Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
G.Girish
Sharon @ Shanu – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court challenges against the judgment of the additional sessions judge. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. recap of violent acts against complainants. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. discussion on sufficient possession evidence for trespass. (Para 5 , 6 , 10) |
| 4. court outlines possessory proof requirements and confirms earlier findings. (Para 11 , 12) |
ORDER :
G. Girish, J.
The judgment rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Alappuzha, in Crl.A.No.75/2019, is under challenge in these revisions, filed by the appellants 1 to 6 therein, who are the accused nos.1 to 6 in S.C.No.554/2017 on the files of the Assistant Sessions Court, Alappuzha. The aforesaid case arose out of Crime No.507/2015 of Punnapra Police Station, registered in connection with the commission of offences under Sections 143 , 147, 148, 452, 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 427 & 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( in short, ' IPC '). The learned Assistant Sessions Judge convicted the petitioners for the commission of all the above offences, except Section 294 (b) IPC , and imposed the sentence by awarding various prison terms and fine. In the appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, upheld the conviction of the
Evidence of possession in criminal trespass can vary; witness testimonies were sufficient to uphold convictions excluding one charge. Appellate Court's sentence modifications were legitimate.
The necessity of corroborative evidence in establishing offenses of house trespass and causing injury, with appropriate sentencing under IPC provisions.
Ownership does not absolve criminal liability for house trespass; unlawful entry into property lawfully possessed by another constitutes a crime regardless of ownership.
Revisional jurisdiction does not permit reappreciation of evidence unless judgments are perverse or unreasonable.
A true owner can't unlawfully enter premises in lawful possession of another; possession, not ownership, determines criminal trespass.
The prosecution must prove unlawful entry and intent for trespass charges; insufficient evidence led to acquittal on arson and criminal trespass charges.
If possession itself is not with the complainant, there can be no offence of criminal trespass into property not belonging to complainant.
The prosecution must prove the accusations beyond reasonable doubt, and the accused must be given a fair opportunity to explain the case made against them.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
