Acquittal for criminal intimidation does not preclude conviction under Section 452 where preparation for hurt is proved.

The appellants challenged their conviction under Sections 452/34 IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari.

The prosecution alleged that the appellants entered the home of the deceased’s mother and grandmother while searching for the deceased, threatened to kill him if found, and thereby put them in fear of harm.

The trial court acquitted the appellants of charges under Sections 294, 506 Part II and 306 IPC, but convicted them under Section 452/34 IPC and imposed the sentence already undergone, with a fine.

In appeal, the appellants disputed whether the evidence established the elements of Section 452, particularly given their acquittal on the other charges.

Whether the appellants’ entry into the complainant’s home and conduct established house-trespass after preparation for causing hurt or putting a person in fear of hurt under Section 452 IPC.

Whether the acquittals under Sections 294 and 506 Part II IPC undermined the conviction under Section 452/34 IPC.

Section 452 IPC applies where a person commits house-trespass having made preparation to cause hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint, or to put any person in fear of hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint; the provision prescribes imprisonment of either description for up to seven years and liability to fine.

The appeal was brought under Section 374(2) CrPC.

The High Court relied on the evidence of the deceased’s mother and grandmother, who testified that the appellants entered the home, searched for the deceased, and threatened that they would kill him if found.

The Court considered that conduct sufficient to establish house-trespass accompanied by preparation to put the occupants in fear of hurt to the deceased.

It held that acquittal on the distinct offences under Sections 294 and 506 Part II IPC did not displace the evidence establishing the ingredients of Section 452 IPC.

As the appellants had already served their sentences, they were not required to surrender; their bail bonds were to continue for six months under Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the trial court record was directed to be returned for compliance.