House-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment

Related judgements & precedents

These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.

1. Commissioner of Police vs Shiv Singh

   Supreme Court of India 25 Aug 2021 Binding (SC) Reportable

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   Acquittal or discharge in criminal proceedings does not per se entitle a candidate to consideration for public service appointment, particularly in police recruitment. The Screening Committee has discretion to assess suitability based on the nature of charges, circumstances of the case, and whether acquittal resulted from serious flaws in prosecution or hostile witnesses. Judicial review of such decisions is limited to grounds of mala fides, illegality, or mindlessness; courts cannot conduct intensive factual scrutiny or second-guess the suitability determination made by the designated public employer authority.

   On this section: House-trespass; charged against Raj Kumar; listed in Annexure A as offence against property

   Read the full order on eCourts India

2. Azeez vs State of Kerala

   Supreme Court of India 23 Jan 2013 Persuasive (Supreme Court) Marked not reportable

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   In criminal cases, recovery of stolen property at the instance of an accused person cannot, by itself, form the sole basis for conviction if there are grave doubts regarding the actual involvement of the accused and if the basic narrative of the crime appears illogical and improbable. The court must carefully scrutinize the entire chain of circumstances and narrative to ensure that the conviction does not rest on assumptions or inferences that are contrary to reason and logic. When the only civilian witness capable of corroborating the recovery turns hostile and the prosecution relies solely on police witnesses in a case involving suspicious circumstances and delays of 16 days in realizing and reporting the theft, the conviction should be set aside and benefit of doubt granted to the accused.

   On this section: House-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment - alleged basis for conviction in place of Section 457; requires entry into a building with intent to commit an offence

   Read the full order on eCourts India

3. Sushil Kumar vs C.b.i.

   High Court 25 Apr 2006 Persuasive (Other High Court)

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   Section 319 CrPC must be exercised sparingly and only in rare cases where the court is satisfied that there exists a possibility that the accused to be summoned is in all likelihood would be convicted. Such satisfaction must be based on material evidence and cannot be based on conjectural or speculative grounds. The court cannot use Section 311 CrPC to introduce an entirely new case theory different from the original FIR or initial statements of the complainant. An order summoning a new accused under Section 319 CrPC, which adversely affects the rights of a person not originally a party to the proceedings and who would have no opportunity to challenge it after final judgment, is not an interlocutory order barred from revision under Section 397(2) CrPC and can be revised by the High Court.

   On this section: Criminal intimidation - charges framed against the bailiff for allegedly intimidating the judgment debtor during execution of warrant

   Read the full order on eCourts India

The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.