Trespass Of Police Stations Covered U/S 442 IPC Since They Are Used For Safekeeping Of Official Records, Weapons: Kerala High Court

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed:

“Section 2(s) of Cr.P.C defines a police station as “any post or place declared generally, or specially by the State Government, to be a police station...Section 5 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 provides for establishment of police stations while section 6 deals with facilities at police stations. Section 6(2) of the KP Act stipulates that there must be sufficient storage space for the safe keeping of articles in custody, official records and official arms and ammunition and even sufficient facilities for the safe custody of the accused and those in custody. A combined reading of the above statutory provisions makes it explicit that police stations in Kerala can be regarded also as buildings used for the custody of property, thereby satisfying the definition of house under section 442 IPC.”

The appeal before the Court was preferred by the accused Nos. 1 to 3, who were convicted of the offences under sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 323, 149, 332, 149, 294(b), 354 along with section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. They were sentenced to five years.

The prosecution allegation was that a group of people led by the 1^st accused created public nuisance in connection with an election to a cooperative bank and later, the group of 14 people formed into an unlawful assembly and trespassed into a police station. They then committed rioting, armed with deadly weapons.

The accused persons committed hurt, attempted to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shouted obscene words, damaged property of the police station and outraged the modesty of a woman police officer.

Originally, there were 14 accused persons but one of them died and the proceedings against him abated. The other accused except the appellants were found not guilty. Appellants were acquitted of the offence under Section 308 IPC.

After considering the arguments from both sides, the Court considered four issues, one of which was whether house trespass under Section 452 IPC can be committed by trespassing into a police station. This was found in the affirmative since the police station was a building used to safekeep property as well.

Examining the evidence, the Court took note of the fact that there was no consistent evidence proving the involvement of anyone except the 1^st accused. It thus, felt that the other appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt.

To answer the question of whether the appellants can be convicted of being part of an unlawful assembly under Section 149 when minimum of five persons were not convicted of the offence, the Court referred to certain precedents of the Apex Court on the subject.

It then observed:

“Though the assembly of persons must be a minimum of five, to even allege the existence of an unlawful assembly, it is not the mandate of law that only if five persons are convicted can there be an unlawful assembly. If the court comes to the conclusion that there was, in fact, an assembly of five or more persons, but the persons arrayed by the prosecution were not entirely those five, still, nothing prevents the court from convicting those persons who were found to be part of the unlawful assembly.”

However, looking into the facts of the case at hand, the Court noticed that there was no evidence adduced regarding the common object of the group of persons to commit criminal trespass or the other offences. Thus, it came to the conclusion that the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 149 IPC are attracted.

With respect of the other offences, the Bench observed that the prosecution did not adduce evidence to prove that the assault was committed while the police officers were discharging official duty and therefore, it was found that Section 332 IPC not attracted. However, since the prosecution witness specifically deposed that the first accused committed assault on them, the Court felt that the offence under Section 323 IPC was made out against him.

It also found that the offences under the PDPP Act was proved through the evidence of witnesses and the documentary evidence produced.

Further, the Court remarked that the prosecution failed to prove that the words used by the 1^st accused was obscene in order to satisfy the provision under section 294(b) IPC. Thus, he was found not guilty of the said offence.

With respect to the offence under Section 354 IPC, the Court noted that the evidence only indicates that the 1^st accused caught the shoulder of the woman police officer and pushed her aside while entering into the police station. Since there was no evidence to conclude that the criminal force was used to outrage modesty, he was found not guilty of the said offence.

One of the arguments raised by the appellants was that they also had injuries on them, which were not explained by the prosecution. The doctor who examined them deposed that the injuries were minor and they left the hospital immediately. Moreover, investigating officer also pointed out that the injuries could have been caused while the 1^st accused damaged the collapsible grill of the police station. This, the Court felt, was sufficient in explaining in the injuries.

The Court thus partly allowed the appeal by acquitting the 2^nd and 3^rd accused. It confirmed the finding of guilt against the 1^st accused of the offences under sections 452 and 323 IPC apart as well as section 3(1) of the PDPP Act. He was acquitted of the other offences.

His sentence was also reduced to rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 10,000.

Case No: Crl.Appeal No. 596 of 2019

Case Title: Binu Thankappan and Ors. v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 855

Counsel for the appellants: S. Rajeev, V. Vinay, M.S. Aneer, Sarath K.P., Prerith Philip Joseph, Anilkumar C.R., K.S. Kiran Krishnan, Abdul Rasheed N.

Counsel for the respondent: Sreeja V. - Public Prosecutor

Click to Read/Download Judgment