G.B.PATTANAIK, J. (1) LEAVE granted. (2) THE appellant stood charged under Sections 302 and 306 IPC. The learned trial Judge, however came to hold that the prosecution has failed to establish the case under Section 302, IPC and as such acquitted him of the said charge. Appellants acquittal having reached its finality, the same not having been assailed by the State in appeal. But, on the basis of the evidence of the three witnesses, namely, PWs. 2, 3 and 5, the appellant was convicted under Section 304-B IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for seven years. On appeal, the High Court reconsidered the evidence of the said three witnesses and dismissed the appeal, hence the present appeal. (3) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the charge was in respect of the incident that happened on 29th of July, 1986 and Section 304-B IPC was brought into the Statute Book on 19th November, 1986 and as such the conviction under Section 304-B, IPC cannot be sustained. The contention is unassailable. The learned Sessions Judge as well as the High Court, therefore, committed error in convicting the appellant under Section 304-B, IPC. We, therefore, set aside the said conviction and sentence passed thereunder. (4) BUT, having regard to the evidence of the aforesaid three witnesses, the appellant cannot be allowed to go scot free on a mere technicality, and in the interest of justice, the matter should be remitted back to the learned Sessions Judge for framing appropriate charge and giving an opportunity to the appellant to answer the same and thereafter dispose of the criminal proceeding in accordance with law. (5) WE, therefore, remit the Sessions Case No. 135 of 1987/48 of 1987 to the Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala. (6) THE counsel prayed that the appellant may be released on ball. But, in our view, the question of ball too should be considered by the learned trial Judge. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.