BRAJARAJ PRADHAN AND TWO ORS. Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE three accused Petitioners were convicted under Section 448 Indian Penal Code for having committed alleged house trespass and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25/ - each; in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 8 days each. The prosecution case is that on June 19, 1965 at about midday the accused -Petitioners along with others entered the house of the complainant with the intention of causing annoyance to him who was suspected of having kept a missing stolen watch inside his house. The accused persons are alleged to have entered the house with a witch -cot for playing witchcraft or black craft in search of the alleged stolen watch. In support of the prosecution case, 5 witnesses were called including two eye -witnesses (p.ws. 2 and 5). The defence case is that the son of the complainant had committed alleged theft of the watch belonging to the accused Prahlad Pradhan; so there was a meeting in the village in which it was decided that the complainant should return the watch for which reason this false case wag foisted by the complainant by filing the F.I.R. on June 21, 1968 at Tangi P.S.

(2.) THE reasoning on which the learned Magistrate convicted the accused -Petitioners for alleged house trespass under Section 448 Indian Penal Code was this:

(3.) APPARENTLY , the attention of the learned Magistrate was not drawn to this aspect of the offence of criminal trespass. What is material in such cases is to ascertain what was the intention of the accused persons at the relevant time. In order to constitute the offence of criminal trespass, there must be proof of an intention to commit an offence or to intimidate or insult or annoy the person in possession of property. When a person enters, without any legal justification upon property in the established possession of another, he must be inferred to have had an intention to annoy the person in possession. In the present cast, the physical entry of the accused persons along with the witch -cot cannot be held to be with the intention of committing that or annoying or insulting as alleged. The entry into the complainant's house was the consequence as it happened of what the accused person thought was the power of the witch -cot in finding out the stolen watch; alleged house trespass was not intended by the accused persons. Consequently, it cannot amount to the offence of criminal trespass as alleged. This view finds support from the reasoning in the decision of the Hyderabad High Court in Jagannath Singh v. Sangeet Kristaayya, A.I.R. 1952 Hyd. 50.