2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 3231

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
STATE OF HP – Appellant
Versus
GOVIND SINGH – Respondent
CR.A/372/2015

Conviction for criminal trespass requires proving specific intent to annoy, intimidate, or insult. Penalties under the Forest Act necessitate proof of notification publication in the local vernacular. Land demarcation must involve three permanent points and a detailed procedural report to be admissible as evidence.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Section 447 - Criminal Trespass - Requirement of specific intent - Entry upon property in possession of another constitutes criminal trespass only if it is with the intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult, or annoy the person in possession - It is not sufficient to show that the natural consequence of the entry was likely to be annoyance, intimidation, or insult; the causing of such effect must be the actual aim of the entry (Paras 26, 27 and 28).

(B) Indian Forest Act - Sections 30, 31 and 33 - Protected Forest - Penalties for contravention - For penalties under Section 33 to be attracted, the issuance and mandatory publication of the notification in the local vernacular in conspicuous places in the neighborhood of the forest is essential - Absence of evidence regarding translation and publication renders the notification inoperative against the accused (Paras 29, 30 and 32).

(C) Demarcation of Land - Evidentiary Value - Proper demarcation requires the locating of three permanent points on three different sides of the area sought to be demarcated - The report must explain the details and manner of measurements - Demarcation is bad in law if the area sought to be demarcated does not fall within the triangle created by the three permanent points - A report or tatima prepared by a Patwari is not considered competent evidence for demarcation (Paras 18, 19, 21 and 23).

(D) Appeal against Acquittal - Scope of Interference - An appellate court should not disturb a finding of acquittal unless the judgment is patently perverse, based on a misreading or omission of material evidence, or if the only possible view consistent with the evidence is the guilt of the accused - Where two reasonable views are possible, the view taken by the trial court must be upheld (Paras 12, 13 and 14).

Facts of the case:
The State appealed against the acquittal of an accused who was charged with criminal trespass and offences under the Forest Act for allegedly encroaching upon government forest land by raising an apple orchard. The prosecution relied on a demarcation report, a tatima, and a government notification declaring the land as a protected forest.

Findings of Court:
The trial court's acquittal was upheld as the demarcation report was improper due to the absence of three permanent points and lacked detail on the procedure adopted. The report by the Patwari was held inadmissible. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to prove the specific intent required for criminal trespass and failed to provide evidence that the forest notification was published in the local vernacular as mandated by law.

Issues: Whether the demarcation report was legally valid, whether the essential ingredients of criminal trespass were satisfied, and whether the mandatory requirements for the publication of the forest notification were met.

Ratio Decidendi: A valid land demarcation must follow specific procedural guidelines involving three permanent points to be admissible as evidence. Criminal trespass requires proof of a specific intent to annoy, intimidate, or insult, beyond mere unauthorized entry. Penalties under the Forest Act cannot be imposed unless the notification is duly promulgated and published in the local vernacular to ensure public knowledge.

Result: Appeal dismissed.