House Trespass Is An Offence Against Possession, True Owner Can’t Unlawfully Enter Premises In Tenant’s Lawful Possession: Kerala High Court

The High Court was considering a Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the sole accused who was booked in a case registered under Sections 454 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Single Bench of Justice Jobin Sebastian held, “Although the accused is the owner of the room into which he is alleged to have trespassed, the evidence on record clearly establishes that the said room had been let out to PW1 and was in the lawful possession of PW1 at the time of the occurrence, as a tenant. It is well settled that offences such as criminal trespass and house trespass are offences against possession and not against ownership. Therefore, even a true owner cannot, under the guise of ownership, unlawfully enter premises in the lawful possession of another with the intent to commit an offence.”

Advocate M. Sasindran represented the Petitioner, while Public Prosecutor Maya M.N represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

It was alleged that the accused committed house trespass by entering into a room which had been taken on rent by the first witness (de facto complainant) from the accused. It was alleged that the accused committed mischief by flinging out the household articles of the witness kept in the said room and thereby caused damage to the tune of Rs 10,000. It was alleged that the accused had committed offences punishable under Sections 454 and 427 of the IPC.

After trial, the Magistrate found the accused guilty and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 454 and he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 427. The accused preferred an appeal, and his sentence was reduced.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the independent witnesses supported the prosecution's case by deposing that they had witnessed the accused entering the room occupied by the complainant on rent and committing the act of mischief by throwing out the household articles. “Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court found no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of these independent witnesses, who had no apparent motive to falsely implicate the accused, and based the conviction primarily on their evidence. I also find no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW3, PW4, PW5, and PW9, who are the eyewitnesses to the occurrence. A careful and holistic reading of their testimonies shows that their evidence is consistent and free from material contradictions or omissions”, it added.

The Bench thus found no ground to interfere with the finding of guilt recorded by the Trial Court, which, according to the Bench, was rightly confirmed by the Appellate Court. The Bench thus stated, “In the present case, the mere fact that the accused is the owner of the room does not, ipso facto, absolve him of criminal liability when such entry is effected with the intention to commit an unlawful act.” Considering that the possession of the tenanted room was clearly established to be with the complainant, the Bench held that any unauthorised entry into the said room with the requisite criminal intent squarely attracted the offence of house trespass.

Taking note of the fact that the genesis of the case lies in a dispute between the landlord/accused and the tenant with respect to the tenanted premises and no criminal antecedents had been alleged or proved against the accused, the Bench reduced the sentence. The Bench thus directed the accused to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the Court and pay compensation of Rs 15,000 to the complainant under Section 357(3) of the Cr.P.C.

Cause Title: Damodaran K. v. State Of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:26753)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocates M. Sasindran, A. Arunkumar

Respondent: Public Prosecutor Maya M.N

Click here to read/download Order