Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 07.12.2010 passed in S.C.No.23/2008 on the file of the Fast Track Court, Channarayapatna, for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 448 of IPC sentencing the accused for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and sentencing the accused to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.250/- for the offence punishable under Section 448 of IPC.

The brief facts of the case:

2. It is the case of the prosecution before the Trial Court that the complainant Smt. N.T. Jayalakshmamma lodged the complaint against the appellant that on 22.11.2007 when she was alone in the house at around 12.00 noon, the accused trespassed the house of the complainant with an intention of taking her life and in furtherance of the same, he has assaulted her by means of iron rod and caused injuries on her head and other parts of the body. Hence, the police registered the case against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 307 of IPC. The police after investigation have filed the charge sheet and the same was registered as C.C.No.46/2008 and on committal, the same was registered as S.C.No.23/2008.

54. The other contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that Section 448 of IPC cannot be invoked and there are no ingredients of Section 448 of IPC and the trial Judge ought not to have convicted for the offence under Section 448 of IPC. The learned counsel also would submit that the evidence reveals that the injured herself opened the door having acquaintance with the accused. Hence, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 448 of IPC. The said contention cannot be accepted for the reason that in order to invoke Section 448 of IPC to punish the accused for the house-trespass, the Court has to look into the very proviso of Section 442 of IPC regarding house-trespass, whether the prosecution has proved the ingredients of Section 442 of IPC. Section 442 of IPC says, whoever commits criminal trespass by entering into or remaining in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or any building used as a place for worship, or as a place for the custody of property, is said to commit "house- trespass".

55. In the case on hand, no doubt, the accused came and knocked the door and on opening the door, he entered the house. In order to invoke Section 448 of IPC, the explanation in respect of Section 442 of IPC is clear that the introduction of any part of the criminal trespasser's body is entering sufficient to constitute house-trespass. The same is defined in Section 442 of IPC. It is also held that house-trespass can be committed only if one enters into a building as held in Dinesh Thakur v. State of Bihar reported in 1970 Cr L.J. 1199 (Patna). If a person entered into a building itself is enough to invoke Section 448 of IPC. Hence, the contention of the accused that no case has been made out to convict the accused under Section 448 of IPC cannot be accepted.