RAMKUMAR Vs. STATE OF C G

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 5th August 1996 passed in criminal appeal No. 54/96 whereby learned IE Additional Sessions Judge, Durg has dismissed the appeal preferred by the applicants and upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.02.1996 passed in criminal case No. 117/95 whereby each of the applicants have been convicted under Section 448 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 6 months.

(2.) CASE of the prosecution, in brief, is that the house in question had fallen in share of Jhumuklal in partition effected in the year 1972 and since then he is residing with his family in the said house. Father of the accused persons Jhaduram was residing in village Kasounda on the basis of partition. However, after his death the applicants raised baseless dispute of partition and on 21st March 1994 they forcibly entered into the house and started living there. Thereafter, a Panchayat was convened to resolve the dispute between the complainant and the applicants, however, the applicants did not abide by the decision of the Panchayat and report was lodged in the police station.

(3.) RELYING on the judgment in the matter of Vidyadharan Vs. State of Kerala1, it is argued that in order to sustain conviction under Section 448 of the IPC it must be found that intention of the accused was to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy the complainant. There must be unlawful entry and there must be proof of one or the other of the intentions mentioned in Section 441 of IPC.