Hon'ble High Court of Kerala set aside convictions under Section 447 IPC of criminal trespass in a case involving injury allegations. The Court acquitted petitioners, noting insufficient evidence to prove entry with requisite mens rea.
Revision petitions allowed; convictions and sentences set aside; petitioners acquitted; bail bonds cancelled.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 10TH KARTHIKA, 1945
CRL.REV.PET NO. 600 OF 2011
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CRA 421/2009 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), MAVELIKKARA
SC 1/2008 OF SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
SUNIL KUMAR @ RAKKAN, S/O.RAHAVAN, KURAVAN PARAMBIL, PONAKOM, THEKKEKKARA.
BY ADVS. SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR SMT.A.SALINI LAL
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,, ERNAKULAM.
OTHER PRESENT:
PP SMT NIMA JACB
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.11.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.669/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
CRL.REV.PET NOs. 600 & 669 OF 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 10TH KARTHIKA, 1945
CRL.REV.PET NO. 669 OF 2011
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CRA 421/2009 OF ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), MAVELIKKARA
SC 1/2008 OF SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
LIJU OOMMEN @ LIJU S/O.THOMAS, EBANEZER PUTHEN VEEDU,, PONAKAM MURI, THEKKEKARA VILLAGE.
BY ADVS. SRI.JOHN BRITTO SRI.C.A.RAJEEV
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF, KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
SR PP SEETHA S
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.11.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.600/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.REV.PET NOs. 600 & 669 OF 2011 3
Dated this the 1st day of November, 2023
COMMON ORDER
As these revision petitions are filed challenging the same judgments passed by the courts below and are between the same parties, they were consolidated, jointly heard and disposed by this common order.
CRL.REV.PET NOs. 600 & 669 OF 2011 4
the 1st accused and the revision petitioner in Crl.R.P. No.669/2011 was the 2nd accused in SC No.1/2008.
Relevant prosecution case:
CRL.REV.PET NOs. 600 & 669 OF 2011 5
Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Alappuzha as C.P. No.77/2007. The learned Sessions
Judge made over the case for trial and disposal to the Trial Court.
6
CRL.REV.PET NOs. 600 & 669 OF 2011
undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month.
CRL.REV.PET NOs. 600 & 669 OF 2011 7
is to be sparingly exercised only in case of exceptional rarity, when there is patent errors, manifest illegality and a total misleading of the records. The power is more in the nature of a supervisory jurisdiction. Unless, the findings of the courts below are perverse, this Court is not expected to take a contrary view.
CRL.REV.PET NOs. 600 & 669 OF 2011 8
testimonies of PWs 1 and 2 who testified that no such incident as alleged by the prosecution had taken place, instead there was only a scuffle between the 2nd accused and the deceased Sunny, concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove that the accused had committed the offences, except Section 447 of the IPC. Accordingly, the Trial Court found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 447 of the IPC.
CRL.REV.PET NOs. 600 & 669 OF 2011 9
in the judgments of the courts below?
under:-
“441. Criminal trespass.--Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence, is said to commit "criminal trespass". Section 447 is charging section of the offence committed under Section 441 of the IPC”.
State of Punjab [AIR 1964 ( SC) 986] has held as
follows:-
“18. We think, with respect, that this statement of law as also the similar statements in Laxaman Raghunath’s case, ILR 26 Bom 558 and in Sellamudhu Servaigaran’s case, ILR 35 Mad 186 are not quite accurate. The correct position in law may, in our opinion, be stated thus: In order to establish that the entry on the property was with the intent to annoy, intimidate or insult, it is necessary for the Court to be satisfied that causing such annoyance, intimidation or insult was the aim of the entry; that it is not sufficient for that purpose to show merely that the natural consequence of the entry was likely to be annoyance, intimidation or insult, and that this likely consequence was known to the persons entering; that in deciding whether the aim of the entry was the causing of such annoyance intimidation or insult, the court has to consider all the relevant circumstances including the presence of knowledge that its natural consequences would be such annoyance, intimidation or insult and
10
CRL.REV.PET NOs. 600 & 669 OF 2011
including also the probability of something else than the causing of such intimidation, insult or annoyance, being the dominant intention which prompted the entry”.
23. Again in Rajinder and others v. State of
Haryana [1995 KHC 1319], the Honorable Supreme Court reiterated the position as follows:-
“23. It is evident from the above provision that unauthorised entry into or upon property in the possession of another or unlawfully remaining there after lawful entry can answer the definition of criminal trespass if, and only if, such entry or unlawful remaining is with the intent to commit an offence or to intimidate insult or annoy the person in possession of the property. In other words, unless any of the intentions referred in S. 441 is proved no offence of criminal trespass can be said to have been committed. Needless to say, such an intention has to be gathered from the facts and circumstances of a given case.
PW5 turned hostile to the prosecution. A careful scrutiny
11
CRL.REV.PET NOs. 600 & 669 OF 2011
of the depositions of PWs1 to 3 establish that they are unaware of the genesis of the incident. The defence has a case that the accused are the friends of Yesudasan, another son of PWs1 and 3. Their friendship was not relished by PWs1 to 3 and the deceased Santhosh. PWs1 to 3 have all testified that, it is on hearing a loud noise in the courtyard, all of them rushed to the courtyard and found that there was a scuffle taking place between Santhosh and the accused.
CRL.REV.PET NOs. 600 & 669 OF 2011
12
the scuffle, have categorically deposed that there was no such incident as alleged by the prosecution, instead there was only a scuffle between the 2nd accused and Santhosh and they intervened in the matter. Therefore, it is principally on the basis of the solitary testimony of PW3 that the courts below have found that the accused have committed the offence under Section 447 of the IPC.
placed on record, I do not find any material on record, to establish that the accused had entered into the property of PW1 with an intention to commit, intimidate, insult or annoy PW1. Moreover, I find more probability in the defence version that the accused had gone to see their
13
CRL.REV.PET NOs. 600 & 669 OF 2011
friend Yesudasan, the other son of PWs1 and 3, which was not acceptable to the other family members. Hence, it is only to be perceived that the accused had no intention to commit any offence or intimidate, insult or annoy PW1 when they entered his house.
In the result,
(i) The revision petitions are allowed.
(ii) The judgments in Crl.A. No.421/2009 and S.C. No.1/2008, as against the revision
CRL.REV.PET NOs. 600 & 669 OF 2011
14
petitioners/accused, are set aside.
(iii) The revision petitioners/accused are found not guilty of the offence charged against them and are consequentially acquitted.
Sd/- C.S.DIAS JUDGE
rkc/01.11.23
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there is any illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the judgments of the courts below convicting accused under Section 447 IPC.
Whether prosecution established that accused entered property with intent to intimidate, insult or annoy person in possession.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mathri and others v. State of PunjabApplied¶75
Mathri and others v. State of Punjab [AIR 1964 ( SC) 986] · Who else cites this
Rajinder and others v. State of HaryanaApplied¶82
Rajinder and others v. State of Haryana [1995 KHC 1319]
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Sunil Kumar @ Rakan
Liju Oommen @ Liju
State of Kerala
C.S.DIAS
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
