IMPORTANT POINT
House trespass – In order to convict a person for offence under Section 452 of IPC, it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused had committed a house trespass within meaning of Section 442 of IPC.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant appeal arises out of the impugned order dated 21.02.2024 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 243 of 2023, whereby the High Court had dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant and confirmed the judgment of conviction dated 30.11.2022 and order on sentence dated 04.02.2023 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge-FTC-02 (South East), Saket Courts, Delhi (“Trial Court”). Vide the said judgment, the appellant was convicted for the offences under Sections 324 and 452 of the IPC, and was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for the offence under Section 324 IPC and in default thereof, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of six months, and was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of under Section 452 IPC, in default thereof, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

2. The case of the prosecution in short was that on 06.10.2014, the appellant-accused had gone to the restaurant namely, Baithak Restaurant, run by the injured Rajat Dhyani (PW-1). He asked for a jug of water to consume alcohol. When the said Rajat refused to give water, the appellant-accused took out a blade and inflicted injuries on the thigh, shoulder and back of the said Rajat. When the said Rajat called his friend Imran Khan (PW-3), he tried to intervene, however, the appellant caused injury on stomach with the blade to Imran also. On receiving the information about the incident (DD No. 3A), the Investigating Officer found the two injured persons, and the appellant was apprehended on the spot.

3. It is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel, Mr. Suvendu Suvasis Dash for the appellant that the entire conviction of the appellant is based on the solitary evidence of PW1- Rajat Dhyani, as the PW3-Imran Khan, though was allegedly injured, had not supported the case of the prosecution. According to him, no case for house trespass was made out and the injuries allegedly caused by the appellant were also simple in nature. He further submitted that the appellant has already undergone two years of imprisonment.

4. However, the learned senior counsel, Ms. Archana Pathak Dave appearing for the respondent-State has supported the impugned order passed by the High Court and submitted that the two Courts having concurrently held the appellant guilty for the offences under Sections 324 and 452 IPC, this Court may not interfere with the same, more particularly, when there is no major irregularity or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the High Court.

5. At the outset, it may be stated that though the PW-1, i.e. injured Rajat had supported the case of the prosecution, the PW-3, Imran Khan, who was also allegedly injured by the appellant had not supported the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile. The PW-1 had inter alia stated that the appellant-accused had come to his restaurant, and had asked for a jug of water for consuming alcohol. When he refused to give him the water, he started quarreling with him and ultimately inflicted injuries to him with a blade. He stated that the injuries were caused on his thigh, back and shoulder. The MLC No. 454231 (Ex. PW6/B) also corroborated the version of PW-1. However, as per the opinion of PW7- Dr. Biswajit Singh, the said injuries were found to be simple in nature.

6. Having regard to the afore discussed evidence, we are of the opinion that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the appellant so far as the offence under Section 324, i.e. “voluntarily causing hurt” to the appellant was concerned and was rightly convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 324 IPC.

7. However, so far as the offence under Section 452 is concerned, both the Courts below have failed to consider the ingredients of the said provision. Section 452 reads as under:

“452. House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint - Whoever commit