Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The Trial Court had acquitted this sole accused / appellant for the offences under Section 376 r/w 511 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The accused was convicted for the offences under Sections 448 and 354 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 6 months of Rigorous Imprisonment and to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis pay a fine amount of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo 1 month of simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 448 of IPC and also sentenced to undergo 3 years of Rigorous Imprisonment and also to pay a fine amount of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo one month of Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 354 of IPC and both the sentences run concurrently. As against the above said Judgment and conviction, the present appeal has been filed by the sole accused / appellant.

3.3. After analysing the entire evidence adduced and upon hearing both sides, the trial Court 3.3.1) convicted the accused as found guilty of offences under Sections 354 and 448 of IPC; and 3.3.2) acquitted the accused as not found guilty of offences under Section 376 r/w 511 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

17. As far as offence under Section 448 of IPC is concerned, Section https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 448 of IPC reads as follows:

448. Punishment for house-trespass — Whoever commits house-trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine or which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
17.4. In this context, the PW5 has stated that when she went to the house of the victim, the accused, who was outside in front of the house of the victim, had scolded the victim. While so, a reasonable doubt would arise as to whether the accused had really entered into the house of the victim or not. In order to attract the ingredients of Section 448 of IPC, the prosecution has to prove the house trespass. Once the offence under Section 354 of IPC is not proved, the question of Section 448 of IPC would not attract, because the house trespass will attract entry into the house with intent to commit any offence or intimidate or insult. But the Trial Court, failed to consider the above said aspects and wrongly came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the charges levelled against the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis accused for the offences under Sections 448 and 354 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts.