Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

25. Let us deal with the first set of allegations against accused u/S 448/341 IPC. The provision of 448 IPC provides as under:

Section 448 IPC which reads as follows:

Whoever commits house trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Section 442 IPC defines house trespass as follows:

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".

26. Thus, it is necessary for an offence punishable u/s 448 IPC that essential ingredients of criminal trespass and house trespass must be fulfilled. For commission of criminal trespass three essential ingredients have to be fulfilled which are as follows:

(1) Entry into or upon property in possession of another.

(2) If such entry is lawful then unlawfully remaining upon such property.

(3) Such entry or unlawful remaining must be with intent:

APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE

28. The first ingredient which needs to be proved to prove an offence u/s 448 IPC is that the accused committed Criminal Trespass, i.e., entry into or upon property in possession of another with intention to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession.

29. In the instance case, prosecution examined complainant Ramesh Kumar who deposed as PW1 and stated that in his testimony that he runs a tent shop since 1988 and that rent was deposited by him at Co-operative Society, Delhi State Co-operative Bank, Najafgarh. PW1 further stated that on 23.07.2019, son of Dharne locked the door of his shop by another lock alongwith all other shops at the said place. PW1 further stated that when he visited his shop, he came to know that his shop was locked and thereafter, he called at 100 number. PW1 identified his signatures on his complaint Ex.PW1/A as recorded by the police.

AHLAWAT 2025.05.05 16:25:01 +0530 or hand over to him any document to show that Cooperative Society handed over the possession of shops in question to the shopkeepers as tenant. IO further stated in his cross-examination that the officials of Cooperative Society also failed to produce any document to showcasing that the shops in question were constructed on the land of Cooperative Society and that Cooperative Society was legally authorized to give the said shops on rent. Thereby it is clear that no document was procured during the course of investigation to establish the fact that the receipt as issued by Delhi Cooperative Bank Limited was issued as payment receipt of rent nor there is any document on record as procured during investigation establishing the fact that PW1 to PW6 were inducted as tenants by the Delhi State Cooperative Bank Limited as tenants. Thereby there is no material on record to substantiate the version of PW1 to PW6 that they were in a possession of the shops in question. The possession of PW1 to PW6 is not established beyond reasonable doubt. The ingredients of Section 448 IPC are not made out by the prosecution evidence.