Back
P.N.BAKSHI
JADDAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent
Question 1? What is the definition of "building" under section 442 IPC as applied in this case? Question 2? How does a dilapidated structure's Dehli (threshold) affect conviction under section 442 IPC? Question 3? What are the consequences of the revision on conviction and sentence in house trespass case?
Key Points: - The disputed dilapidated structure was not a building under Section 442 IPC because it lacked walls and a covered roof and Dehli alone is not a building. (!) (!) (!) - Dehli (threshold) by itself cannot constitute the building; the structure must have walls, a covered roof, and be used as living accommodation. (!) (!) - The Dehli could not transform the dilapidated Khandar into a building for purposes of Section 442; occupants’ use does not satisfy the definitional building requirement. (!) - The trial and appellate courts’ findings that injuries/possession occurred were not sufficient to sustain a Section 451 IPC conviction given the lack of a building; thus conviction under 451 was not tenable. (!) (!) - The court allowed the revision, set aside the conviction and sentence, and discharged the bail bonds. (!) - The State’s argument to convict under Section 425 IPC for mischief was considered but the court’s ultimate relief focused on Section 442 and conviction under 451 being unsustainable. (!) (!) - The case analyzes whether a "Khandar" or una habitable ruin can be treated as a building for the purpose of house trespass. (!) (!) - The judgment emphasizes the necessity of a building to be habitable and used as living accommodation to fall within Section 442 IPC. (!) (!)
Jaddan Maddan Kallu and Bhagwati have been convicted by the 1st Class Magistrate, Mainpuri under Section 451 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for six months. On appeal the III Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge has upheld the conviction and confirmed the sentenced passed on the accused. The applicants have now come up to the Court in revision.
2. The case for the prosecution is that Multan and his brother Ghaffar (died subsequently) were in possession and in occupation of a house situated in village Dharajpur, police station Kuraauli district Mainpuri since the time of their ancestors. Smt. Akhtari W/o Ghaffar along with her children is alleged to be living in the said house, at the time of the occurrence. It is the case for the prosecution that on 3-3-1968 at about 2 p.m. the accused entered the disputed house when Ghaffar was away in Mainpuri. They ejected Multan and Smt. Akhtari and her children after giving them a beating and throwing out their articles. Ashiq Ali. Ant Ram and Bishun Daval reached the spot. The accused told them that they had purchased the house. It is said that Multan thereafter went to the police station to lodge a report but the report was not taken down.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
