House-trespass in order to commit offence

Related judgements & precedents

These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.

1. Commissioner of Police vs Shiv Singh

   Supreme Court of India 25 Aug 2021 Binding (SC) Reportable

   Decided under Indian Penal Code 451, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   Acquittal or discharge in criminal proceedings does not per se entitle a candidate to consideration for public service appointment, particularly in police recruitment. The Screening Committee has discretion to assess suitability based on the nature of charges, circumstances of the case, and whether acquittal resulted from serious flaws in prosecution or hostile witnesses. Judicial review of such decisions is limited to grounds of mala fides, illegality, or mindlessness; courts cannot conduct intensive factual scrutiny or second-guess the suitability determination made by the designated public employer authority.

   On this section: House-trespass; charged against Raj Kumar; listed in Annexure A as offence against property

   Read the full order on eCourts India

2. Vidhya Rattan vs The State of Haryana Home Department Chief Secretary

   Supreme Court of India 06 Aug 2019 Binding (SC) Reportable

   Decided under Indian Penal Code 449, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   For the application of Section 149 IPC, it is not necessary to explicitly invoke Section 141 IPC in the charge sheet. What is essential is that the ingredients of unlawful assembly as defined in Section 141 IPC must be proven. An unlawful assembly requires: (i) an assembly of at least five persons, and (ii) a common object to commit an offence or achieve any of the objects enumerated in Section 141. The common object is to be gathered from the circumstances of each case such as time, place, and conduct of the gathering. Once the existence of an unlawful assembly with a common object is proven, all members of that assembly are vicariously liable under Section 149 IPC for offences committed in prosecution of that common object, regardless of whether each member inflicted a specific injury or even any injury at all. Mere presence in the unlawful assembly with knowledge of the common object is sufficient for vicarious liability.

   On this section: Deals with house-trespass. Appellants were convicted under this section as they entered the under-construction house of the deceased.

   Read the full order on eCourts India

3. Munna vs State of M. P

   Supreme Court of India 16 Sep 2014 Binding (SC) Reportable

   Decided under Indian Penal Code 450, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   While the testimony of a prosecutrix in a sexual assault case deserves significant weight and can be the basis for conviction even without corroboration, such conviction cannot be sustained when the prosecutrix's statement has inherent infirmities and the totality of circumstances creates doubt about the veracity of the prosecution version. The presence of major discrepancies between initial allegations and trial version, the victim's own subsequent retraction, complete absence of medical or physical corroborative evidence, internal contradictions in the victim's testimony, and evidence of motive for false accusation collectively create a situation where the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.

   On this section: House breaking with intent to commit offense; conviction under this section was also set aside due to evidentiary infirmities

   Read the full order on eCourts India

4. Hakkim vs State Tr. Dy. Supdt. of Police

   Supreme Court of India 06 Aug 2014 Persuasive (Other Supreme Court Decision) Reportable

   Decided under Indian Penal Code 449, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   When multiple accused enter a premises with preplanned weapons and execute a coordinated attack resulting in death and injuries, the use of multiple weapons is established by: (1) eyewitness testimony of victims present at the scene; (2) the distribution and severity of injuries across multiple parts of the body and across multiple victims; and (3) recovery of all weapons at the crime scene. Forensic testing of only one weapon does not negate the use of multiple weapons. Therefore, Sections 109 and 149 IPC are validly invoked, and all accused are liable for murder under Section 302 IPC even if one person inflicted the fatal wound. Additionally, persons who commit murder while under 18 years of age are entitled to juvenile justice protections including maximum detention of 3 years, and if this period is exceeded, immediate release must be ordered notwithstanding confirmation of conviction.

   On this section: House-Breaking or House-Trespass in Order to Commit an Offense Punishable with Life or 7+ Years Imprisonment - Applied to all four accused as they forcibly entered George's house with intent to commit murder. All convicted and sentenced to 5 years RI.

   Read the full order on eCourts India

5. Sukhraj Singh vs Sanjiv Kumar @ Gora

   Supreme Court of India 19 Mar 2015 Persuasive (Supreme Court - Non-Binding for Future on Specific Facts; Binding as Reportable

   Decided under Indian Penal Code 450, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   The conviction of Sanjiv Kumar under Sections 395, 450, and 342 IPC is legally sustainable as it is supported by credible prosecution evidence including eyewitness testimony, documentary evidence, and investigative findings; the separate acquittal or relief granted to a co-offender in a different proceeding does not invalidate the conviction of another accused if the evidence against that accused is independently reliable and credible; sentencing for criminal offences must balance the need for just punishment with proportionality between the offence and penalty, considering the impact on society and the victim, and mere passage of time since the incident without exceptional circumstances does not warrant further sentence reduction beyond what the trial and appellate courts have determined.

   On this section: Criminal trespass to commit dacoity - conviction upheld for trespass into premises of Wadhawan Forex for committing robbery

   Read the full order on eCourts India

6. Jaswinder Singh vs State of Punjab

   Supreme Court of India 07 Jul 2009 Persuasive (Other High Court / Supreme Court Guidance) Reportable

   Decided under Indian Penal Code 449, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   A solitary eyewitness testimony, when the eyewitness had direct observation of the alleged perpetrators at close quarters for a reasonable duration, participated in grappling with the accused, sustained injuries from their acts, and the evidence is corroborated by medical evidence, is sufficient to establish the identity of the accused and secure conviction beyond reasonable doubt without a formal Test Identification Parade, provided the eyewitness's evidence is found to be credible, reliable, and trustworthy by the court.

   On this section: Wrongful restraint - when a person wrongfully restrains or confines another

   Read the full order on eCourts India

7. Arun vs State by Inspector of Police, T. Nadu

   Supreme Court of India 11 Dec 2008 Binding (SC)

   Decided under Indian Penal Code 449, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   Mere presence of an accused at the scene of crime without any overt act or evidence of prior meeting of minds cannot establish common intention under Section 34 IPC for vicarious liability of murder. The prosecution must prove that the accused shared a common intention with the principal offender either through pre-arrangement or by clear evidence of understanding developed at the spur of moment. In the absence of such evidence, the accused is liable only for their individual act, not for the act of the principal offender. An appellate court should not reverse an acquittal judgment unless there is compelling evidence that the trial court's view was unreasonable, as double presumption of innocence favours the acquitted accused.

   On this section: House-trespass by night in order to commit offence; charged but not proved

   Read the full order on eCourts India

8. Subash Chander vs Krishan Lal

   Supreme Court of India 29 Mar 2001 Persuasive (Supreme Court precedent on sentencing discretion and life imprisonme

   Decided under Indian Penal Code 450, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   In cases where evidence conclusively establishes guilt of accused for heinous crimes like murder of a sleeping family by persons previously involved in witness elimination, and where the High Court has exercised its discretion to commute death sentence to life imprisonment based on general conspectus of facts, the Supreme Court should not interfere with such discretion merely because a 'rarest of rare case' standard might be met. However, where there exists imminent danger to surviving family members from a desperate criminal and where the accused himself voluntarily undertakes on instructions that he shall never seek premature release or commutation, the court can impose an exceptional condition making the life sentence truly a natural life sentence from which no relief can be granted under any statute or jail rules. Life imprisonment in Indian law means imprisonment for the entire natural life of the convicted person unless commuted by the appropriate Government, and it does not automatically expire at the end of any specific period including 20 years.

   On this section: Criminal trespass; applied for the unauthorized entry into the house

   Read the full order on eCourts India

9. Azeez vs State of Kerala

   Supreme Court of India 23 Jan 2013 Persuasive (Supreme Court) Marked not reportable

   Decided under Indian Penal Code 451, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   In criminal cases, recovery of stolen property at the instance of an accused person cannot, by itself, form the sole basis for conviction if there are grave doubts regarding the actual involvement of the accused and if the basic narrative of the crime appears illogical and improbable. The court must carefully scrutinize the entire chain of circumstances and narrative to ensure that the conviction does not rest on assumptions or inferences that are contrary to reason and logic. When the only civilian witness capable of corroborating the recovery turns hostile and the prosecution relies solely on police witnesses in a case involving suspicious circumstances and delays of 16 days in realizing and reporting the theft, the conviction should be set aside and benefit of doubt granted to the accused.

   On this section: House-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment - alleged basis for conviction in place of Section 457; requires entry into a building with intent to commit an offence

   Read the full order on eCourts India

10. Sushil Kumar vs C.b.i.

    High Court 25 Apr 2006 Persuasive (Other High Court)

    Decided under Indian Penal Code 451, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.

    Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

    Section 319 CrPC must be exercised sparingly and only in rare cases where the court is satisfied that there exists a possibility that the accused to be summoned is in all likelihood would be convicted. Such satisfaction must be based on material evidence and cannot be based on conjectural or speculative grounds. The court cannot use Section 311 CrPC to introduce an entirely new case theory different from the original FIR or initial statements of the complainant. An order summoning a new accused under Section 319 CrPC, which adversely affects the rights of a person not originally a party to the proceedings and who would have no opportunity to challenge it after final judgment, is not an interlocutory order barred from revision under Section 397(2) CrPC and can be revised by the High Court.

    On this section: Criminal intimidation - charges framed against the bailiff for allegedly intimidating the judgment debtor during execution of warrant

    Read the full order on eCourts India

The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.