JUDGMENT : Barman, C.J. - The three accused Petitioners were convicted u/s 448 Indian Penal Code for having committed alleged house trespass and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25/- each; in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 8 days each. The prosecution case is that on June 19, 1965 at about midday the accused-Petitioners along with others entered the house of the complainant with the intention of causing annoyance to him who was suspected of having kept a missing stolen watch inside his house. The accused persons are alleged to have entered the house with a witch-cot for playing witchcraft or black craft in search of the alleged stolen watch. In support of the prosecution case, 5 witnesses were called including two eye-witnesses (p.ws. 2 and 5). The defence case is that the son of the complainant had committed alleged theft of the watch belonging to the accused Prahlad Pradhan; so there was a meeting in the village in which it was decided that the complainant should return the watch for which reason this false case wag foisted by the complainant by filing the F.I.R. on June 21, 1968 at Tangi P.S. 2. The reasoning on which the learned Magistrate convicted the accused-Petitioners for alleged house trespass u/s 448 Indian Penal Code was this: The conduct of the accused persons in entering inside the house of the complainant with the magic cot and in search of the missing watch, suspecting the son of the complainant for the theft of the watch and for playing black art, is sufficient proof of the intention of the accused to cause insult and annoyance to the complainant. 3. The defence point is, in substance, this: It is not that the accused persons had any intention of entering into the complainant's house with a view to annoy or insult him but that it was the witch-cot which led the accused persons to the complainant's house. Section 441 Indian Penal Code defines criminal trespass as follows: Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or, having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person or with intent to commit an offence, is said to commit criminal trespass. The essential ingredient of the offence is that while entering there must be an intention to commit an offence. In the present case, the accused-Petitioners while touching the witch-cot for the purpose of being led to the place wherever the stolen watch might be, there was no intention on their part to enter inside the house of the complainant. What is material is the psychological state in which they followed the witch-cot leading to a place which, in this case, happened to be the complainant's house. It is possible that the witch-cot might have led them to some other place also. 4. Apparently, the attention of the learned Magistrate was not drawn to this aspect of the offence of criminal trespass. What is material in such cases is to ascertain what was the intention of the accused persons at the relevant time. In order to constitute the offence of criminal trespass, there must be proof of an intention to commit an offence or to intimidate or insult or annoy the person in possession of property. When a person enters, without any legal justification upon property in the established possession of another, he must be inferred to have had an intention to annoy the person in possession. In the present cast, the physical entry of the accused persons along with the witch-cot cannot be held to be with the intention of committing that or annoying or insulting as alleged. The entry into the complainant's house was the consequence as it happened of what the accused person thought was the power of the witch-cot in finding out the stolen watch; alleged house trespass was not intended by the accused persons. Consequently, it cannot amount to the offence of criminal trespass as alleged. This view finds support from the reasoning in the decision of the Hyderabad High Court in Jagannath Singh v. Sangeet Kristaayya AIR 1952 Hyd. 50. 5. In this view of the case, the order of conviction and sentence passed on the accused-Petitioners is set aside. The criminal revision is allowed. Final Result : Allowed