Of Criminal Trespass

441.  Criminal trespass.--Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property,

or, having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence, is said to commit "criminal trespass".


Difference between civil trespass by way of taking possession of property without consent of the person in possession and criminal trespass for which insult or annoyance to  person  in  possession  is  a  condition  precedent.  S. 441 of PPC show that a person would not be annoyed or intimidated in absentia. Charge of criminal trespass would not be sustainable. PLJ 2008 Lahore 593.

Trespasser cannot claim right of self-defence unless brings to end his own act of trespass. PLD 1983 S.C. 135. Mere knowledge that a particular consequence might follow. Not sufficient to bring at trespass with the mischief of this Section. PLD 1965 S.C. 640.

Co-sharer, in a joint Khata was sharer in every piece and parcel of land. Prosecution, in order to establish offence of `criminal trespass', must prove that real or dominant intent of entry in property was to commit an offence or to insult, intimidate or annoy the occupant and that any claim of right was a mere cloak to cover the real intent or at any rate constituted not more than a subsidiary intent. Entry on land made under a bona fide claim, how ill-founded in law the claim might be, would not become criminal merely because a foreseen consequence of entry was annoyance to occupant. Petitioner/accused under a bona fide claim being co-sharer/co-owner of property, having entered into land in dispute, had not committed any trespass. F.I.R. was quashed in circumstances. 2006 PCr.LJ 539.