LAWS(MPH)-1992-3-55

STATE OF M.P. Vs. DAVENDRA KUMAR SHARMA

Decided On March 05, 1992
STATE OF M.P. Appellant
V/S
Davendra Kumar Sharma Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has filed this appeal challenging the acquittal of the respondent of the offences under Sections 448 and 506 I.P.C.

(2.) ON 18 -1 -1983 at about 1 p.m. a student of Science College, Shivpuri, named Devendra Kumar Sharma (respondent herein) barged into laboratory class room of his College. The zoology students of B. Sc. Part II were taking practicals in that room under the guidance of Professor S.C. Mowar (P.W.1).

(3.) IT is no doubt true that intent is the essence of the offence of criminal trespass. The intention must be to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy a person in possession of the property. That intention must be the main intention in the action, and not any subsidiary intention that may also be present. It must be the dominant intention, namely, the object for which effort was made. The mere fact that the natural consequence of the entry was known to be such as would annoy the person in possession would not necessarily show that the entry was made with intent to annoy. See Smt. Mathri v. State of Punjab AIR 1964 SC 986. In that case, certain persons armed with warrants of delivery of possession entered into fields with police party and a Magistrate to secure possession. They were attacked by tenants of those fields and other villagers. In that tragic incident 12 persons lost their lives. It was found that the date for execution of the warrants for possession bad expired. The Supreme Court held that the party which took the warrants for execution could not be said to be committing the offence of criminal trespass because their main intention in entering the fields was to get the warrants executed. They could not reasonably be expected to know that the warrants on account of expiry of the date had ceased to be executable in law. It is possible that they knew that annoyance would result from their action, but that was not their main intention. As such, the accused party which used force to resist their entry was an un -lawful assembly.