Summary
The Supreme Court upheld the appellant's conviction under Section 324 IPC for cutting the injured with a blade, but set aside his conviction under Section 452 IPC because the incident occurred in a restaurant, which is not a building used as a human dwelling, place of worship or place for the custody of property, so house-trespass under Section 442 was not made out.
Issues
- Whether the conviction under Section 324 IPC for voluntarily causing hurt with a blade was proved on the evidence of the injured witness PW-1 despite the other injured witness turning hostile.
- Whether an entry into a restaurant run by the injured could constitute house-trespass so as to sustain a conviction under Section 452 IPC.
Provisions considered
- Section 324, Indian Penal Code, 1860Conviction for voluntarily causing hurt affirmed on the testimony of the injured PW-1, corroborated by the medico-legal certificate, even though the injuries were opined to be simple and the second injured witness was declared hostile. (¶¶ 5, 6, 12)
- Section 452, Indian Penal Code, 1860Quoted and held to require proof beyond reasonable doubt of house-trespass within Section 442 committed after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint; conviction set aside because house-trespass was not established. (¶¶ 7, 9, 10, 11, 12)
- Section 441, Indian Penal Code, 1860Definition of criminal trespass quoted as a component ingredient of house-trespass for the purpose of Section 452. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10)
- Section 442, Indian Penal Code, 1860Read as requiring criminal trespass into a building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling, or a building used for worship or for the custody of property; a restaurant run by the injured was held to fall in none of these categories. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10)
Held
- The evidence of the injured PW-1, supported by the medico-legal certificate, proved that the appellant voluntarily caused hurt with a blade; the conviction and sentence under Section 324 IPC were rightly recorded, the simple nature of the injuries and the hostility of the second injured witness notwithstanding. (¶¶ 5, 6)
- House-trespass as defined in Section 442 IPC is an essential ingredient of Section 452 IPC, and the prosecution must prove that the accused committed criminal trespass by entering or unlawfully remaining in a building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling, or a building used as a place of worship or for the custody of property. (¶ 9)
- A restaurant run by the injured is not a place used for human dwelling, worship or custody of property; the ingredients of Sections 441 and 442 were therefore not made out, and both courts below erred in convicting the appellant under Section 452 IPC without examining those ingredients. (¶¶ 7, 10, 11)
- As the appellant had already undergone two years' imprisonment, the substantive sentence under Section 324 IPC stood served, but he remained liable to pay the fine imposed by the Trial Court or undergo the default sentence. (¶ 13)
Result
Appeal partly allowed. Conviction and sentence under Section 324 IPC confirmed; conviction and sentence under Section 452 IPC set aside and the appellant acquitted of that offence. Having served two years, the appellant to be set free if not required in another case, subject to payment of the fine imposed by the Trial Court or the default sentence; the Trial Court to verify and, if necessary, issue a non-bailable warrant.