The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakuda, has acquitted Lohidakshan in C.C. No. 4585/2015 arising out of Crime No. 741/2015 of Varandarappilly Police Station. Smt. Deepa Mohanan, Judicial First Class Magistrate, delivered the judgment on February 6, 2026. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish offences under Sections 447, 427 and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
In this case, the State was represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Varandarappilly Police Station. The Assistant Public Prosecutor (Sr. Grade), Irinjalakuda, conducted the prosecution. Advocate Manumon A. appeared for the accused, Lohidakshan, aged 50, S/o Govindan, Arakkaparambil House, Nanthipualm Desom, Varandarappilly Village.
Background of the Case
According to the prosecution, PW1 was running a bakery named “Sweet Heaven” at Nandipulam. The allegation was that at about 9:00 a.m. on October 6, 2015, the accused broke the wall of the bakery and destroyed articles kept inside. It was further alleged that when PW1 questioned him, he threatened her.
On the basis of these allegations, police filed a final report for offences under Sections 447 (criminal trespass), 427 (mischief causing damage) and 506(i) (criminal intimidation) IPC.
Following issuance of summons, the accused appeared before the Court and secured bail. The Court supplied copies under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and framed charges. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed innocence.
During trial, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW3 and marked Exhibits P1 to P5. Subsequently, the Court examined the accused under Section 313(1)(b) CrPC. He denied the incriminating circumstances and filed an additional statement under Section 313(5) CrPC. In that statement, he contended that PW1 was not in possession of the shop at the relevant time. He also pointed out that PW1 had filed O.S. No. 4545/2015 seeking compensation and that the suit was dismissed. The defence relied on Exhibits D1 to D3.
Submissions Before the Court
The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that PW1’s testimony was consistent and reliable. According to the prosecution, the evidence on record sufficiently established the accused’s guilt.
On the other hand, the defence argued that the prosecution failed to prove possession of the shop by PW1 at the time of the alleged incident. Counsel further contended that the essential ingredients of Sections 447, 427 and 506(i) IPC were absent. The defence also asserted that the accused had been falsely implicated.
Findings on Trespass and Mischief
While examining the charges under Sections 447 and 427 IPC, the Magistrate referred to the High Court decision in Saji Joseph (Fr.) v. State of Kerala [2024 (4) KHC 483]. The decision clarifies that to establish criminal trespass, the prosecution must prove entry into property in the possession of another with the requisite intent.
In the present case, inconsistencies emerged regarding ownership and possession of the premises. PW1 claimed that she had taken the shop on rent from the accused, who allegedly acted as power of attorney holder of one Muraleedharan. However, Exhibit P5, the ownership certificate, showed that the building belonged to Sasidharan.
The Court noted that neither the accused nor Muraleedharan was shown to be the owner. More significantly, the prosecution did not produce any material proving that PW1 was in possession of the premises at the relevant time.
The defence relied on records from O.S. No. 4545/2015. The Advocate Commissioner’s report (Exhibit D2) indicated that there was no bakery board at the shop and no visible construction activity. Exhibit D3 showed that the civil suit filed by PW1 was dismissed.
After evaluating these materials, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish possession. Since possession is a foundational requirement for criminal trespass, the charge under Section 447 IPC failed. As a result, the allegation under Section 427 IPC could not be sustained.
Findings on Criminal Intimidation
Turning to Section 506(i) IPC, the Court examined whether the ingredients of criminal intimidation under Section 503 IPC were satisfied.
PW1 deposed that the accused used abusive words when she questioned him. However, she did not allege that he threatened injury to her person, reputation, or property with intent to cause alarm.
The Court held that mere use of abusive language does not amount to criminal intimidation unless the statutory elements under Section 503 IPC are fulfilled. Since the prosecution failed to establish those elements, the charge under Section 506(i) IPC also failed.
Final Order
Having assessed the entire evidence, the Court held that the prosecution did not prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, the Magistrate acquitted Lohidakshan under Section 255(1) CrPC of the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 and 506(i) IPC. The Court set him at liberty and discharged him from the bail bond.
The judgment was pronounced on February 6, 2026 by Smt. Deepa Mohanan, Judicial First Class Magistrate, Irinjalakuda.
ADVOCATE:
represented by Advocate Manumon A ( for accused)
