Merely possessing or occupying land does not constitute criminal trespass unless proven intent to insult, intimidate, or annoy is established; also, proper notification process for protected forests must be followed.

JUDGMENT :

RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 06.09.2014, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Kinnaur, District at Reckong Peo, H.P. (learned Trial Court), vide which the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ) and Section 33 of Indian Forest Act. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a challan before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Section 447 of the IPC and Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act. It was asserted that Goverdhan Dass (PW1) made a complaint to the police (Ex.PW1/A) stating that the accused, Devi Lal, had encroached upon more than 10 bighas of land bearing khasra nos. 29, 32, 464, 467, 486, 720, 1090 and 1097 measuring 0-98- 31 hectares in Up Mohal Jani, Kalingo, and an action should be taken against him. The police registered an FIR (Ex.PW6/D). Devi Singh (PW2) demarcated the land and found that the accused Devi Lal had encroached upon khasra nos. 29, 32, 464, 467, 486, 720, 1090 and 1097, measuring 0-38-33 hectares (5 bighas 2 biswas) of government land. He prepared the report (Ex.PW2/A), recorded the statement of Purshottam Singh (Ex.PW2/E), joint statements of Goverdhan, Joginder and Sukhdev (Ex.PW2/F) and issued copies of the jamabandi (Ex. PW2/B and Ex. PW2/C) and Tatima (Ex. PW2/D). HC Sukhdev (PW6) investigated the matter. He visited the spot, prepared a site plan (Ex. PW6/A) and took the photographs (Ex.P1 to Ex.P6). Copies of the notification (Ex. PW5/A) and working plan (Ex.PW5/B) were seized. Statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after completion of the investigation, a challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court.

3. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, a notice of accusation was put to him for the commission of offences punishable under Section 447 of the IPC and Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. Prosecution examined 6 witnesses to prove its case. Goverdhan Dass (PW1) made a complaint of encroachment. Devi Singh (PW2) demarcated the land. Sunita Devi (PW3) did not support the prosecution’s case. Inder Singh (PW4) was present during the demarcation. Bhupinder Chauhan (PW5) produced the copies of the notification and working plan. HC Sukh Dev (PW6) investigated the matter.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., denied the prosecution’s case in its entirety. He stated that the witnesses deposed against him falsely and that he was innocent. He did not produce any evidence in defence.

6. Learned Trial Court held that the accused was occupying the land for a long time, and the intent to insult, intimidate or annoy was not proved. Mere possession, even if illegal, is not sufficient to constitute criminal trespass. Hence, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused.

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court, the State has filed the present appeal asserting that the learned Trial Court erred in acquitting the accused. It was duly proved on record that the accused had encroached upon the Government land. The intention was to be gathered