Contemplating the legislation and proof, the Excessive Court docket famous that the principal query was whether or not the conviction underneath Part 450 of the IPC may be sustained when the trial court docket has dominated the connection to be consensual.
The Court docket examined the definition of prison trespass underneath Part 441 of the IPC and located that intention on the time of entry is the determinative issue.
Mere entry into property shouldn’t be ample to make out a case of prison trespass underneath Part 450 of the IPC, the Court docket famous. Somewhat, there should be an intention to commit a prison offence punishable with life imprisonment.
“The realized Trial Court docket proceeded on the reasoning that the sufferer, being the spouse of the informant, had no proper to allow the appellant to enter the home throughout the absence of her husband, and that even when the connection was consensual, such entry was unlawful. Nevertheless, prison legal responsibility should be based strictly upon statutory elements and never upon issues of ethical or social impropriety,” the Bench mentioned.
Paying attention to the Supreme Court docket verdict that dominated that criminalising adultery was unconstitutional, the Court docket added,
“As soon as the realized Trial Court docket has recorded a discovering that the connection between the appellant and the sufferer was consensual in nature, the mere undeniable fact that the sufferer was a married girl can not render the entry ipso facto prison in order to draw Part 450 IPC.”
