Ownership does not absolve criminal liability for house trespass; unlawful entry into property lawfully possessed by another constitutes a crime regardless of ownership.

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the judgment dated 19.01.2016 in Crl. Appeal No. 62/2015 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court–III, Kasaragod, arising out of the judgment dated 20.02.2015 in C.C. No. 657/2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kasaragod. The revision petitioner herein is the sole accused in the said case.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 11.05.2009 at about 12.00 p.m., the accused committed house trespass by entering into a room bearing No. KP III/773 of Karadka Panchayat, situated at Mulleriya, which had been taken on rent by PW1 from the accused. It is alleged that the accused committed mischief by flinging out the household articles of PW1 kept in the said room and thereby caused damage to the tune of Rs.10,000/- to PW1. Hence, the accused is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 454 and 427 of the IPC.

3. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution had examined nine witnesses as PW1 to PW9 and marked Exts. P1 to P3. PW1 is the de facto complainant, who was residing in the rented room allegedly leased out by the accused. PW2 is the wife of PW1 and was also residing in the said room during the relevant period. PW3, PW4, PW5, and PW9 are independent witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove the occurrence. PW6 is the Head Constable attached to Adhur Police Station, who recorded the statement of PW1 and registered the FIR. PW7 is the Sub Inspector of Police who laid the final report, and PW8 is the Sub Inspector of Police who conducted the major part of the investigation.

4. After trial, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 454 and 427 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 454 of the, with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for one month. For the offence punishable under Section 427 of the, the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for fifteen days.

5. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused preferred an appeal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, while confirming the finding of guilt, modified the sentence. For the offence punishable under Section 454 of the IPC, the sentence was reduced to simple imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs.2,000/-, with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for one month. For the offence punishable under Section 427 of the, the sentence was reduced to simple imprisonment for three months, along with a direction to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- to PW1, with a default sentence of imprisonment for three months.

6. Heard Sri. M. Sasindran, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and Smt. Maya M. N., the learned Public Prosecutor, and also perused the records.

7. This is a case where the landlord is alleged to have trespassed into a tenanted room and committed mischief by throwing out the household articles belonging to the tenant. Apart from the evidence of PW1, the de facto complainant, the prosecution has examined PW2, his wife, and four independent witnesses as PW3, PW4, PW5, and PW9, the neighbours, to prove the occurrence.

8. From the prose