Criminal Procedure Code a condition not so imposed by the statue. There is no requirement, by their plain and ordinary meaning, for the framing of a new charge or that the accused be put on notice where the Court decides to invoke its powers to convict the accused for a proved lesser offence consisting of some particulars of the offence charged. The lesser offence is in fact implicit in the greater or aggravated offence for which the Appellant is deemed to have notice of the lesser offence revealed by evidence. It must be borne in mind that the lesser offence of gross indecency for which the Appellant was convicted arose from the evidence led in support of the more serious offence of rape in respect of which the Appellant was charged. Obviously, the Appellant had notice of the lesser offence of gross indecency for which he could be convicted. He is indeed deemed to have had notice of the lesser offence. In NWACHUKWU VS THE STATE (Supra) while interpreting the provisions of Section 179 of the C.P.A., which is in pari materia with Sections 217 and 218 of the Criminal Procedure Code under consideration, the Supreme Court per Karibi-Whyte JSC at pages 400 - 401 lines 25 - 3 held: "Thus where the accused has notice of an aggravated offence, he also has notice of the lesser offence for which he could be convicted. The assumption which is legitimate, is that accused would have challenged the more serious offence and must be fully aware of the case against him in respect of the lesser offence." Similarly, by Section 218 (1) when a person is charged with an offence consisting of several particulars, and a combination of some of the particulars which constitute a complete lesser offence is proved but the remaining particulars are not proved, the accused may be convicted of the lesser offence though he was not charged with it. Additionally or alternatively, by Sub-section 2 of the same Section 218, where a person is charged with an offence and the facts proved reduce it to a lesser offence, he may be convicted of the lesser offence although he was not charged with that offence. In the light of this I also discountenance, as unfounded the argument that the failure to frame a charge of act of gross indecency and call upon the Appellant to defend that charge amounts to denial of fair hearing. That submission has no legal or judicial blessing and its untenable. It is for this and the preceding reasons that I also resolve this issue against the Appellant. In conclusion, from the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge cannot be faulted when he held at page 104 of the record that: "On the whole I am unable to find any evidence on the side of the defence that has created reasonable doubt in my mind that it was the accused who committed the act of gross indecency on the PW6". After all, where at the entire evidence adduced before a trial Court, that Court is left with no doubt that the offence was committed by the accused person, that burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt is discharged and the conviction of the accused person will be upheld even if it is on credible evidence of a single witness." Per WAMBAI, J.C.A. (Pp. 35-42, Paras. E-C) (...read in context)