Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. The trial court mainly relied on the oral evidence of PW4 and PW5 and entered a finding that the accused committed the offences under Section 447 and 323 of the IPC. As per Section 447 of the IPC, 'whoever commits criminal trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend three months, with fine or which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both'. The term criminal trespass is defined under Section 441 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 441 of the Indian Penal Code is extracted as herein below:

12. Going by the evidence of PW4 and PW5, there is nothing to indicate that the accused entered into the property of PW1 with an intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy PW1. There is also no evidence to show that the accused entered into the property with her permission, unlawfully remains there with an intent to intimidate, insult or annoy her as defined under Section 441 of the IPC. The trial court entered a finding that the prosecution failed to prove the offence under Section 354 of the IPC beyond doubt. The evidence adduced by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the offence under Section 323 of IPC also. There is nothing on record to show that the accused voluntarily caused hurt to PW1. To prove an offence under Section 323 of IPC, it is necessary to prove that the accused caused bodily pain, this is for infirmity to PW1 as defined under Section 319 of the IPC. PW1's medical evidence does not support the oral evidence adduced by PW4.