House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint
Section 333 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint. Whoever commits house-trespass, having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting any person in fear of hurt, or of assault, or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
Whoever commits house-trespass, having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting any person in fear of hurt, or of assault, or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 333, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 452 House-trespass alter preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint Text carried over almost unchanged 95%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
How this offence is classified
From the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which classifies every offence under the Sanhita. Cognizable means a police officer may arrest without warrant; bailable means bail is a matter of right rather than of the court's discretion.
| Offence | Punishment | Cognizable | Bailable | Triable by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| House-trespass, having made preparation for causing hurt, assault, etc. | Imprisonment for 7 years and fine. | Cognizable. | Non-bailable. | Any Magistrate. |
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.
-
Dharmatma Singh vs Harminder Singh
Decided under Indian Penal Code 452, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The High Court cannot exercise its inherent power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash criminal proceedings at an interlocutory stage when the Magistrate has not yet applied judicial mind to the police reports filed under Section 173 and Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Magistrate has the statutory duty and judicial discretion to independently evaluate all police reports (both initial and further investigation reports) and determine whether to take cognizance of offences, regardless of police recommendations. The High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 cannot be exercised to circumvent or short-circuit the Magistrate's statutory role. Exercise of Section 482 powers before a Magistrate applies judicial mind to the merits of the case would violate the procedural hierarchy and legislative scheme of the Criminal Procedure Code.
On this section: These sections were cited as the substantive criminal charges against the appellant and respondents - relating to criminal intimidation, causing hurt and grievous hurt. The court noted these charges were subject matter of the dispute regarding self-defence applicability.
-
Dilbagh Singh vs State of Punjab
Decided under Indian Penal Code 452, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused is not named in the First Information Report and identification is sought to be established for the first time in court after a long interval, the prosecution must arrange a test identification parade as a matter of procedural safeguard and criminal jurisprudence. Conviction cannot be sustained on the sole basis of courtroom identification without such a parade, especially when the circumstances and logic (such as the first informant being from the same small village) render the identification inherently unreliable. The burden of proof always remains on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; it is not the accused's obligation to prove innocence through defence evidence. Circumstantial evidence and motive must be positively established; assertion without material on record is insufficient.
On this section: House trespass with intent to commit offence - applied for unlawful entry into the family residence
-
Hakkim vs State Tr. Dy. Supdt. of Police
Decided under Indian Penal Code 452, 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 in Order to Commit an Offense Punishable with Life or 7+ Years Imprisonment, Where the House-Breaking Causes Hurt to Any Person - Initially charged but conviction recorded under more specific Section 449.
-
Goudappa vs State of Karnataka
Decided under Indian Penal Code 452, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When several persons assemble together and one of them commits murder in furtherance of their collective purpose, those who merely hold or restrain the victim to facilitate the assault can be held liable as joint perpetrators under Section 34 IPC if the totality of circumstances, including the manner of crime, their conduct, the weapons used, and their failure to prevent the fatal assault, demonstrates that they shared a common intention with the actual perpetrator to cause death. Common intention can be inferred from such circumstances even without prior explicit agreement when the incriminating facts are incompatible with innocence and incapable of explanation on any other reasonable hypothesis.
On this section: Criminal intimidation, mischief, voluntarily causing hurt - charged but appellants acquitted of these charges; focus remained on murder conviction.
-
Gajraj vs State(nct) of Delhi
Decided under Indian Penal Code 452, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Every mobile handset possesses an exclusive and unchangeable IEMI (International Mobile Equipment Identity) number. When a mobile handset is used for making calls, service providers record both the caller's number and the called number, along with the IEMI numbers of the handsets used. This IEMI data constitutes scientific and irrefutable evidence. When an accused person is identified as using the deceased victim's mobile handset (identified by its unique IEMI number) with the accused's own registered SIM number immediately after the commission of the murder, and when the same handset and the murder weapon are recovered from the accused's custody, such digital forensic evidence, combined with recovery of stolen property and evidence of temporal nexus to the crime, conclusively establishes the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Even minor or serious discrepancies in oral testimony cannot diminish the evidentiary value of such conclusive scientific evidence. Therefore, conviction based on such digital forensic evidence, physical recovery, and circumstantial evidence meeting the standard of proof is legally sound and must be upheld.
On this section: Applied for house trespass, charge ultimately dismissed in trial court
-
George Pon Paul vs Kanagalet
Decided under Indian Penal Code 452, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While the mandatory nature of custodial sentence under Section 326 IPC for causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons is established and trial courts cannot impose only fine as punishment, appellate courts in exercise of their equitable jurisdiction may consider the extraordinary passage of time, victim compensation already provided, and fine already deposited as relevant factors in determining whether to execute additional custodial sentence beyond time already undergone, thereby balancing the demands of statutory mandates with principles of equitable justice.
On this section: House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint was applied to establish the aggravated nature of the offense where the accused entered the home with preparation to cause hurt. This section was cited in conjunction with Section 326 to establish the seriousness of the criminal conduct, as the trespass was not casual but undertaken with premeditation to commit violence.
-
Arun vs State by Inspector of Police, T. Nadu
Decided under Indian Penal Code 452, 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 with intent to commit offence; charged in FIR
-
State of U. P vs Veer Singh
Decided under Indian Penal Code 452, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a person who makes a statement believed to be a dying declaration subsequently survives, such statement must be treated under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and not as a dying declaration under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Such statements can be used only for corroboration under Section 157 or for contradiction under Section 155 of the Evidence Act, and not as substantive evidence. Therefore, the acquittal of accused persons solely on the ground that they were not named in such a limited statement, when they were named in the FIR and other evidence of their involvement exists, constitutes a manifest error of law and is indefensible. Appellate courts must apply their mind objectively to all evidence on record and not dispose of appeals on erroneous or incomplete analysis of evidence.
On this section: House-trespass with intent to commit an offence punishable with life imprisonment or seven years imprisonment; applied in the conviction
-
Narendra vs State of U. P
Decided under Indian Penal Code 452, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When death occurs significantly delayed (62 days) after a single bullet injury to the head, and the proximate cause of death is septicaemia (infection) rather than the direct impact of the bullet injury itself, the conviction under Section 302 IPC (murder) cannot be sustained. Instead, the appropriate conviction is under Section 304 Part I IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) if the evidence establishes that the accused had the intention to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, particularly when no medical expert opinion is elicited that the injury itself was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The chain of causation is broken by the intervention of septicaemia and other complications that arise after a considerable delay.
On this section: Conviction under this section (criminal intimidation/house trespass/burglary) was affirmed. This section applied because the appellants entered Roop Singh's house at night with intent to commit an offence.
-
Gurcharan Singh @ Billa vs State of Punjab
Decided under Indian Penal Code 452, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving non-heinous offences of a predominantly private nature where the parties have genuinely compromised after conviction and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings, the High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings and set aside the conviction and sentence, provided the court exercises such discretion with rectitude, keeping in view the circumstances surrounding the incident, the fashion in which the compromise has been arrived at, and the nature and seriousness of the offence. The touchstone for exercising this extraordinary power is to secure the ends of justice. However, grave or serious offences involving moral turpitude or having a harmful effect on the social and moral fabric of society cannot be compounded or quashed through compromise.
On this section: House-trespass or house-breaking in order to commit offence punishable with life imprisonment or 7 years imprisonment; cited in the FIRs
-
Sewa Singh @ Nanha vs State of Haryana
Decided under Indian Penal Code 452, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Human teeth cannot be considered as an instrument for cutting or weapon of offence as enumerated under Section 326 IPC. Therefore, injury caused by biting should be classified under Section 325 IPC (voluntary hurt) rather than Section 326 IPC (grievous hurt by weapon). The appropriate sentence for such injury, even if causing permanent deformation, should be proportionate to the nature of the offense and consider the accused's criminal history, duration of prosecution, and bail conduct.
On this section: House-trespass with intent to commit offence - applied to the facts of the case where accused entered the victim's house
-
Dhara Singh vs State Of Rajasthan
Decided under Indian Penal Code 452, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When members of an unlawful assembly armed with lethal weapons gather to take forcible possession of disputed land, they form a common object to dispossess the occupants. While the common object is limited to taking possession, the members of the assembly know that grievous injuries are likely to be caused in prosecution of this object. Therefore, all members are vicariously liable under Section 149 IPC for offences under Sections 326/149, 325/149, 324/149, 323/149, 452, 447, and 148 IPC. However, if one or more members exceed the common object by causing fatal injuries resulting in death, only those members who directly caused the fatal injuries are liable for murder under Section 302 IPC, not all members of the assembly. The delay in sending the FIR to the magistrate, combined with lack of specific role attribution to female members, justifies their acquittal on grounds of abundant caution. The protracted trial duration constitutes a mitigating circumstance in sentencing.
On this section: House-trespass with intent to commit offence; applied to accused who entered disputed land with weapons
-
Harbans Lal vs State of Punjab
Decided under Indian Penal Code 452, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Once a probation period imposed by a lower court has been completed by the convicted persons, a revision petition challenging the grant of probation becomes infructuous, and the High Court need not examine the legality or propriety of the probation order. The completion of the probation period renders the revision petition moot and without practical effect.
On this section: Sections under which the 15 accused were convicted - relating to criminal intimidation, criminal breach of trust, endangering life, mischief, and rioting
-
Dinesh vs State of Rajasthan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When investigation in a criminal case is completed, challan is filed, and there is a high probability of prolonged trial proceedings, bail may be granted to the accused even in cases involving serious charges, provided appropriate conditions are imposed to ensure appearance and prevent abuse of the bail.
On this section: Offences alleged against the petitioner; these sections relate to criminal intimidation, causing hurt, voluntarily causing grievous hurt, and other violent offenses
-
Gaurav vs State of Hp
Decided under Indian Penal Code 452, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Security proceedings under Sections 107 and 150 CrPC are preventive in nature and do not bar subsequent FIR registration for cognizable offences arising from the same incident. Discharge in security proceedings is not acquittal and does not attract the prohibition of double jeopardy under Section 300 CrPC. A person discharged in preventive proceedings may be prosecuted for criminal offences based on the same facts. The High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings, should only examine whether allegations prima facie constitute an offence without conducting a mini-trial or appreciating evidence. Contradictions in complaint or complainant statement are not grounds for quashing FIR at threshold stage.
On this section: House-trespass with intent to commit offence - applied to entering informant's house and damaging gate and door
-
Harbans Lal vs State of Punjab
Decided under Indian Penal Code 452, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A revision petition challenging the grant of probation becomes infructuous and cannot be entertained once the probation period has been completed by the accused, as the court cannot grant the relief sought (cancellation of probation and enhancement of sentence) when the probation has already been undergone. In such circumstances, the court need not examine the legality or propriety of the original probation order.
On this section: Criminal intimidation - used to convict all 15 accused persons with 1 year imprisonment
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.
Questions about Section 333
What have the courts held on Section 333 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Dharmatma Singh vs Harminder Singh (10 May 2011) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 452, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: These sections were cited as the substantive criminal charges against the appellant and respondents - relating to criminal intimidation, causing hurt and grievous hurt. The court noted these charges were subject matter of the dispute regarding self-defence applicability. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 9 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2004 to 2025.
Is Section 333 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
Non-bailable, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Is Section 333 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita cognizable?
Cognizable. "Cognizable" means a police officer may arrest without warrant; "non-cognizable" that they may not. An offence under this section is triable by Any Magistrate.
How do I find court cases under Section 333 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BNS 333, section 333 BNS, section 333 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 333 is bailable or not and bns 333 in ipc in hindi. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Dharmatma Singh vs Harminder Singh (10 May 2011).
What should I read with Section 333 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
It carries forward IPC 452 (House-trespass alter preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 333 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 333 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 333, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 2. Definitions2199 words
- 356. Defamation1543 words
- 335. Making a false document1318 words
- 101. Murder1177 words
- 303. Theft1104 words
- 3. General explanations858 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.