Kerala High Court: While dealing with the issue whether the owner of a premises could be convicted for house trespass and mischief when the property was in the lawful possession of a tenant, a Single Judge Bench of Jobin Sebastian, J., affirmed the conviction under Sections 454 and 427, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) holding that trespass is an offence against possession and not against ownership, meaning thereby that even the true owner cannot unlawfully enter the rented premises. The Court modified the sentence by reducing the term to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and directed the landlord to pay Rs 15,000 in compensation.
Background
On 11 May 2009, the accused, who was the landlord of the premises, trespassed into a room that had been let out to the de facto complainant and allegedly committed mischief by throwing out and vandalising the household articles kept therein, causing damage estimated at Rs 10,000. He was charged under Sections 454 and 427 IPC. To establish the landlord’s guilt, the prosecution examined nine witnesses, including the tenant and his wife, police officials, and several independent neighbours who were cited as eyewitnesses.
The trial court found the accused guilty and sentenced him to one year’s simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs 2000, with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for one month, under Section 454, and six months’ simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs 1000 with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for 15 days under Section 427. The finding was later confirmed by the appellate court, though the sentence was modified and the sentence was reduced to simple imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs 2000, with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for one month under Section 454 IPC. For the offence punishable under Section 427 IPC, the sentence was reduced to simple imprisonment for three months, along with a direction to pay compensation of Rs 15,000 to the complainant, with a default sentence of imprisonment for three months.
Analysis and Decision
The Court inferred from the prosecution evidence that at the time of the incident, neither the complainant nor his wife was present in the room, as they were at their relative’s house at Kollam, and therefore, they were not eyewitnesses.
The Court noted that the neighbours had deposed that they witnessed the landlord entering in the room and committing the mischief by throwing out the household articles. The Court opined that there was no reason to disbelieve them as a careful and holistic reading of their testimonies showed that their evidence was consistent and free from material contradictions or omissions.
The Court emphasised that a court exercising revisional jurisdiction will interfere with the findings of the courts below only when such findings suffer from illegality, impropriety, or perversity. Unless it is shown that the judgment of the trial court or the appellate court is perverse, unreasonable, or suffers from non-consideration of relevant material or misreading of evidence, interference in revision is not warranted. The Revisional Court cannot reappreciate the evidence as an appellate court and substitute its own view merely because another view is possible.
The Court relied on State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, (1999) 2 SCC 452, wherein the Supreme Court had observed that:
… the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an appellate court nor can it be treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice.
The Court highlighted that offences such as criminal trespass and house trespass are offences against possession and not against ownership. Therefore, even a true owner cannot, under the guise of ownership, unlawfully enter premises in the lawful possession of another with the intent to commit an offence. The Court opined that the mere fact that the accused was the owner of the room did not, ipso facto, absolve him of criminal liability when such entry was effected with the intention to commit an unlawful act. The Court observed that since the possession of the tenanted room was clearly established to be with the complainant, any unauthorised entry into the said room with the requisite criminal intent squarely attracted the offence of house trespass. Consequently, the Court held that the act of the accused constituted the offence of house trespass, notwithstanding his ownership of the room.
However, on the question of sentence, the Court noted that the genesis of the case was in a landlord-tenant dispute and that no criminal antecedents were alleged against the accused. The Court opined that the sentence imposed was somewhat harsh and warranted interference. Accordingly, while affirming the conviction, the Court allowed the revision petition in part and reduced the sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the Court on 1 June 2026, for both the offences and directed payment of compensation of Rs 15,000 under Section 357(3), Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).
[Damodaran K. v. State of Kerala, 2026 SCC OnLine Ker 3966, decided on 26-3-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: M. Sasindran, A. Arunkumar, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Maya M.N., PP.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
