Even Intention To Commit Offence Punishable With Imprisonment Coupled With House-Trespass Would Constitute Offence Punishable U/S.451 IPC: SC
The Supreme Court made it clear that even an intention to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment coupled with house-trespass would constitute the offence punishable under Section 451 of IPC.
The appeal by Special Leave, before the Apex Court, was directed against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court confirming the conviction of the appellant in a criminal case.
The Bench of Justice C.T. Ravikumar & Justice Sanjay Karol observed, “The expression ‘in order to the committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment’ used in Section 451 would reveal that an intention to commit such an offence following house-trespass would justify a conviction thereunder.”
Senior Advocate S. Nagamuthu represented the Petitioner while Advocate Prerna Singh represented the Respondent.
The Trial Court, in this case, convicted the appellant under Section 376 read with Section 511 besides under Section 451, of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and sentenced him for rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence of ‘rape’ and R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 451, IPC. In appeal, the Fast Track Court confirmed the conviction and modified the conviction and sentence under Section 376 IPC to one under Section 354 IPC. Consequently, he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years. As per the impugned judgment, the conviction and the sentence for both the offences were confirmed by the High Court.
The Bench noted that the materials on record revealed that the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 451, IPC was concurrent based on the uncontroverted oral testimonies of PWs 4 and 5. It was further noticed that the conviction of the appellant was not for house-trespass simpliciter punishable under Section 448, IPC and it was under Section 451, IPC. The Bench confirmed the finding of the Appellate Court in modifying the conviction under Section 376, IPC to one under Section 354, IPC in light of the evidence of PWs 4 and 5.
The Court further affirmed, “In view of the position that even an intention to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment’ coupled with house-trespass would constitute the offence punishable under Section 451, IPC a conviction for the offence under Section 354, IPC and the consequential imposition of sentence to undergo imprisonment for a term would leave us with no option but to confirm the conviction for the offence under Section 451, IPC. Hence, it is also maintained.”
After hearing the counsel on both sides and taking into account the evidence on record, and further taking note of the fact that originally there was no prescription of minimum sentence for corporeal punishment for the conviction under Section 354, IPC on the date of commission of the said offence, the Bench considered the prayer to reduce the sentence from two years. The Bench confirmed the conviction of the appellant under Section 451 and the sentence imposed therefor and also the conviction under Section 354, IPC.
Noting the absence of antecedents, and the fact that more than 25 years had lapsed since the incident and the appellant was then a boy aged 21 years, the Bench reduced the sentence imposed for the conviction under Section 354, IPC from R.I. for two years to R.I. for one year.
Cause Title: Didde Srinivas v. State SHO, Poduru Police Station [Case No. SLP (Crl.) No. 8028 of 2023]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate S. Nagamuthu, Advocate D. Srinivas, AOR Somanatha Padhan
Respondent: Advocates Prerna Singh, Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR Dhruv Yada
