KONDURI VENKATA RAO Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A curious question has been posed by Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, learned Counsel for the revision Petitioners, with reference to Section 452 of Indian Penal Code (for short IPC). He contended that the accused had not committed the offence punishable under Section 452 IPC since the alleged criminal trespass by the accused was into the house of P.W. 2, whereas the offence is alleged to have been committed against P.W. 1 and that as the very offence of criminal trespass defined under Section 441 IPC is not made out, the question of the accused being guilty for the offence under Section 452 IPC does not arise.

(2.) As many as 19 accused were charged for the offences under Sections 147, 452, 325, 354, 427, 341 and 506(2) IPC with the aid of Section 149 IPC. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Bapatla found A.1 to A.3 and A.8 guilty of the offences under Sections 452 and 353 IPC. He acquitted the rest of the accused for all the charges levelled against them. He also acquitted A.1 to A.3 and A.8 for all the charges levelled against them except the offences under Sections 452 and 353 IPC. He sentenced A.1 to A.3 and A.8 to four years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- each for the offence under Section 452 IPC. Holding that the offence under Section 353 IPC is an integral part of the offence under Section 452 IPC, the learned trial Judge did not impose any punishment for the offence under Section 353 IPC although A.1 to A.3 and A.8 were convicted for the offence under Section 353 IPC also.

(3.) The convicted accused in A.1 to A.3 and A.8 preferred appeal impugning the judgment of conviction and sentence of the trial Court. The learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur allowed the appeal in part. He found A.1 to A.3 and A.8 not guilty for the offence under Section 353 IPC and acquitted them of the same. He, however, confirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused recorded by the trial Court for the offence under Section 452 IPC. The four accused in A.1 to A.3 and A.8, consequently, preferred the present revision impugning the judgment of the trial Court and the appellate Court.