor offence should be composed of some of the ingredients constituting the main offence and be a part of it. In other words, the minor offence should essentially be a cognate offence of the major offence and not entirely a distinct and different offence, constituted by altogether different ingredients. ( 14 ) NOW adverting to the facts of the case in hand, appellants were charged for intentionally committing the murder of Maya, punishable under S. 302, IPC and for causing disappearance of evidence of murder punishable u/ S. 201, IPC. Admittedly, they were not charged for the offence u/ S. 306, IPC for abetting her to commit suicide. To prove the offence of murder, the prosecution has to prove that the death of a human being has actually taken place; that such death has been caused by or in consequence of the act of the accused; and that such act was done by the accused with the intention of causing death or such bodily injury likely to cause death or with the knowledge that such act is likely to cause death. On the other hand, for convicting an accused for the offence under S. 306, IPC, the prosecution has to prove that any person has committed suicide and that the accused has abetted the commission thereof. Thus, it is abundantly apparent that necessary ingredients of the offence of murder or causing disappearance of the evidence of murder are entirely distinct and different from those which constitute the offence of abetment of suicide under S. 306, IPC. In other words, offences u/ss. 302 and 201,ipc are not cognate and major offences of the offence of abetment of suicide. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, it can be held that the offence of abetment of suicide punishable under S. 306, IPC is minor offence in respect of the offence of murder and causing disappearance of the evidence. Therefore the provisions of S. 222, Cr. P. C. which constitute an exception to the general rule that a person cannot be convicted of an offence with which he is not charged, cannot be pressed into service in this case. Therefore the provisions of S. 222, Cr. P. C. which constitute an exception to the general rule that a person cannot be convicted of an offence with which he is not charged, cannot be pressed into service in this case. ( 15 ) IN Raghunath Singh v. State, AIR 1950 All 471 , the accused was charged for offence of committing dacoity but some other offence viz. , mischief u/s. 427, IPC, which had no connection whatsoever with the offence of dacoity and with which the accused was not charged, was proved to have been committed. It was held that he could not be convicted of the offence under S. 427, IPC although it might be a comparatively less serious offence. It was held that an offence will be treated as "minor" within the meaning of S. 238, Cr. P. C. , 1898 (equivalent to S. 222 Cr. P. C. 1973) with reference to the main or major offence, referred to therein and not independently of it. Consequently, the minor and major offences must be cognate offence, which have the main ingredients common. ( 16 ) SIMILARLY, in V. Thoma Chand v. State of Kerala 1978 Cri LJ 498 (Kerala) it has been held that a person charged with murder cannot be convicted under S. 411, IPC in absence of a charge framed against him because those are not cognate offences but different offences. ( 17 ) THIS is a basic principle of criminal jurisprudence that the accused should be informed with certainty and accuracy the exact nature of the charge brought against him otherwise he may be seriously prejudiced in his defence. In this respect, reference is made to B. N. Srikantaiah v. Mysore State AIR 1958 SC 672 . ( 18 ) IN the instant case neither the appellants were charged for offence punishable under S. 306, IPC nor any specific circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence pertaining to the said offence were put to them while recording their plea under S. 313, Cr. P. C. From a careful perusal of the impugned judgment, it transpires that during the final arguments, the learned trial Judge has suo motu posed a querry as to whether from the prosecution evidence recorded in the case, an offence under S. 306, IPC against the appellants was made out or not? P. C. From a careful perusal of the impugned judgment, it transpires that during the final arguments, the learned trial Judge has suo motu posed a querry as to whether from the prosecution evidence recorded in the case, an offence under S. 306, IPC against the appellants was made out or not? Thereafter, no opportunity was given to the prosecution as well as to the appellants to adduce their evidence for the alleged offence of abetment of suicide. Thus, no opportunity was given to the appellants to defend themselves for an entirely new, different and distinct offence under S. 306, IPC. This has positively caused substantial prejudice to them. ( 19 ) THE alleged incident took place on l-7-1979 and more than 12 1/2 years have now elapsed. Therefore, it will not be in the interest of justice, to remand this case for re-trial, at this late stage specially when the appellants have been acquitted by the learned trial Judge for offences punishable under Ss. 30 and 201, IPC. ( 20 ) I have also carefully perused the evidence recorded in this case. Not a single witness has stated that Smt. Maya had committed suicide or that the appellant had abetted her to commit suicide. S. 304-B relating to dowry death has been inserted in IPC by the Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1986 with a view to combating the increasing menace of dowry death. Section 304-B, IPC has no retrospective effect. Therefore, when the alleged incident took place on 1-7-1979, no provision like that of S. 304-B, IPC existed on Statute Book. ( 21 ) REWAMAL (P. W. 2), the father of the deceased has stoutly refuted the suggestion that Smt. Maya had committed suicide. Kundamal, the maternal uncle of the deceased has deposed that Smt. Maya Devi was a religious minded lady and that she could not have committed suicide. Smt. Pushpa (P. W. 6), the elder sister of the deceased has also deposed likewise and stated that Maya had never told her that she would commit suicide on account of ill-treatment of her mother-in-law, appellant Smt. Vidhya. Binjraj Singh (P. W. 13) A. S. I. , who conducted the enquiry under S. 174, Cr. Smt. Pushpa (P. W. 6), the elder sister of the deceased has also deposed likewise and stated that Maya had never told her that she would commit suicide on account of ill-treatment of her mother-in-law, appellant Smt. Vidhya. Binjraj Singh (P. W. 13) A. S. I. , who conducted the enquiry under S. 174, Cr. P. C. has clearly stated that it was not a case of suicide because it was ordinarily not possible for Maya after dousing herself with kerosene, and lighting fire inside the bath room to have crossed a distance of about 23 to reach the water tank and then to drown herself therein. He deposed that when he inspected the site, the water level in the tank was only 2 and that had Smt. Maya fallen down herself in the tank, ordinarily she must have sustained injuries. He further deposed that he also did not find any mark of oily foot prints on the floor from the bath room to the water tank and therefore, it was not a case of suicide. Surajkaran (P. W. 8), Circle Officer, who also conducted the enquiry u/s. 174, Cr. P. C. as well as the investigation in this case, has deposed that from his enquiry and investigation and taking into account the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, it was a case of murder and not that of suicide. For this opinion, he has given detailed reasons in his statement. Similar is the testimony of Jafar Ali (P. W. 16), S. H. O. , who also investigated this case. Dr. B. L. Chordia (P. W. 12) has stated that he did not find any marks of injury on the body of Smt. Maya and that the cause of her death was due to asphyxia by drowning with shock due to extensive ante-mortem 90% burns over her body. Thus, from his statement also, it cannot be inferred that Smt. Maya had committed suicide. The learned Sessions Judge has conveniently ignored the aforementioned material evidence and on the basis of mere surmises and conjuctures and being swayed by sentiments has held that the prosecution had successfully brought home the offence u/s. 306, IPC against the appellants. In my considered opinion, this finding of the learned trial Judge is against the record and perverse, which cannot be sustained. In my considered opinion, this finding of the learned trial Judge is against the record and perverse, which cannot be sustained. ( 22 ) THE net result of the above discussion is that I accept this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of appellants Anil Kumar and Smt. Vidhya Devi passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balotara by his judgment dated 13-12-1979 and acquit them of the offence under S. 306, IPC. They are on bail and need not surrender. Appeal allowed.