The Kerala High Court has held that a police station is a building used for the custody of property and therefore falls within the definition of “house” under Section 442 of the IPC. The Court ruled that trespass into a police station can attract house trespass charges, though it cannot be treated as a residence or place of worship.
The Kerala High Court has held that a police station can be treated as a “house” for the purpose of the offence of house trespass under Section 442 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court clarified that since a police station is a building used for the custody of property, it clearly falls within the legal definition required to attract the offence of house trespass.
The ruling was delivered by a Single Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas while deciding a criminal appeal filed by accused persons who had challenged their conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court.
While examining the scope of Section 442 IPC, the Court closely analysed the statutory provisions governing police stations in Kerala. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed,
“Section 6(2) of the KP Act stipulates that there must be sufficient storage space for the safe keeping of articles in custody, official records and official arms and ammunition and even sufficient facilities for the safe custody of the accused and those in custody. A combined reading of the above statutory provisions makes it explicit that police stations in Kerala can be regarded also as buildings used for the custody of property, thereby satisfying the definition of house under section 442 IPC.”
The Court further clarified the legal position by stating that although people may sleep inside a police station at night or may even offer prayers there, such facts do not convert it into a residential building or a place of worship.
The Bench categorically held that a police station cannot be treated as a building used for human dwelling or as a place of worship, even if such activities are occasionally carried out within its premises.
The criminal case arose from an incident connected to an election to the Service Co-operative Bank at Ottasekharamangalam. According to the prosecution, on 16 August 2009 at around 9.15 pm, a group led by the first accused created a public nuisance at Vazhichal junction.
The prosecution further alleged that later the same night, at about 9.45 pm, the first accused led a group of 14 persons who formed an unlawful assembly and entered the Aryancode police station.
It was alleged that the group indulged in rioting inside the police station while being armed with deadly weapons. During the incident, the accused were accused of assaulting police personnel on duty and outraging the modesty of a woman police constable who was posted as a sentry.
The prosecution also alleged that obscene words were shouted and that accused numbers 2 and 3 attempted to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder by kicking a policeman on his vital parts, which could have resulted in death if not prevented.
Further allegations included wrongful restraint of another policeman, damage to his name plate and whistle cord, and destruction of chairs and the collapsible grill gate of the police station.
The total damage caused to government property was assessed at ₹15,000. On the basis of these allegations, the accused were charged under several provisions of the IPC, including Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 332, 308, 294(b), 354 and 427, along with Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.
The Trial Court acquitted accused numbers 4 and 6 to 14, but convicted accused numbers 1 to 3, though they were acquitted of the charge under Section 308 IPC. Aggrieved by the conviction, accused numbers 1 to 3 approached the Kerala High Court in appeal.
While deciding the appeal, the High Court examined whether an unlawful assembly had actually been proved by the prosecution.
The Court observed,
“… it is competent for a court to come to a conclusion that there was an unlawful assembly of five or more persons, even if the number of convicted persons is less than that, provided, the evidence adduced by the prosecution discloses the existence of other persons as part of the unlawful assembly. Further, the court must be convinced that there were other persons involved in the assembly, who numbered totally more than five.”
However, after analysing the evidence on record, the Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the existence of a common object shared by at least five persons, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 141 IPC.
The Bench held that merely being present together is not enough to constitute an unlawful assembly. It stated that the prosecution evidence was insufficient to prove that five or more persons had a shared intention to commit any of the offences alleged.
The Court observed that in the absence of proof of a common object, the charges relating to unlawful assembly could not stand. It clearly held,
“Thus, it cannot be held that there was an unlawful assembly and hence, section 143, 147 and 148 are not attracted, while accused 2 and 3 cannot be roped in under section 149 IPC”.
The High Court then examined the argument raised by the accused that Section 452 IPC, which deals with house trespass after preparation for hurt, was not applicable since a police station is not a “house”. The Court rejected this contention and held that if a police station falls under any of the categories of buildings mentioned in Section 442 IPC, the offence under Section 452 IPC would apply.
The Bench observed,
“A police station is no doubt a building. … Thus, the consideration narrows down to whether a police station can be regarded as a building used for the custody of property. Section 2(s) of Cr.P.C defines a police station as “any post or place declared generally, or specially by the State Government, to be a police station………”. Section 5 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 (for short ‘the KP Act’) provides for establishment of police stations while section 6 deals with facilities at police stations”.
On appreciation of evidence, the Court found that all witnesses consistently spoke about the involvement of the first accused in entering the police station. However, there were serious contradictions regarding the role and presence of accused numbers 2 and 3.
The Court therefore held,
“It is therefore evident that the first accused had entered the police station and it being a place for custody of articles, the offence section 452 IPC gets attracted as against the first accused. As far as second and third accused are concerned, there is no convincing evidence to come to a conclusion that they trespassed into the police station. They are hence entitled for the benefit of doubt”.
The Court also examined the charge under Section 354 IPC relating to outraging the modesty of a woman police constable. It held that there was no reliable evidence to show that criminal force was used with the intention of outraging her modesty. Consequently, the accused could not be convicted for that offence.
Regarding the injuries sustained by the accused, the Court observed that the prosecution had satisfactorily explained them, despite the injuries being minor in nature.
ALSO READ: Justice Sameer Jain Recuses from Azam Khan 2016 Eviction Case, Trial Stay Continues
The Bench concluded,
“The nature of evidence adduced by the prosecution as well as the defence, persuades this Court to conclude that the injuries on the body of the accused, despite being very minor had even been explained satisfactorily by the prosecution”.
Ultimately, the Kerala High Court upheld the conviction of the first accused under Sections 452 and 323 IPC, while setting aside his conviction under the remaining provisions. Accused numbers 2 and 3 were acquitted of all charges. The criminal appeal was therefore partly allowed.
The appellants were represented by Advocates S. Rajeev, V. Vinay, M.S. Aneer, Sarath K.P., Prerith Philip Joseph, Anilkumar C.R., K.S. Kiran Krishnan, and Abdul Rasheed N. The State was represented by Public Prosecutor Sreeja V.
Case Title:
Binu Thankappan & Ors. v. State of Kerala
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:91907.
Click Here to Read More Reports On House Trespass
