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".
COMMENTARY
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
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.