Trespass to the person is generally consider s a unreasonable interference with the body of a person which can be cause by a actual harm which include use of force, or by an apprehension of force.
Trespass to the person is further divided into Assault and Battery
Battery: Battery is considered as an intentional application of force to another person without any lawful justification. Essential element of Battery
If there is battery then the essential element is use of force. Even if the force use is very trivial and does not cause any harm, the wrong will be still committed. There is no needing have prove physical hurt and even though there is no physical hurt it would be still counted as the battery.
In Innes v. Wylie case there is a policeman u lawfully prevented the plaintiff from entering the club premises. It was held that the police man was entirely passive like a door or a wall put to prevent from entering the room there was no assault.
And the use of force is should be without any lawful justification. That means use of force is should be intentional and without any lawful justification.
In pratap Daji v. B.B. and C.I. Ry the plaintiff entered a carriage on the defendant railway but the oversight failed to purchase a ticket for his travel. At an international station, he asked for a ticket but the same was refused at another palace, he was asked to get out of the carriage since he did not have a ticket. On his refusal to get out the carriage since he did not have a ticket. On his refusal to get out, force was used to make him get out of the carriage, in an action by him for his forcible removal, it was held that the use of force was justified as he, being without a ticket, was a trespasser, the defendant were therefore not liable.
Assault: It means that it is an act of a defendant which cause to the plaintiff reasonable apprehension of the infliction of a battery on him by defendant.
In Bavisetti Venkata Surya Rao v. Nandipati Muthayya the plaintiff well to do agriculturist was in arrears of land revenue amounting to Rs. 11.60 the village munsif who had a duty collection of the amount went to the plaintiff residence for the collection of amount. On demand being made the plaintiff pleaded his inability to pay the amount that day as his wife had locked and go out for few days. The defendant insists to have the payment the very day that begins the last day of the year for the collection of revenue. The plaintiffs were told that on his failure to pay his movable property will be detrained. Since the plaintiff house was locked and no other movable were readily available the defendant told him that the earring which the plaintiff was wearing would be distained. The village goldsmith was called on arrival of the goldsmith one of the person present there paid off the amount due from the plaintiff by borrowing the same from another person. The defendant then went away quickly. The plaintiff sued the village munsif alleging that part from other wrongs the defendant had committed assault. It was held that since the defendant after the arrival of the goldsmith said nothing and did nothing and the threat of use of force by the goldsmith to the plaintiff was too remote a possibility to have put the plaintiff in fear of immediate or instant violence, there was no assault.