MUNSHI Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is certain that the appellants went to an enclosure of their cousin Ismail and beat him. The convictions and sentences under Secs.323 and 324, I.P.C., were correctly recorded. As to the conviction under Section 452, it does not appear that Ismail was sitting inside any building. The matter is not of particular importance here because the sentences are concurrent. At the same time as the conviction has been recorded and the question raised here in appeal, a decision will have to be given. Criminal trespass is committed in a house when an entry is made in a building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling, or any building used as a place of worship, or as a place for the custody of property. Ismail has a thatched house, and he was sitting outside this house. Some thorny bushes are placed round- about, and for this reason it is sought by the prosecution to designate the open place where Ismail was sitting as a building. Except for a few thorns the place is open. There is no roof above. The thorns are merely put down to indicate the extent of the court-yard, and not to prevent entry. There is no evidence that there is any door or gateway, even of thorn, which has to be opened before making entry to this enclosure. Such a place is not a building, and the conviction under 3. 452, must be set aside. I set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 452, otherwise the appeal is dismissed.