The High Court of Kerala has clarified that premises used for commercial purposes, such as a tailoring shop, qualify as a 'house' under Section 457 of the Indian Penal Code, thereby enabling prosecution for lurking house-trespass by night. This ruling reinforces the doctrinal understanding that the term 'house' in criminal law extends beyond residential dwellings to any structure used for the custody of property.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The revision petitioners were convicted for trespassing into Radhas Garments and Tailoring Centre in Puthukai Village on 5 March 2008. They allegedly broke open the lock, damaged four sewing machines, furniture, and garments, causing a loss of Rs. 20,000. The prosecution charged them under Sections 143, 147, 427, and Section 457 IPC, with the latter carrying a maximum sentence of two years.
Procedural History
- 2008: FIR registered under Sections 143, 147, 457, 427, 380 read with Section 149 IPC
- Investigation: Prosecution deleted Sections 457 and 380 from the charge sheet, but the Magistrate later re-framed charges under Section 457
- 2014: Judicial First Class Magistrate convicted all four petitioners under Sections 143, 147, 427, and Section 457 IPC
- 2014: Additional Sessions Judge dismissed appeal, confirming conviction
- 2015: Revision petition filed before Kerala High Court under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of their conviction under Section 457 IPC, arguing that the premises was not a 'house' as defined under Section 442 IPC, and that the prosecution failed to prove ownership or possession of the shop by the complainants.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a building used exclusively for commercial purposes - specifically, a tailoring shop - qualifies as a 'house' under Section 457 IPC, thereby attracting the offence of lurking house-trespass by night.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners contended that Section 457 IPC requires the trespass to occur in a structure used as a 'human dwelling', citing Section 442 IPC. They relied on Ext.D3 and Ext.P11, building tax records showing the property was not registered in the names of PW1 or PW3, and argued that absence of documentary proof of ownership invalidated the prosecution’s claim. They further challenged the non-examination of Karuthambu, who allegedly informed PW1 of the incident, as fatal to the case.
For the Respondent
The State argued that Section 442 IPC defines 'house' broadly to include any building used for the 'custody of property'. PW10, the original tenant, testified that he leased the premises to the shop owners. The prosecution established possession through oral testimony of PWs 1, 2, 3, and 10, supported by seizure of damaged items (MO1 - MO7) and immediate FIR registration. The State emphasized that possession, not ownership, is the key element under Section 457 IPC.
The Court's Analysis
The Court reaffirmed that revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is supervisory, not appellate, and cannot be invoked to reappreciate evidence unless the findings are perverse, unreasonable, or based on no material. Citing State of Kerala v. Jathadevan Namboodiri, Munna Devi v. State of Rajasthan, and Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke, the Court held that the trial and appellate courts had correctly appreciated the evidence.
"The word house-trespass as per Section 442 of IPC means criminal trespass by entering into or remaining in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or any building used as a place for worship, or as a place for the custody of property."
The Court explicitly rejected the petitioners’ narrow interpretation of 'house'. It held that a building used for a tailoring business clearly falls under the category of a structure used for the 'custody of property', satisfying the definition under Section 442 IPC. The absence of documentary proof of ownership was deemed irrelevant, as possession - established through testimony of PW1, PW3, and PW10 - was sufficient.
The Court further held that non-examination of Karuthambu did not vitiate the prosecution case, as the quality of evidence, not its quantity, determines reliability. The immediate FIR, corroboration by PW2 and PW3, and recovery of damaged items (MO1 - MO7) collectively established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Verdict
The revision petition was dismissed. The Court upheld the conviction under Section 457 IPC, holding that commercial premises used for the custody of property qualify as a 'house' under the IPC. The sentences imposed were found to be neither excessive nor legally flawed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Commercial Premises Are Covered Under Section 457 IPC
- Practitioners must now argue that any structure used for storing or conducting business involving property - shops, godowns, clinics, offices - can attract Section 457 IPC if trespassed at night
- Ownership documents are not mandatory; possession through testimony or lease deeds suffices
- Prosecution need not prove title; proof of exclusive control and use is sufficient
Revision Jurisdiction Is Not a Second Appeal
- High Courts must resist reappreciating evidence unless findings are perverse or based on no material
- Petitioners cannot use revision to challenge factual conclusions reached by trial and appellate courts
- Legal errors, not evidentiary disputes, are the only valid grounds for interference
Non-Examination of Informants Does Not Invalidate Prosecution
- If the main eyewitnesses are credible and their testimony is corroborated, failure to examine an informant is not fatal
- Courts must focus on the reliability of evidence presented, not the absence of potential witnesses
- This principle applies equally in cases involving anonymous tips or third-party informants
