Question:

Principle: Whosoever enters into or upon the property in the possession of another, with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate or annoy any person in possession of the property, and remains there with such intent, is guilty of criminal trespass.
Facts: The accused entered at night into a house to carry on intimate relations with an unmarried major girl on her invitation and information that her family members were absent. However, he was caught by her uncle before he could get away.

Show Hint

In criminal trespass, it is not necessary to show physical harm — the presence with intent that causes annoyance to a lawful possessor is enough for the offence to be complete.
Updated On: Aug 12, 2025
  • guilty of criminal trespass as he annoyed the uncle
  • guilty because he entered the house to commit a crime against the girl
  • guilty because no one should enter into the house of another at night
  • not guilty of criminal trespass
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is A

Solution and Explanation

The law on criminal trespass focuses on the presence of intent at the time of entry or while remaining in another's property.
Here, the property in question is the house in which the girl lives under the guardianship of her family. The family members — including the uncle — are in legal possession of the property.
Although the accused entered the house with the girl’s invitation, the girl herself was not the sole lawful possessor of the property in the legal sense; her guardians (family members) had that possession.
The principle covers three key intents: intent to commit an offence, intent to intimidate, or intent to annoy the possessor.
When the accused was discovered by the uncle, the uncle was annoyed by his presence. This annoyance was a direct result of the accused’s unlawful entry into the premises without the permission of the lawful possessor.
Even if the accused did not initially intend to annoy the uncle specifically, the law treats annoyance to a lawful possessor caused by the presence as fulfilling the offence requirement.
Therefore, the act satisfies the legal definition of criminal trespass under the given principle, making him guilty.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0

Questions Asked in CLAT exam

View More Questions