40 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 41 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. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not proof beyond a shadow of doubt. It is not, proof beyond all possible or imaginary doubt. It is proof to moral certainty, as satisfies the judgment and conscience of