JUDGMENT : L. Mohapatra, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khurda in S.T. Case No. 60/126 of 1995 convicting the Appellants for commission of offences u/s 498-A\304-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'I.P.C.') and u/s 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and sentencing each one of them to imprisonment for life for their conviction u/s 304-B I.P.C., imprisonment for one year and six months each for their conviction u/s 498-A I.P.C. as well as Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The sentences have been directed to take effect consecutively, if the graver offence for which they are convicted is set aside, modified or altered by a higher Court. 2. The case of the prosecution is that deceased Harabati Dei is the daughter of P.W. 1. The absconding accused Gopal alias Bhagirathi Samantaray and the deceased were reading in Class-X in Kantabad High School in the year 1989. They were in love with each other and once they had eloped prior to July, 1989. Again in July, 1989 the deceased eloped with Gopal but ultimately they married in the temple of Dakhineswar Mahadeb of village Kendupalli according to Hindu customs and rites. One Sibaraj Swain solemnised the marriage on behalf of the bride whereas one Bhramar Biswal solemnised the marriage on behalf of the bridegroom. After such marriage, the deceased went to her marital home and stayed there. Within 4 to 5 months of her marriage the prosecution alleges that the deceased was tortured by her in-laws and husband for non-fulfillment of cash dowry of Rs. 16,000/- or in lieu of the same a piece of land which was known as "Bata Mana Kiari". Since P.W. 6 did not take any interest because of the marriage having taken place against his wish, it is alleged that on 30.12.1989 P.W. 1 received information from P.WA that his daughter had been killed. On getting information P.W. 1 immediately rushed to the house of the Appellants and on arrival he asked Appellant No. 1 who was also otherwise distantly related to him as to what happened to his daughter. In reply, the Appellant No. 1 told that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging herself. On getting information P.W. 1 immediately rushed to the house of the Appellants and on arrival he asked Appellant No. 1 who was also otherwise distantly related to him as to what happened to his daughter. In reply, the Appellant No. 1 told that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging herself. P.W. 1 thereafter came to Khurda Police Station and lodged an oral report which, was reduced to writing and the case was registered. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed for commission of offences under Sections 498-A, 302, 201 of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. 3. The plea of the defence is complete denial of the prosecution case. The Appellants are mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased respectively. 4. Prosecution examined eleven witnesses to prove the charges whereas the defence examined one witness. Out of the eleven witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, P.W. 1 is the informant and father of the deceased and P.W. 2 is a witness who stated about the relationship between the Appellants and the deceased. P.W. 3 had seen the deceased dead in her marital house and P.WA was examined for the very same purpose. P. WA had also given information to P.W. 1 regarding death of the deceased. P.Ws. 5 and 6 are the material witnesses for the prosecution who have stated about the relationship between the absconding accused Gopal and the deceased as well as demand of dowry, torture and death of the deceased for non-fulfillment of dowry demand. PW.8 is a witness to the marriage in the temple and P.Ws. 7 and 11 are the Investigating Officers. P.Ws. 9 and 10 are the two doctors examined by the prosecution. The Trial Court on analysis of the evidence specifically P.Ws. 5 and 6 though did not find the Appellants guilty of offence u/s 302 Indian Penal Code., convicted them for commission of offence u/s 302 Indian Penal Code., convicted them for commission of offence u/s 304-B of the said Code. The trial court also found both the Appellants guilty of offence u/s 498-A, Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and convicted them there under. 5. The trial court also found both the Appellants guilty of offence u/s 498-A, Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and convicted them there under. 5. Shri. Panda, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants assails the impugned judgment on the ground that no charge u/s 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. having been framed by the Trial Court, the Appellants should not have been convicted for the said offence. According to Shri. Panda, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants, since no charge was framed u/s 304-B of the I.P.C., the charge u/s 302 of the said Code having failed, the Trial Court could not have convicted the Appellants for commission of offence u/s 304-B of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that it is a minor offence. Similarly, it was contended by the Learned Counsel for the Appellants that once evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 6 is not accepted by the Trial Court to the extent that there was demand of dowry or that the deceased was subjected to torture for non-fulfillment of dowry demand, the offences u/s 498-A of the Indian Penal Code arid Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act automatically fail and consequently no offence u/s 304-B of the I.P.C. is made out. The Learned Counsel for the State submitted that though both the Appellants were charged u/s 302 I.P.C. and no charge had been framed u/s 304-B, I.P.C. even if the Appellants are acquitted of the charge u/s 302 I.P.C., they can be convicted u/s 304-B, the same being a minor offence. Apart from the above, it was contended by the Learned Counsel for the State that there is nothing to disbelieve P.Ws. 5 and 6 with regard to demand of dowry and torture meted out to the deceased for non-fulfillment of the dowry demand and, therefore, their conviction u/s 498-A, I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is justified. It was also contended by the Learned Counsel for the State that in the event the Court feels that in absence of charge u/s 304-B, I.P.C., the Appellants could not have been convicted there under, the matter should be remitted back to the Trial Court for framing of charge for commission of the said offence and the Court may also direct de novo trial. 6. 6. Admittedly on the basis of the postmortem report, the I.O. submitted charge sheet for commission of offence u/s 302 I.P.C. and admittedly the Trial Court also did not frame charge u/s 304-B, I.P.C. The Trial Court did not find any material to convict u/s 302 I.P.C. and therefore convicted both the Appellants u/s 304-B, I.P.C. on the ground that it is a minor offence. 7. Chapter XVII of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with charge.Section 218 Code of Criminal Procedure provides that every distinct offence of which any person is accused there shall be a separate charge, and every such charge shall be tried separately. Section 221(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure provides that 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. Section 222 Code of Criminal Procedure provides 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 provides that when a person is charged with an offence and facts are proved which reduce it to a minor offence, he may be convicted of the minor offence, although he is not charged with it. 8. The learned Additional Sessions Judge could have taken help of Section 221 Code of Criminal Procedure and framed alternative charges u/s 302 and 304-B, I.P.C. Having not done so in the impugned judgment, he has taken recourse u/s 222 Criminal Procedure Code and convicted the Appellants for commission of offence u/s 304-B, I.P.C. stating it to be a minor offence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge could have taken help of Section 221 Code of Criminal Procedure and framed alternative charges u/s 302 and 304-B, I.P.C. Having not done so in the impugned judgment, he has taken recourse u/s 222 Criminal Procedure Code and convicted the Appellants for commission of offence u/s 304-B, I.P.C. stating it to be a minor offence. In view of the above three provisions, the Appellants could have been charged for commission of offences under Sections 302 and 304-B Indian Penal Code alternatively and in view of Section 222 Code of Criminal Procedure, if the major charge fails, the court could convict an accused for a minor offence without a charge for the said minor offence being framed. So far as the present case is concerned, for commission of offence u/s 304-B Indian Penal Code the minimum sentence prescribed is seven years which may extend to imprisonment for life whereas for commission of offence u/s 302 Indian Penal Code, the minimum sentence is imprisonment for life and maximum sentence is death. Apart from the above, the evidence required to prove a charge u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code IS completely different than the evidence required for proving a charge u/s 304-B Indian Penal Code. Therefore, unless an alternative charge is framed u/s 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, the accused does not get an opportunity to defend himself and accordingly in absence of charge being framed, accused could not be convicted for commission of offence u/s 304-B Indian Penal Code as it shall cause prejudice. 9. Because of the above reasons, we could have remitted the matter back to the Trial Court for framing of charge u/s 304-B Indian Penal Code afresh and also could have directed for de novo trial. In the present case the occurrence took place in the year 1989 and the impugned judgement was passed on 2.1.1997. In the meantime, more than 17 years have passed. Apart from the above, we would also like to say that no fruitful purpose will be served by remitting the matter back to the Trial Court to frame an additional charge and go through the process of trial again. P.Ws. 5 and 6 are the witnesses on whom prosecution entirely relied and the Trial Court relied upon their evidence and convicted the Appellants. P.Ws. 5 and 6 are the witnesses on whom prosecution entirely relied and the Trial Court relied upon their evidence and convicted the Appellants. P.W. 5 in his deposition has stated that his house is only three to four houses away from that of the Appellants and he also used the same path way to come to the main village DANDA as that of the Appellants. He has further stated that the Appellants were demanding dowry from the deceased to his knowledge on 3 to 4 occasions and he had heard the Appellants saying to the deceased that she had just ran away with accused Gopal without bringing any money and therefore she should bring money to the tune of Rs. 16,000/- or else a piece of land known as BAT A MANA land from her father as a dowry. He has further stated that he heard the Appellants telling the deceased that whereas would take when she had brought no dowries with her at all. He has further stated that he had seen both the Appellants scolding the deceased for dowry and also beating her. The I.O. was examined as P.W. 7 in the case. From the evidence of the 1.0., it appears that this witness P.W. 5 in course of investigation had not stated before him that the Appellants demanded dowry from the deceased's father through the deceased on 3 to 4 occasions in the months of September and October, 1989 or that she should bring money to a tune of Rs. 16,000/- or else a piece of land known as BATA MANA LAND. He had not stated before the 1.0. during investigation that he had heard the Appellants telling the deceased that what she would take when she had brought no dowries at all or that he had seen both the Appellants scolding the deceased for dowries and beating her. This witness had not also stated before the i.o. that the Appellants were always quarreling with the deceased for dowries or had seen the assault on the deceased by the Appellants in the months of September and October, 1989. In view of the contradictions brought out in the evidence of the i.o., the evidence of P.W. 5 becomes doubtful. Similar is the case of P.W. 6. In view of the contradictions brought out in the evidence of the i.o., the evidence of P.W. 5 becomes doubtful. Similar is the case of P.W. 6. Though P.W. 6 stated in court regarding demand of dowry and illtreatment, he had not stated so before the i.o. it appears that both P.Ws. 5 and 6 tried to develop the case of the prosecution in course of trial by stating something though they had not stated so before the i.o. in course of investigation. In the event, a de novo trial is directed by remitting the matter back to the Trial Court, the very same witnesses have to be examined and the aforesaid contradictions shall still remain and therefore, even if a de novo trial is directed, no fruitful purpose will be served. We are therefore of the view that the prosecution has also not been able to prove the requirements for proof of commission of offence u/s 304B Indian Penal Code through the mouth of these two witnesses. There is no other witness who has stated about such demand of dowry or ill treatment. If the evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 6 is discarded neither the offence u/s 498-A Indian Penal Code nor the offence u/s 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is also made out. 10. In view of the discussions made above, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khurda in S.T. Case No. 60/126 of 1995 and acquit both the Appellants of the charges. Final Result : Allowed