Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(HP) 359

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
State of H.P. - Appellant
Versus
Tara Singh – Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 347 of 2014
Decided On : 09-03-2026.

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.
For the Respondent:Mr Rakesh Thakur, Advocate.

In appeals against acquittal, no interference unless perverse; valid demarcation with procedural safeguards, proof of trespass intent, and specific reserved forest notification essential for conviction on encroachment charges.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 447 - Criminal trespass - Defined as entry upon property in possession of another with intent to commit offence or intimidate, insult or annoy person in possession - Prosecution must prove aim of entry was to cause such annoyance etc.; mere natural consequence or illegal possession insufficient (Paras 23, 24). Indian Forest Act, 1927 - Section 26 - Prohibited acts in reserved forests - Requires proof land declared reserved via notification specifying limits and proper publication; notification not mentioning specific land identifiers insufficient (Paras 26-30). Demarcation report - Invalid if procedure not followed: selection of three permanent undisputed points on different sides, chaining and comparison with shajra, perpendiculars, notice to parties, presence of interested persons, detailed explanation in report with field book and map (Paras 16-22).

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Appeals against acquittal - Interference warranted only if judgment patently perverse, based on misreading/omission of material evidence, no reasonable person could acquit (Paras 12-14).

Facts of the case:
Appeal by State against trial court acquittal for offences of criminal trespass and prohibited acts in reserved forest. Complaint alleged encroachment on government forest land where orchard raised. Demarcation report found accused in possession of specific land parcel owned by State, but accused denied encroaching government land, claimed enjoyment since forefathers' time. Witnesses included complainant, demarcator, investigators; some turned hostile. No defence evidence.

Findings of Court:
Demarcation flawed: no details of three permanent points, distances, notices issued, accused/forest officials absent; lands contiguous requiring precise identification. No averment of intent to annoy in complaint. Notification did not specify disputed land as reserved forest. Trial court view reasonable.

Issues: Validity and reliability of demarcation to prove encroachment; proof of intent for criminal trespass; establishment of land as reserved forest; scope of appellate interference with acquittal.

Ratio Decidendi: Acquittal upheld as reasonable; strict procedural compliance mandatory for demarcation reports; criminal trespass demands specific proof of culpable intent; reserved forest offences necessitate notification linking to precise land and due publicity.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. facts of encroachment case and trial acquittal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. parties argue demarcation validity and proof. (Para 7 , 9 , 10)
3. interfere with acquittal only if perverse. (Para 8 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. demarcation invalid without procedure and notice. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
5. trespass requires intent to annoy or insult. (Para 23 , 24 , 25)
6. forest offence needs specific land notification. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
7. appeal dismissed; acquittal upheld. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)

JUDGMENT :

RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26.5.2014, 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. Amar Singh (PW6) made a complaint to the police (Ex.PW1/A) stating that the accused Tara Singh had encroached upon more than 10 bighas of land in the Reserved Forest, Dol; hence, an action should be taken against him. The police registered an FIR (Ex.PW9/A). Yoginder Sain (PW8) demarcated the land and found that the accused Tara Singh had encroached upon Khasra No.489/446/374/1, which was owned by the State. He prepared the report (Ex.PW8/A). Notification (Ex.PW6/B) and history file (Ex.PW6/C) were seized by the police. Statements of witnesses were recorded as 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 10 witnesses to prove its case. Jia Lal (PW1), Saroj Devi (PW2), Kamlesh (PW3), Kali Dass (PW5) and Hem Raj (PW7) were present during the demarcation. Ramesh Kumar (PW4) did not support the prosecution’s case. Amar Singh (PW6) made a complaint to the police. Yoginder Sain (PW8) demarcated the land. ASI Rajesh Pal (PW9) and HC Balbeer Singh (PW10) 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 he had not encroached on any Government land, and he had enjoyed the land of his forefathers. He did not produce any evidence in defence.

6. Learned Trial Court held that the demarcation was not conducted as per law because three permanent points were not taken. The plea of the accused that he was occupying the land since the time of his forefathers was made probable on
record. 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 (PW8) conducted the demarcation as per law after following the prescribed procedure. Learned Trial Court erred in holding that three permanent points were not taken, whereas the report of demarcation, a copy of musabi and the field book clearly showed that fixed points were taken. There was no boundary dispute between the parties, and the re