Kabir won a case after being charged with trespass. The likely reason for his victory is?

In a case of trespass, the determination of liability typically hinges on whether the act of trespass was intentional or unintentional. If Kabir's act was deemed unintentional, it could serve as a valid defense against the trespass claim. In many legal systems, for a successful claim of trespass, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant intentionally entered the property without permission or that the entry was negligent.

If Kabir's actions were found to be unintentional, he may not have had the requisite intent to commit trespass, which is often a necessary element to establish liability. Therefore, if the court determined that Kabir did not intentionally invade the property rights of the owner, this could explain his victory in the case, as it undermines the foundation of the trespass claim.

Factors like whether the property was private, whether the act was intentional, or whether the property was abandoned would influence the case but do not directly support the argument for a defense based on unintentional actions. The focus on intention is crucial for establishing or defending against a trespass claim.