Judgment :- This criminal revision case is directed against the judgment dated 16.09.2002 passed in Crl.A.No.279 of 2000 on the file of the VI Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track Court), East Godavari, Rajahmundry, wherein the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Amalapuram, in S.C.No.99 of 1998, dated 16.09.2000, was modified. The facts, in brief, are that the deceased Jonnada Lakshmi is a resident of Jai Bhimnagar, Kesanakurrapalem of I.Polavaram Mandal. A-1 and A-2, who are son and father respectively, are residents of Vitanalavari Kalavagattu, Amalapuram Taluq. A-2 is the maternal uncle of the deceased. PW-1 is the younger sister of the deceased. A-1 took the house of one Kovuri Ramanna in their street for rent and kept the deceased and PW-1 therein. Due to the promise made by A-1 that he would marry the deceased, he was allowed to have sexual intercourse with her. When the deceased became pregnant, A-1 got her aborted and later, refused to marry her on the abetment of A-2. The deceased vexed with her life on such refusal by A-1, consumed poison and died on 11.02.1994 at 6-00 p.m. On the basis of the report given by PW-1 about the unnatural death of her sister, Amalapuram Town Police registered a case in Crime No.25 of 1994 for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC against the petitioner-A1 and under Section 306 r/w Section 109 IPC against A2. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Amalapuram and as the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC is triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions and it was numbered as S.C.No.99 of 1998. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-16 and M.Os.1 to 8. The trial Court vide its judgment, dated 21.07.2000, found A2 not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w Section 109 IPC, however, found A1 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC and accordingly, convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 5 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months. As against the said judgment, A1 filed Crl.A.No.279 of 2000 on the file of the VI Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track Court) East Godavari, Rajahmundry. The learned Sessions Judge having considered the said appeal, acquitted A1 for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, but, convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 417 IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. As against the said judgment, this revision petition is filed. It may not be necessary for this Court to go into the factual aspects for the reason that the learned appellate Judge has clearly erred in convicting the petitioner-A1 for the offence punishable under Section 417 IPC. The charge framed against him is the one under Section 306 IPC and if the Court is not convinced that the accused is not guilty of the offence for which he was charged, it has to acquit him, and if it comes to the conclusion that the accused has committed the offence other than the charge framed against him, shall put the accused on notice before convicting him for the said offence. In this case, the charge for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC was only framed against the petitioner-A1, but not under Section 417 IPC. In the absence of framing of any charge under Section 417 IPC and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to disprove the said charge, the Court cannot convict him for an offence for which he was not charged. Further, this Court is of the view that the offences under Sections 306 IPC and 417 IPC are totally distinct. It is not as though the offence punishable under Section 417 IPC is inferior to that of the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. When a person is tried for a major offence and if the said offence is not proved and if the court was of the opinion that the accused was guilty of minor offence, the Court can definitely convict him for a lesser offence, the nature of which must be related to major offence, but not of a distinct offence. When a person is tried for a major offence and if the said offence is not proved and if the court was of the opinion that the accused was guilty of minor offence, the Court can definitely convict him for a lesser offence, the nature of which must be related to major offence, but not of a distinct offence. In this case the accused was not charged under Section 417 IPC and it is not a similar offence to Section 306 IPC and therefore, it is a distinct offence and that the accused cannot be convicted without framing the charge and without giving an opportunity to rebut the same. As stated supra, the charge framed against the petitioner is under Section 306 IPC and there is no charge under Section 417 IPC. In the absence of any charge for the offence punishable under Section 417 IPC, the appellate Court ought not to have convicted the petitioner as if he is guilty of the said offence. In fact, Section 222 Cr.P.C. empowers the Courts to convict a person for the offence, which is minor in comparison to the one for which he was charged and tried. By no stretch of imagination, the offence punishable under Section 417 IPC can be said to be a minor offence to the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC and it is a distinct offence. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Appellate Judge in Crl.A.No.279 of 2000 dated 16.09.2002 for the offence punishable under Section 417 IPC is hereby set aside.