Absence of Delivery of Property or Assets Voids Offence of Extortion Under Section 383 IPC

The Appellant, a Sub-Engineer and member of a Scheduled Tribe, purchased 23 acres of land.

He alleged that Respondents No. 2 and 3 (non-ST/SC members) forcibly entered his house, threatened to publish news of illegal land acquisition, and attempted to extort ₹5,00,000.

It was further alleged that Respondent No. 2 used caste-based slurs in the presence of witnesses.

Following a trial under Sections 294, 452, 388/34 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the Special Court acquitted the Respondents on February 20, 2020.

This appeal challenges that acquittal.

1. Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the accused under Section 385 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act based on a perverse finding.

2. Whether the ingredients of criminal trespass under Section 452 of the IPC were established.

The court applied Section 383 of the IPC, which requires the intentional delivery of property induced by fear to constitute "extortion".

and Section 385 IPC regarding the attempt thereof.

Under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act (pre-2016 amendment), the prosecution must prove intentional insult with intent to humiliate a member in a "place within public view".

The court relied on *R.S. Nayak v. A.N. Antulay* regarding the necessity of property delivery for extortion.

and *Isaac Isanga Musumba v. State of Maharashtra* regarding the necessity of property delivery for extortion.

It further applied *Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala* for the "intent to humiliate" requirement.

and *Abhayanand Mishra v. State of Bihar* regarding "preparation" for trespass under Section 452 IPC.

Regarding extortion, the court found that neither the complainant (PW-4) nor his wife (PW-5) testified to actually delivering any money or property to the accused, thus failing the core requirement of Section 383 IPC.

Under the SC/ST Act, the court noted that the alleged incident occurred inside a private house and not in "public view".

Furthermore, relying on *Shajan Skaria*, the court held that mere knowledge of a victim’s caste is insufficient; there must be a specific intent to humiliate based on caste status, which was not proven.

Regarding Section 452 IPC, the court observed that the prosecution failed to prove "preparation" (e.g., carrying weapons or arranging means) for causing hurt or assault, which is distinct from the act of trespass itself.

The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the delivery of property for extortion, the "public view" or "intent to humiliate" for the SC/ST Act charges, and the "preparation" required for Section 452 IPC.

Invoking the principles of *Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar*, the court declined to interfere with the trial court’s findings as they were not perverse and the double presumption of innocence remained intact.

The appeal was dismissed.