The court emphasized that criminal trespass requires proving intent to annoy or insult, and mere possession does not constitute such an offense without established legal designation of the land in question.

JUDGMENT :

RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.5.2014, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajgarh, District Sirmour, 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 26 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 26 of the Indian Forest Act. It was asserted that Amar Singh (PW6) made a complaint to the police (Ex.PW6/A) stating that the accused, Kalyan Singh, had encroached upon more than 10 bighas of land in the Reserved Forest, Manva and Kaloha; hence, an action should be taken against him. The police registered an FIR (Ex.PW7/A). Yoginder Sain (PW5) demarcated the land and found that the accused, Kalyan Singh, had encroached upon Khasra Nos. 644/1, 646/1, and 804/641/1, measuring 30 bighas 13 biswas, which was owned by the State. He prepared the report (Ex.PW5/A), recorded the joint statements (Ex.PW5/B) and issued a jamabandi (Ex. PW5/C). HC Sanjay Kumar (PW7) investigated the matter. He visited the spot, prepared a site plan (Ex. PW7/B) and took the photographs (Ex. P1 to Ex. P4). Notification (Ex.PW6/B) and a copy of the working plan (Ex.PW6/C) were seized by the police. 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 26 of the Indian Forest Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. Prosecution examined 8 witnesses to prove its case. Jai Singh (PW1) detected the encroachment. Kalidass (PW2) and Roop Lal (PW4) were present during demarcation. Sandeep Kumar (PW3) entered the contents of the FIR in the official computer. Yoginder Sain (PW5) demarcated the land. Amar Singh (PW6) made a complaint to the police. HC Sanjay Kumar (PW7) investigated the matter. ASI Rajesh Pal (PW8) signed the FIR.

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 he had not encroached on any Government land. He produced Laxmi Singh (DW1) in defence.

6. Learned Trial Court held that the demarcation was not conducted as per law because three permanent points were not taken, and the accused was not present during the demarcation. The accused was occupying the land since the time of his forefathers, 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. Yoginder Sain (PW5) c