Theft in dwelling house, etc
Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with theft in dwelling house, etc. Whoever commits theft in any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or used for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1862. Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
Whoever commits theft in any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or used for the custody of property, 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 380, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 305 Theft in a dwelling house, or means of transportation or place of worship, etc Close, with changes 83%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
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.
-
Benson vs State of Kerala
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a person is convicted of multiple offences arising from crimes committed on the same day and the sentences imposed are relatively short in duration, the court has discretionary power under Section 427(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code to direct that the subsequent sentences run concurrently with a sentence already being served, provided such discretion is exercised judicially considering the nature and number of offences. The benefit of concurrent sentencing may be restricted to substantive sentences while default sentences and fine sentences continue to run consecutively.
On this section: Offence of theft in dwelling house - applied in case CC 1270/13
-
Benson vs State of Kerala
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a person is convicted in multiple cases for offences committed on the same day, and each case is separately tried and sentenced consecutively, the Supreme Court, exercising its discretionary power under Section 427(1) Code of Criminal Procedure, can direct that the substantive sentences in such cases shall run concurrently with the earliest sentence already operative. This discretion must be exercised on judicial grounds considering the nature of offences, the date of commission, and the aggregate sentence burden, rather than in a mechanical manner. However, such direction for concurrent running applies only to substantive sentences of imprisonment and does not extend to sentences imposed in default of payment of fines, which continue to run consecutively to ensure compliance with financial obligations imposed by courts.
On this section: Theft in dwelling house - cited as a variant of theft offence
-
Benson vs State of Kerala
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a person has been convicted and sentenced to separate terms of imprisonment for multiple offences committed on the same date, the appellate or revisional court may exercise its discretion under Section 427(1) CrPC to direct that such sentences run concurrently with an operative sentence, provided that the nature of the offences, the fact situation, the quantum of sentences, and the timing of the underlying acts warrant such a direction. The exercise of discretion must be based on judicial reasoning and consideration of the specific circumstances, not on mechanical application of rules. However, the benefit of concurrent running shall be confined to substantive sentences; sentences of fine and default sentences shall continue to run consecutively unless otherwise directed.
On this section: Offence of theft in dwelling house - mentioned in prison records for one earlier crime (CC 1270/13) but not directly analyzed
-
Gajraj vs State(nct) of Delhi
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 theft charges, but accused acquitted of this charge
-
State of Rajasthan vs Kailash
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Possession of photocopies of stolen documents does not constitute receiving or possessing 'stolen property' as defined under Section 410 I.P.C. Photocopies are distinct items from the original stolen property, and without intention to receive tangible moveable stolen property and without prior concert or conspiracy, individuals cannot be prosecuted under Sections 411 or 414 I.P.C. merely for possessing reproductions of stolen originals. Penal offences cannot be created or expanded through interpretative processes; such expansion requires explicit legislative action.
On this section: Theft - Charged against all accused persons in connection with the theft of question papers
-
Senthil Kumar Etc vs State of Tamil Nadu
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
On the cumulative reading of eyewitness evidence corroborated by independent testimony and strong circumstantial evidence (including vehicle parking records, fingerprint matches, identification parades, and recovery of stolen property), the conviction for murder and theft under Sections 120-B, 302, and 380 IPC stands sustained and justified, even when the eyewitness has delayed in reporting due to trauma from witnessing a gruesome crime.
On this section: Theft - Applied to convict the accused for stealing Rs. 82,620 from the shop drawer during the course of committing murder
-
Azeez vs State of Kerala
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: Theft in dwelling house - the primary offence for which the appellant was convicted; defined as theft committed in a building which is used as a human dwelling or in part of which human beings generally reside
-
Vishnu @ Gabbar Prahaladbhai Dantani v. State of Gujarat
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Final Order order-1.pdf 2025-05-09 DATE VERIFIED. Crl A 88/2011 (common oral with Crl A 62, 90, 781/2011). Ilesh J. Vora / Sandeep N. Bhatt DB. Isolates IPC 380 ingredients: theft in a building used as a human dwelling or for custody of property (Jain temple theft of ornaments). Acquits A1/A2 of 380/457 because confession to police is barred, panchnamas were not proved, and there is no evidence they committed the theft. Map ipc 380 cited only. Do not successor-map ipc 380 → bns 305 (close 0.8276). Do not pad 457 (already filled).
On this section: IPC 380 is theft from a building used as a human dwelling or for custody of property; a temple-ornament theft fails without proved dishonest taking (Vishnu @ Gabbar).
-
Irfan Ali v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Final Order order-1.pdf 2015-07-20 DATE VERIFIED. WP 4263/2015. Sheel Nagu J. FIR 80/2015 under 454/380/294/506. Isolates IPC 380: theft in a dwelling house is relatable to possession, not ownership — even if the complainant’s title is disputed, 380 can proceed so long as he was in physical/constructive possession of the house and articles. Petition to quash rejected. Map ipc 380 cited only. Do not successor-map ipc 380 → bns 305 (close). Do not pad 454.
On this section: IPC 380 theft in a dwelling turns on possession, not title (Irfan Ali).
-
Kasha vs State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While a High Court in a criminal revision petition may not interfere with a conviction that is based on due appreciation of evidence and concurrent findings of courts below, it has the discretion to reduce the sentence where substantial mitigating circumstances exist, including the offender's status as a first-time offender, his role as sole breadwinner of the family, and time already spent in custody. The court must balance the gravity of the offence against these mitigating factors to ensure that the ends of justice are served.
On this section: Offence of theft in dwelling house or other building. Applied to the stealing of mobile phone repair shop items including chargers, screens, batteries, and mobile sets.
-
Sarabjeet Singh @ Binny vs State
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal proceedings, the question of restoration of possession of immovable property cannot be decided in a writ petition before trial. Restoration of possession can only be ordered under Section 456 CrPC after conviction of the accused. Disputes relating to possession and title of immovable property are civil matters which must be adjudicated by Civil Courts, not criminal courts. Criminal courts have limited jurisdiction to determine only whether illegal dispossession occurred as a criminal act, not to adjudicate civil rights to possession.
On this section: Offence of theft - basis of FIR registration against petitioners
-
Manzoor Ilahi Khan Muhammad Khan vs The State of Maharashtra Thr. City Kotwali Police Station Akola
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The mere presence of civil elements or civil flavour in a dispute does not provide grounds for quashing criminal proceedings. When allegations constitute criminal offences under the Indian Penal Code (such as housebreaking and theft), the criminal process must proceed independently of any civil remedies available to the parties. The court will not quash an FIR merely because the underlying facts involve property rights or civil disputes.
On this section: Offence of theft - applied to the allegation that the petitioner removed belongings of the respondent No. 2 from the premises
-
Roop Narain Mishra vs State
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In a criminal theft case, even if prosecution witnesses turn hostile or are won over by the defence, conviction can be secured if the stolen articles are recovered at the instance of the accused through recovery memos, and the trial court commits error by acquitting the accused solely on the ground of witness hostility without properly evaluating the recovery evidence and other circumstances of the case.
On this section: Theft - The accused were charged under this section for stealing gas cylinders; the court examined whether recovery evidence could support conviction under this provision despite witness hostility
-
Roshan Ali @ Sonu vs State of Chhattisgarh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an applicant in a criminal revision petition has already served a substantial portion of the imposed sentence and has faced prolonged criminal trial spanning more than a decade, the High Court may exercise its discretionary power to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone if it finds that such time served is sufficient to meet the ends of justice, particularly considering the applicant's age, rehabilitation potential, and the absence of any useful purpose in further incarceration.
On this section: Theft - maintained in both trial and appellate court convictions
-
Haryana Police vs Pankaj
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Failure to join independent witnesses during a recovery from a busy public place, coupled with the non-production of the case property in court, creates a reasonable doubt that entitles the accused to acquittal.
On this section: Offences of theft, house-breaking, and dishonestly receiving stolen property.
-
Syed Sarjil Sayyad Harun vs The State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When eyewitness testimony fails to corroborate the involvement of an accused in a criminal act, and material investigation is complete, bail may be granted if the evidence creates reasonable doubt about the accused's participation in the alleged crime, particularly where the absence of identification evidence is significant.
On this section: Theft - applicable to the alleged criminal conduct of stealing property
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.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… Singh (Accused No.1), Ram Nandan Singh (Accused No.2), Raj Nandan Singh (Accused No.3), Shyam Nandan Singh (Accused No.4), Bhagwan Singh (Accused No. 5), Vijay Singh (Accused No. 6) and Tanik Singh (Accused No.7). 2. The Trial Court charged all seven accused persons for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 302, 364, 449, 450, 380/34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860[2]( page-1-1) . Later, accused nos. 6 and 7 were distinctly charged for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 342, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. After trial, the Trial Court, vide order dated 05.06.1992, convicted the accused persons listed as accused …
-
… Relevant facts are as follows: 3.1. Punjab Agro Foodgrains Corporation Ltd., Bathinda, lodged a complaint on 18.12.2012 at Police Station, Phul, District Bathinda against one Devraj Miglani<sup>2</sup> which was registered as FIR No.91/2012 under Sections 406, 409, 420, 457, 380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860<sup>3</sup> and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988<sup>4</sup> with the allegations that Devraj had misappropriated paddy worth Rs.4.18 crores. The investigation of the said FIR was transferred to the Vigilance Bureau, Bathinda on 2nd …
-
… Singh (Accused No.1), Ram Nandan Singh (Accused No.2), Raj Nandan Singh (Accused No.3), Shyam Nandan Singh (Accused No.4), Bhagwan Singh (Accused No. 5), Vijay Singh (Accused No. 6) and Tanik Singh (Accused No.7). 2. The Trial Court charged all seven accused persons for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 302, 364, 449, 450, 380/34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860[2]( page-1-1) . Later, accused nos. 6 and 7 were distinctly charged for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 342, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. After trial, the Trial Court, vide order dated 05.06.1992, convicted the accused persons listed as accused …
Questions about Section 380
What have the courts held on Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code?
Benson vs State of Kerala (03 Oct 2016) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Offence of theft in dwelling house - applied in case CC 1270/13. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 7 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2006 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code?
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: IPC 380, section 380 IPC, section 380 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 380 in bns and ipc 380 punishment. 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 Benson vs State of Kerala (03 Oct 2016).
What should I read with Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
3 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 305 (Theft in a dwelling house, or means of transportation or place of worship, etc), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 380, came into force on 01 Jan 1862, having been enacted on 06 Oct 1860. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 499. Defamation1512 words
- 464. Making a false document1223 words
- 300. Murder1172 words
- 378. Theft980 words
- 108. Abettor745 words
- 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property727 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. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 7b7d4fe6-206b-4e33-81f1-b98b018acaf6). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.