J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) RESPONDENT-ACCUSED came to be acquitted from the charge under sections 452 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code on 31. 12. 1984 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Nadiad in Criminal Case No. 742 of 1983. Therefore the appellant-State has questioned the legality and validity of the order of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Magistrate by invoking the aids of the provisions of section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 for short ). ( 2 ) INITIALLY the relevant factual matrix may shortly be stated so as to appreciate the merits of this appeal and challenge against it. Respondents herein is the original accused who is hereinafter referred to as the accused for the sake of convenience was charged by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Nadiad in the trial court for the of fence punishable under sections 324 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code In that the prosecution alleged that the accused on 19. 12. 1983 at 8 30 P. M. illegally committed trespass in the house of the complainant-Bai Meena with an intention to commit an offence and inflict knife blows on the abdomen of Bai Meena. He had also caused injury to the Prosecution witnesses-Bhikhabhai who tried to intervence and save Bai Meena from the attack. There were four persons in the house at the time when the incident occured. Thus three eye witnesses witnessed the attack by the accused on Bai Meena with knife. The accused after entering into the house of the complainant Bai Meena insisted her to accompany him and go out. Thus the accused forcibly wanted to lake away Bai Meena which was resisted by Bai Meena and it resulted into an attack on her. ( 3 ) AFTER infliction of knife blows the complainant Bai Meena was taken to Mahagujarat Hospital at Nadiad from village Uttarsanda which is about 8 to 10 kms. from Nadiad. The incident occured at about 8. 30 P. M. on 19. 12. 1983 and she was taken to the said hospital at Nadiad whore she was questioned by the doctor and she was treated at 9. 45 P. M. on the same day. ( 4 ) ON hospitalisation the injured Bai Meena was required to be operated and leprotomy operation was carried out She remained in the hospital from 19. 12 to 5. 45 P. M. on the same day. ( 4 ) ON hospitalisation the injured Bai Meena was required to be operated and leprotomy operation was carried out She remained in the hospital from 19. 12 to 5. 1 1984 She sustained grievous abdomen injuries on account of two knife blows given by the accused as per the prosecution case. The complaint was recorded as narrated by the complainant which is produced at Ex. 10 According to the prosecution case the complaint was recorded immediately after the injured was admitted in the hospital. ( 5 ) THE accused was arrested on completion of the investigation the accused was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences to which he denied and claimed to be tried ( 6 ) ACCORDING to the defence of the accused he was in deep love with Bai Meena who had invited him to lake her from the place of her grand-father at Uttarsanda Pursuant to the letter written by her to him he had gone to the house of her grand-father at Uttarsanda. It is his further defence that the grand-father and grand-father of the complainant did not approve the relationship and cordiality between them. Therefore they and other two persons stated beating him and in the course of the scuffle Bai Meena was injured. ( 7 ) UPON appreciation and analysis of the evidence the trial court reached to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt and upholding the defence of the accused the trial court acquittal the accused from the charges under Sections 324 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code Hence this acquittal appeal under section 378 of the Code at the instance of the State. ] ( 8 ) HAVING examined dispassionately the entire evidence on record and after hearing the learned A. P. P. Mr. Shelat and the learned counsel for the accused Mr. Farooqui this court is of the clear opinion that the impugned order of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Magistrate is not only unjust and unreasonable but is also perverse. ] ( 8 ) HAVING examined dispassionately the entire evidence on record and after hearing the learned A. P. P. Mr. Shelat and the learned counsel for the accused Mr. Farooqui this court is of the clear opinion that the impugned order of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Magistrate is not only unjust and unreasonable but is also perverse. The learned trial Magistrate has taken into account some contradictions which are very minor and has failed to consider the most material and relevant evidence or record 9 The evidence of P. W. 1 Bai Meena Philipbhai Parmar who had not completed 18 years at the time when her evidence was recorded was examined at Ex. ( 9 ) HER evidence is clear and consistant. She has clearly testified that the accused came with a knife in her house on the day of the incident around 8. 30 P. M. and insisted her to go alongwith him to which she denied. Being very much enraged by the denial of Bai meena the accused started inflicting knife blows. It is very clear from her evidence that she was given two successive knife blows by the accused on the abdomen she refused to obilige the accused to go alongwith him the accused gave two knife blows on the person of the complainant-Bai Meena. This incident was witnessed by the Prosecution witnesses Vijayaben Bhikhabhai and Bai Marium. It happened in the house of the prosecution witness Bhikhabhai. The injured complainant was residing at Uttarsanda at the house of Bhikhabhai. Therefore there is no reason to discard the evidence of the complainant herself. Her evidence has remained totally unshaken. ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel for the accused pointed out that the complainant-Bai Meena has admitted that the accused had not given knife blows Prima facie this submission may appear to be subtle and captivating but while reading the entire evidence of Bai Meena it cannot be accepted and sustained. One sentences here or there divorcing from the context cannot be said to be sufficient to discard the whole evidence on record. There appears to be some mistake in recording some words. Apart from that if the entire evidence is read it cannot be contended even for a moment that the injured Bai Meena admitted that the accused had not inflicted knife blows. There appears to be some mistake in recording some words. Apart from that if the entire evidence is read it cannot be contended even for a moment that the injured Bai Meena admitted that the accused had not inflicted knife blows. Even the frame of answer ipso facto is suggestive of some mistake in recording that part and again that cannot be divorced from the entire context in which it is mentioned. Therefore the contention that the evidence of Bai Meena does not prove the complicity of the accused beyond reasonable doubt is not acceptable. ( 11 ) MOREOVER the evidence of Bai Meena is fully reinforced by the eye witness P. W. 2 Vijayaben Bhikhabhai Parmar who is examined at Ex. 11. She is a distant cousin of the complainant and she was present in the house at the relevant time and her presence was natural. She has fully reinforced the testimony of Bai Meena. There is nothing whatsoever in her evidence which would require rejection of evidence of Vijayaben She supports the evidence of Bai Meena. Not only that the prosecution witness No. 3 Bhikhabhai Ramabhai Christy the grand-father of the injured who is examined at Ex. 13 also fully lends material reinforcement to the testimony of Bai Meena P. W 6 Mariumban is an eye-witness who is examined at Ex. 30 also supports the evidence of Bai Meena. Thus the evidence of Bai Meena has remained unshakan and creditworthy and is corrobarayed in all material particulars by the evidences of three eye witnesses whose presence at the relevant time was quite natural. ( 12 ) NOT only that the metical evidence also fully supports the case of the prosecution and the evidence of Bai Meena P. W. 4 Dr. Yogesh Lakhmani is examined at Ex. 21. He has produced the medical papers and certificates in respect of injuries sustained by Bai Meena and the treatment given to her in Mahagujarat Hospital at Nadiad. Accordingly to the medical evidence Dr. P. C. Thakkar had examined Bai Meena at 9 45 P. M. in the hospital. There were two grievous injuries on her abdomen. The injured had given version to medical officer of medusal owner of attack with knife by the accused. Almost within an hours time the injured Bai Meena was brought from village Uttarsanda to the hospital at Nadiad. P. C. Thakkar had examined Bai Meena at 9 45 P. M. in the hospital. There were two grievous injuries on her abdomen. The injured had given version to medical officer of medusal owner of attack with knife by the accused. Almost within an hours time the injured Bai Meena was brought from village Uttarsanda to the hospital at Nadiad. There she narrated the history of attack with the knife by the accused to Dr. P. C. Thakkar. There is no reason to disbelieve this version. The medical certificate is produced at Ex. 22. According to this certificate there were following injuries: (1) An incised wound of about 2 cm. oblique over abdomen (lateral to right iliace fossa ambilicus ). (2) Another incised wound lateral to above 2 em transverse wound (left ambilical region ). Upon urgent laprotomy the following injuries were found: (i) Small intestive wound apart 11/2 cm. at (2) place (ii) Mesentevic tear (iii) Mesentevic vessels cut-ld. bleeding and (iv) Heema peritaream. Dr. P. C. Thakkar who had examined the injured initially in the said hospital could not come to the court as he had gone abroad at USA. However entire medical record is produced and proved. The medical records succinctly assists and corroborates the testimony of the injured-Bai Meena. ( 13 ) LEARNED counsel for the accused has also pointed out that there are contradictions in the evidence and therefore the prosecution case should not be believed. It is true that there are some contradictions. But they are quite at micro-level and they do not as such affect the main core of the prosecution version. It is also submitted that the three witnesses who have supported the case of the injured-Bai Meena are relative and therefore their evidence should not be believed. This submission cannot be accepted. The courts main anxiety should be to consider the reliability and not the relationship. Again it may be noted that the relatives will not be interested to let off the real offender. Moreover the incident occured inside the house and it is in evidence that no outsider was present or any independent person was available in the house who could have deposed. The four persons who were in the house including the injured have supported the case of the injured. Therefore it cannot be contended that the evidence of the relatives should not be accepted. The four persons who were in the house including the injured have supported the case of the injured. Therefore it cannot be contended that the evidence of the relatives should not be accepted. The neighbours rushed to the venue after the incident was over. So there is nothing on record to show that the actual incident was witnessed by any outsider or any independent person. The evidence of the relatives which has remained credit- worthy cannot be thrown over-board on the ground that they are related to the injured. Therefore his contention is also required to be rejected. ( 14 ) IT is also contended on behalf of the accused that the accused should be given benefit of doubt as there are some doubtful circumstances. In the opinion of this court Further there are no doubtful circumstances. The prosecution has established the complicity of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under sections 324 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 15 ) SECTION 452 of the Indian Penal Code prescribes punishment for house-trespass after preparation for hurt assault or worngful restraint. House tres-pass is defined in section 442 of the Indian Penal Code. There is clear evidence on record to show that the accused had entered into the house where the complainant -injured Bai Meena was residing with an intention to take her out as he was in love with her. Thus the entry into the house was with an intention to commit an offence assult of wrongful restranit. ( 16 ) IT is very clear from the evidence on record that the accused had made house tres-pass. Whoever commits criminal trespass by entering into or remaining in any building is said to have committed house trespass. House trespass is defind in section 442 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 441 defines criminal trespass. The following three ingredients are material for constituting criminal trespass. (1) Entry into or upon property in the possession of another (2) If such entry is lawful then unlawfully remaining upon such property and (3) Such entry or unlawful remaining must be with an intention- (i) to commit an offence; or (ii) to intimidate insult or annoy the person in possession of the property. Every unauthorised entry is not criminal trespass. A trespass is not criminal unless one or other of the intentions specified in the definition is proved. Every unauthorised entry is not criminal trespass. A trespass is not criminal unless one or other of the intentions specified in the definition is proved. Section 443 defines Lurking house trespass. Section 444 of the Indian Penal Code defines Lurking house trespass by night. Section 445 of the Indian Penal Code defines House-breaking. Section 446 of the Indian Penal Code defines house breaking by night. Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code provides punishment for criminal trespass. Section 450 provides for the punishment for house-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment for life whereas section 451 of the Indian Penal Code provides punishment for house- trespass in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment. Most relevant provision in so far as the present case is concerned it is section 452 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code reads as under:"452 House-trespass after preparation for hurt assault or wrongful restraint Whoever commits house-trespass having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person or for wrongful restraining any person or for pulling any person in fear of hurt or of assault or of wrongful restraint shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine". It is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove the following ingredients so as to attract the rigours of the provisions of section 452 of the Indian Penal Code:" (1) the accused committed house-treapass. (2) that the same was committed after making preparation for causing hurt to or for assaulting or for wrongful restraining some person in fear of hurt assault or wrongful restraint". Section 451 of the Indian Penal Code prescribes punishment for house-treapass in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment In this way in envelops the provisions of this section. But the object of the Legislature in enacting this section is to provide soevrer punishment whore house treapass is committed in order to cause hurt to or to assault or to wrongful restrain any person. Therefore it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that the intention of the accused was to cause hurl to or for assault or wrongful restraint. Therefore it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that the intention of the accused was to cause hurl to or for assault or wrongful restraint. ( 17 ) AS could be very well seen from the evidence on record the dominant intention of the accused at the relevant time was to wrongful restrain the complainant Bai Meena. The accused demanded that Bai-Meena the complainant should accompany him. But Bai Meena refused to obilige him. Therefore he insisted that she should accompay him to which she refused. He therefore inflicted knife blows. Thus it is clear that the accused had gone with a knife in the house of the grand-father of the injured-Bai Meena and forcibly wanted to lake her away with him. Clear and consistent evidence to show that the object and the intention with which the accused had entered into the house of the grand-father of the complainant-Bai Meena was nothing but to wrongful restrain Bai Meena. Of course it is also very clear from the evidence on record that in the course of achieving his object the accused inflicted two knife blows on the abdomen of Bai Meena. Thus the prosecution has successfully established the complicity of the accused beyond the shadow of doubt for the offence punishable under section 452 of the Indian Penal Code and also for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 18 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances narrated herinbefore and the evidence emerging from the record of the present case this court has no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has successsfully established the culpability of the accused beyond any shadow of doubt for the offence punishable under section 324 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore the acquittal recorded by the trial court which is not only unjust but is perverse and illegal is required to be quashed. The impugned order of acuittal is therefore hereby quashed and set aside and the accused is held guilty for the offence punishable under sections 324 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 19 ) NEXT it brings into the sharp focus the question of quantum of sentence. Since this is an acquittal appeal the accused was not heard on the quantum of sentence and the accused is not present today. ( 19 ) NEXT it brings into the sharp focus the question of quantum of sentence. Since this is an acquittal appeal the accused was not heard on the quantum of sentence and the accused is not present today. As mandated by the provisions of law the accused is required to be heard on the question of quantum of sentence. Therefore the matter is adjourned and fixed for hearing of the accused on the quantum of sentence. ( 20 ) IN so far as the question of quantum of sentence is concerned both sides are heard. Learned counsel for the accused has contended that the accuse was a yougman of 24 at the relevant time. He has already into a matrimony and has got two children. He has also settled in his life. Therefore according to the contention of the learned counsel for the accused any order of sentence of imprisonment would insulate him from the family and it would not be a great hardship to his minor children and young wife. He has also contended that heavy amount of fine also will be a great punishment looking to the financial position of the accused. . ( 21 ) HAVING regard to the peculiar facts and special circumstances emerging from the record of the present case and having heard both the sides on the quantum of sentences this court is of the opinion that the ends of justice will be satisfied if the accused is awarded sentences of fine of Rs. 1 0 for the offence punishable under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. In these circumstances there should be no separate sentences for the offence under section 452 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 22 ) IN the result the respondent/accused is held guilty for the offence punishable under sections 324 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code. He is awarded sentence of fine of Rs. 1000 for the offence punishable under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. No separate sentence is warded for the offence punishable under section 452 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 23 ) LEARNED counsel for the accused contents that time of four weeks may be given for payment of fine of Rs. 1 0 Considering the facts and circumstances this request is accepted. No separate sentence is warded for the offence punishable under section 452 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 23 ) LEARNED counsel for the accused contents that time of four weeks may be given for payment of fine of Rs. 1 0 Considering the facts and circumstances this request is accepted. The accused is given time up to 26. 3. 1993 for the payment of fine of Rs. 1 0 appeal Allowed. .