1. A curious question has been posed by Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, with reference to Section 452 of Indian Penal Code (for short IPC). He contended that the accused had not committed the offence punishable under Section 452 IPC since the alleged criminal trespass by the accused was into the house of P.W.2, whereas the offence is alleged to have been committed against P.W.1 and that as the very offence of criminal trespass defined under Section 441 IPC is not made out, the question of the accused being guilty for the offence under Section 452 IPC does not arise.

2. As many as 19 accused were charged for the offences under Sections 147, 452, 325, 354, 427, 341 and 506 (2) IPC with the aid of Section 149 IPC. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Bapatla found A.1 to A.3 and A.8 guilty of the offences under Sections 452 and 353 IPC. He acquitted the rest of the accused for all the charges levelled against them. He also acquitted A.1 to A.3 and A.8 for all the charges levelled against them except the offences under Sections 452 and 353 IPC. He sentenced A.1 to A.3 and A.8 to four years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-each for the offence under Section 452 IPC. Holding that the offence under Section 353 IPC is an integral part of the offence under Section 452 IPC, the learned trial Judge did not impose any punishment for the offence under Section 353 IPC although A.1 to A.3 and A.8 were convicted for the offence under Section 353 IPC also.

3. The convicted accused in A.1 to A.3 and A.8 preferred appeal impugning the judgment of conviction and sentence of the trial Court. The learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur allowed the appeal in part. He found A.1 to A.3 and A.8 not guilty for the offence under Section 353 IPC and acquitted them of the same. He, however, confirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused recorded by the trial Court for the offence under Section 452 IPC. The four accused in A.1 to A.3 and A.8, consequently, preferred the present revision impugning the judgment of the trial Court and the appellate Court.

4. The point for consideration is whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 452 IPC or for an offence which is of lesser magnitude in the same nature of offences?

POINT:

5. Section 452 IPC imposes punishment for house trespass if the accused made preparation to cause hurt to any person or made preparation for assaulting or wrongfully restraining any person and other preparations with intention to cause annoyance to the victim otherwise. Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, took me through Section 442 IPC, which defines house trespass. Section 442 IPC defines house trespass as criminal trespass into any building or other human dwelling place. Section 441 IPC defines criminal trespass. Criminal trespass is entering into or upon the 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. It is on the phrase 'any person in possession', the learned counsel for the revision petitioners places his whole emphasis. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that it would be criminal trespass, so long as the intimidation, insult etc., are against a person in possession of the property, over which the trespass was committed. He submitted that the mere entering onto the land of another without the permission of such another person would not amount to criminal trespass unless the same is accompanied by the intention to cause intimidation, insult or annoyance. The facts relevant to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners may briefly be narrated at this stage.

6. There are about 100 families of Potters in village Nanduru. The village is situate near Ponnuru. An extent of Ac.1.40 cents of l