1999 Supreme(Raj) 1085
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
N.N.Mathur, J.
Khayali Ram - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 396 of 1981.
Decided On : 13-04-1999
The offence of trespass to commit an offence punishable with life imprisonment (Section 450 IPC) requires that the trespasser intend to commit an offence punishable with life imprisonment.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - TRESPASS - SECTION 450, 451, 354, 323 IPC - TRESPASS TO COMMIT AN OFFENCE PUNISHABLE WITH LIFE IMPRISONMENT - ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS - CONVICTION ALTERED FROM SECTION 450 TO 451 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted of trespass to commit an offence punishable with life imprisonment (Section 450 IPC), sexual assault (Section 354 IPC), and causing simple injury (Section 323 IPC). The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that the evidence did not support the charge of trespass to commit an offence punishable with life imprisonment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant had entered the victim's house with the intent to commit sexual assault, but that the offence of sexual assault was not punishable with life imprisonment. Therefore, the court altered the conviction from Section 450 IPC to Section 451 IPC, which punishes trespass to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment.
Issues: Whether the evidence supported the conviction of trespass to commit an offence punishable with life imprisonment (Section 450 IPC).
Ratio Decidendi: The essential ingredients of the offence of trespass to commit an offence punishable with life imprisonment (Section 450 IPC) are: (1) house trespass, and (2) intent to commit an offence punishable with life imprisonment. In this case, the court found that the appellant had entered the victim's house with the intent to commit sexual assault, but that the offence of sexual assault was not punishable with life imprisonment. Therefore, the court held that the appellant could not be convicted of trespass to commit an offence punishable with life imprisonment.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction of trespass to commit an offence punishable with life imprisonment (Section 450 IPC) and altering it to trespass to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment (Section 451 IPC). The court confirmed the convictions of sexual assault (Section 354 IPC) and causing simple injury (Section 323 IPC), but reduced the sentences for these offences to the period already undergone.
JUDGMENT
1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20.5.81 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar convicting the accused appellant of offence under Section 450 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo 2 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment to further undergo 3 months R.I. The appellant has also been convicted of offence under Section 354 I.P.C. and sentenced to 1 year's R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment to further undergo 3 months R.I. and under Section 323 I.P.C. sentenced to undergo 2 months R.I.
2. The prosecution case is that on 25.8.80 PW/1 Shri Hemaram lodged a F.I.R. at Police Station Sri Karanpur stating interalia that he alongwith his children resides in village Govindgarh Manjhiwal. On 24.8.80 he had gone out, leaving his wife and daughter PW/2 Mst. Gomti at the residence. His mother lives separately. He returned in the evening from village Arayan. At that time, his mother PW/4 Gaura told him that yesterday in the afternoon at about 11 a.m. his wife Sajna and his younger daughter had gone to the filed. His daughter Mst. Gomti aged 10 years was at the residence. At that time at about 12 p.m. she and PW/3 the wife of Bholuram Guddi opened the door and heard the cries of Mst, Gomti. They found that the accused Khaliram had caught the hand of Mst. Gomti and she was laid down on the cot. On hearing cries, Guniram and Shyonarayan also arrived on the spot. The accused leaving Mst. Gomti ran away. Mst. Gomti disclosed to her mother that Khaliram had entered in the house and caught her hand and with intention to commit rape, threw her on the cot. In the evening at about 7 p.m. he alongwith his mother went to reprimand Khaliram, on which, he became annoyed and gave a lathi blow on him. On this information, Police registered a case of offence under Section 450, 354 & 323 I.P.C. and proceeded with the investigation. Hemaram was medically examined on the same day. Two abrasions on the left tempro region were found. Both the injuries were simple in nature, caused by blunt object. After usual investigation, Police laid the charge-sheet against the appellant for the aforesaid offence. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined 8 witnesses. The accused appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that the entire evidence against him is false. He also stated that Hemaram demanded Rs. 200/- and as he has not given money to him, a false case has been concocted against him. The trial court found the prosecution case proved and convicted the accused appellant as stated above.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Addl. P.P. Mr. Ramesh Purohit. PW/1 Hemaram has narrated the incident as given in the F.I.R. PW/2 Mst. Gomti has stated that at about 12 p.m. the accused Khaliram had entered in the house and tied cloth on her eyes. She was forcibly laid down on the cot and the accused tried to untie cord of her 'Salwar'. Her grand mother and mother arrived on the spot. In the cross-examination, she admitted that she did not know Khaliram pjior to the date of incident. It was PW/3 Guddi who told her that name of the accused appellant was Khaliram. PW/3 Guddi has stated that she heard cry from the house of Hemaram and, therefore, she rushed to the house and entered therein and found that the accused Khaliram had forcibly laid down Mst. Gomti on the cot and had untied the cord of her salwar. She also made a cry on which, grand mother of Mst. Gomti arrived on the spot. Two more persons of the village also came there. The accused Khaliram ran away. In the cross-examination she made it clear that she identified the accused Khaliram as she was knowing him prior to the date of incident. She also stated that the accused used to visit them and, therefore, she knew him. The statement of PW/4 is almost same. PW/5 Guniram has stated that hearing cry from the house of Hemaram, he rushed to his house and found that
Click Here to Read the rest of this document