CRIMINAL TRESPASS
Write a short note describing the offence of Criminal trespass given under section 441 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
According to article 300-A of the Indian Constitution, right to property is a Constitutional Right and according to this right every person has right to acquire the property and to enjoy the property peacefully and without any disturbance and if any person tries to disturb the enjoyment of another person, then in such a case, the former person can be held liable for having committed the offence of criminal trespass.
Section 441 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, deals with the provisions of Criminal trespass and according to this section, if any person enters into the property of another person without taking his permission and with an intention to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy the latter person, then in such a case, an accused will be held liable for having committed the offence of criminal trespass.
Moreover, according to section 441 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, if any person lawfully enters into the property of another person but remains there with an intent to intimidate, insult or commit an offence, then also, he will be held liable for having committed the offence of criminal trespass.
According to the provisions of section 441 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, to secure the conviction of an accused person, it is necessary to prove the actual entry by the accused into the property of an aggrieved person.
In the leading case of State of Calcutta vs Abdul Sukar (Cal 1960), the Hon’ble court held that constructive entry by a servant does not amount to entry, under this section as even though there was no possession in law, there was possession in fact. For instance, X throws garbage outside Y’s house on a daily basis, in this case, X may be liable for nuisance but he has not committed criminal trespass as there is no entry by X into Y’s property.
According to section 441 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the term property includes both movable and immovable property and if any person enters into the movable property of another person with criminal intention, then also, he will be held liable for having committed the offence of criminal trespass.
In the leading case of Dhannonjay vs Provat Chandra Biswas (Cal 1934), the Hon’ble court held that if an accused enters into the movable property of another person with a criminal intention to commit an offence, then also, he will be held liable for having committed the offence of criminal trespass though the property is movable property. But the term property does not include incorporeal property or something which cannot be touched such as patent rights.
According to the provisions of section 441 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, it is not sufficient to prove that an accused had knowledge that his entrance would cause annoyance. But it is necessary to prove that there was an intention to commit an offence, or intimidate, insult or annoy any such person.
In the leading case of Ramjan Mistry vs Emperor (162 Ind Cas 231), the Hon’ble court laid down one of the most important principles and held that to secure the conviction of an accused, it is to be proved that the intention of the accused was not probable but an actual one.
Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 describes the punishment for the offence of criminal trespass and according to this section, if any person has been held liable for having committed the offence of criminal trespass, then in such a case, he will be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months or with fine or which may extend to five hundred rupees or with both.
