Punishment for criminal trespass
Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with punishment for criminal trespass. Whoever commits criminal trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both. 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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 criminal trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
Section 447, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 329 Criminal trespass and house-trespass Close, with changes 78%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
-
The State of Kerala vs K. Ajith
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Elected representatives cannot claim immunity from criminal law on grounds of parliamentary privilege. Acts of destruction of public property committed by MLAs during protest inside the legislative assembly are not protected under Article 194 of the Constitution as they do not constitute essential legislative functions or proceedings of the House. The Public Prosecutor's power to withdraw prosecution under Section 321 CrPC must be exercised in furtherance of broad ends of public justice, and the court's supervisory function requires it to ensure that the application is made in good faith and does not suffer from improprieties or illegalities that would cause manifest injustice. Prior sanction of the Speaker is not required for prosecution of MLAs for offences committed within the assembly except where specifically mandated by statute such as Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The gravity of offence involving destruction of public property and its impact on public life must be considered when determining whether withdrawal of prosecution subserves administration of justice.
On this section: Criminal trespass; punishment up to three months imprisonment or fine
-
Hazara Singh vs Raj Kumar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In determining appropriate sentence for offences under Section 307 IPC (Attempt to Murder), courts must apply the principle of proportionality between the crime and punishment. Trial pendency and potential social enmity between parties cannot be valid grounds for reducing sentences, as such considerations would undermine the deterrent effect of criminal law, undermine public confidence in the justice system, and ignore society's collective cry for justice. The nature, gravity, and manner of commission of the offence, including the nature of weapons used, injuries inflicted, and factual circumstances, must be paramount considerations. High Court's appellate power to alter sentences must be exercised based on sound judicial principles and cannot be used to impose meager sentences based on irrelevant or untenable grounds.
On this section: Criminal trespass - applied for entering the field belonging to injured persons
-
Ram Pat vs State of Harayana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A purchaser of an undivided share in joint family property does not acquire any right to possession of the land; his only right is to sue for partition. Therefore, the accused persons, being purchasers of undivided shares, could not claim to be in 'settled possession' of the disputed agricultural land. The four essential attributes of settled possession as established in Puran Singh (actual physical possession over sufficiently long period, possession to knowledge of owner with animus possidendi, complete and final dispossession acquiesced in by owner, and for culturable land, growing of crop) must be read conjunctively. Since the accused did not satisfy these attributes and were wholly armed aggressors while the deceased party was not armed (except with a non-dangerous Kamari), they had no right of private defence and were therefore guilty of murder.
On this section: Applied for conviction relating to criminal intimidation and wrongful restraint in connection with the land trespass and assault incident.
-
Gali Janardhan Reddy vs The State of Andhra Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal cases involving serious offences and powerful accused persons with demonstrated capacity to influence witnesses and even judicial officers, even when the accused has complied with bail conditions over several years, territorial restrictions on the accused's movement may be maintained if there exists a credible apprehension of witness tampering. However, the court must balance this by mandating expedited trial proceedings conducted on a day-to-day basis and directing completion within a fixed period, so that the restrictions are not indefinite and delay does not itself become a tool for creating opportunities for witness influence. The expedited trial process serves as the counterbalance to maintaining territorial restrictions, ensuring that trial integrity is protected without indefinite curtailment of the accused's liberty.
On this section: Offence cited in charges against accused for unlawful entry
-
Kirender Sarkar vs State of Assam
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The naming of all accused persons in an FIR is not essential to the credibility of eyewitness testimony in criminal trials. When essentially material facts are disclosed in the FIR, that is sufficient. A person may be impleaded later if the factual scenario supports it, provided the court is satisfied that the impleading is not merely an afterthought. The crucial question is whether the evidence of eyewitnesses is clear, cogent, and consistent, and whether it is corroborated by other substantive evidence such as dying declarations. Non-naming of one or few accused persons in the FIR does not provide reason to disbelieve the testimony of crucial eyewitnesses.
On this section: Criminal trespass - convicting accused for unauthorized entry into school premises
-
Lattu Mahto vs State of Bihar (now Jharkhand)
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The conviction of accused persons cannot be sustained when the examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is defectively conducted and the specific accusations against each accused are not individually and clearly explained, thereby denying them the fundamental right to explanation as required by natural justice. Material circumstances appearing in evidence must be put to each accused person to enable them to explain such circumstances, and failure to do so may vitiate the entire trial if it results in miscarriage of justice. The court must ensure that proper and specific charges are framed and explained individually to each accused, and vague or general questions during Section 313 examination do not satisfy the statutory requirement to fairly enable the accused to explain circumstances against them.
On this section: Criminal trespass - part of original charge-sheet under examination.
-
Channabasappa vs State of Karnataka
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an axe is used in an assault but not from its sharp side, and co-accused are armed only with stones which cannot be considered weapons of offense, the conviction for causing grievous hurt under Section 326 IPC cannot be sustained. The appropriate conviction would be for causing simple hurt under Section 325 IPC. Additionally, in cases involving exceptional delay of 20 years from incident to final judgment, where appellants have already served a portion of sentence and progressed from youth to middle age, mitigation of sentence to the period already undergone is warranted as a matter of judicial discretion.
On this section: Criminal trespass - charged as accused went onto victim's land to commit the assault
-
Karam Singh vs State Of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal cases involving non-compoundable offences such as Section 307 IPC (Attempt to Murder), while the conviction cannot be set aside merely on the basis of compromise between parties, the compromise is a relevant and significant circumstance that the court must consider when determining the quantum of sentence. When parties who are residents of the same village and apparently related have settled their disputes amicably after a prolonged period, the court should take a lenient view on sentencing to enable the parties to live cordially together, provided the conviction is maintained to uphold the rule of law. Additionally, acquittals recorded by the trial court should not be reversed on appeal at a belated stage when the evidence was insufficient at trial and the parties have subsequently reconciled.
On this section: Criminal Trespass - Cited in FIR but not separately addressed in conviction
-
Dhara Singh vs State Of Rajasthan
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: Criminal trespass; applied to unauthorized entry into disputed agricultural land
-
Mohan Lal vs State
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a person is faced with criminal trespass on his property and reacts to protect his property and person, he has the right of private defence available to him. However, this right is circumscribed by law and cannot extend to causing death or grievous hurt unless there is reasonable apprehension that death or grievous hurt would otherwise be the consequence. If the person uses excessive force and causes death when the aggressor is not armed with a deadly weapon and there is no reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt, the act falls under Exception II of Section 300 IPC and is punishable under Section 304 Part-II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and not under Section 302 IPC (murder). The burden is on the accused to show that he had a right of private defence which extended to causing of death, and the court must examine all surrounding circumstances and view the entire incident in its proper setting to determine whether the right of private defence was exceeded.
On this section: Defines criminal trespass. The trial court acquitted the appellants under this section on the ground that they were co-sharers in the land and therefore did not commit criminal trespass. The High Court upheld this acquittal and further held that Hari Singh committed criminal trespass on the appellants' field.
-
Devendra Ramchandra Patil vs The State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving allegations of cheating and forgery where there is substantial delay in lodging the FIR (approximately 7 years from the alleged incident), and where the applicants have cooperated with the investigating agency, custodial interrogation is not warranted in an anticipatory bail application. Furthermore, inter se disputes regarding the status of trustees and their authority cannot be examined in criminal proceedings under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., and such disputes should be resolved through appropriate remedies under the Bombay Public Trusts Act.
On this section: Criminal trespass - cited as one of the charges in the FIR
-
Jakkula Yengaiah vs The Commissioner of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Police authorities must not interfere with civil disputes between private parties, even when a criminal case is registered. However, police retain full authority to investigate registered criminal cases and call accused persons as necessary for investigation purposes. The distinction between criminal investigation and civil dispute resolution must be maintained, and police action must be limited to legitimate investigative needs without harassment.
On this section: Trespass - cited as basis for criminal case registration against petitioners
-
Raj Kumar Singh vs State of U.p.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the stage of quashing application under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court can only examine whether prima facie case is made out against the accused. Disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated at this stage. If prima facie case exists, the summoning order cannot be quashed. The accused must seek remedy through discharge application before trial court where all legal issues can be raised. The trial court's cognizance order is valid if it shows application of judicial mind and indicates material is sufficient to proceed.
On this section: Criminal trespass - charge against accused in underlying complaint case
-
State of Kerala Police vs Shyjesh. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal cases, the prosecution bears the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. When the de facto complainant and eyewitness cannot identify the culprits despite acknowledging the occurrence of the incident, and no other corroborating evidence is presented, the accused cannot be convicted. The failure to establish the identity of the accused persons is fatal to the prosecution's case, and the accused must be acquitted.
On this section: Criminal trespass - not proven as accused identity not established
-
Dwarka Das vs State and Anr.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving disputed land ownership where criminal trespass charges are based on conflicting claims regarding gift deeds and land rights, the High Court should not summarily quash the FIR but should direct the Investigating Agency to conduct thorough investigation including proper land demarcation through revenue records and fair consideration of the accused's defence regarding valid gift deeds before concluding the investigation.
On this section: Criminal trespass - charge against petitioner for alleged unauthorized entry on land
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.
-
… climbed over to the Speaker's dais and damaged furniture and articles including the Speaker's chair, computer, mike, emergency lamp and electronic panel, causing a loss of Rs. 2,20,093/-. The incident was reported to the Museum Police Station by the Legislative Secretary. Crime No. 236 of 2015 was registered under Sections 447 and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 18605 and Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act 1984. On the completion of the investigation, the final report under Section 173 of the CrPC <sup>4</sup> " MLA " <sup>1</sup> " CrPC " <sup>2</sup> " CJM " <sup>3</sup> …
-
… climbed over to the Speaker's dais and damaged furniture and articles including the Speaker's chair, computer, mike, emergency lamp and electronic panel, causing a loss of Rs. 2,20,093/-. The incident was reported to the Museum Police Station by the Legislative Secretary. Crime No. 236 of 2015 was registered under Sections 447 and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 18605 and Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act 1984. On the completion of the investigation, the final report under Section 173 of the CrPC <sup>4</sup> " MLA " <sup>1</sup> " CrPC " <sup>2</sup> " CJM " <sup>3</sup> …
Questions about Section 447
What have the courts held on Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code?
The State of Kerala vs K. Ajith (28 Jul 2021) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Criminal trespass; punishment up to three months imprisonment or fine. Another 14 judgments on this section are set out below, 7 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 447 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 447, section 447 IPC, section 447 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 447 is bailable or not and ipc 447 in bns. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 15 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with The State of Kerala vs K. Ajith (28 Jul 2021).
What should I read with Section 447 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 329 (Criminal trespass and house-trespass), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 447, 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.