House-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with death
Section 449 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with house-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with death. Whoever commits house-trespass in order to the committing of any offence punishable with death, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with rigorous imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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 house-trespass in order to the committing of any offence punishable with death, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with rigorous imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 449, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 332 House-trespass in order to commit offence Text carried over almost unchanged 87%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
-
Vidhya Rattan vs The State of Haryana Home Department Chief Secretary
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.
-
Hakkim vs State Tr. Dy. Supdt. of Police
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.
-
Jaswinder Singh vs State of Punjab
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
-
Arun vs State by Inspector of Police, T. Nadu
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
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 …
-
… Leave granted. 2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6th November, 2018 affirming conviction of the accused appellant under Sections 302 and 449 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter being referred to as the "IPC") and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/ for the offence punishable Section 449 IPC and to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/ for the offence punishable …
-
… Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T L. NAGESWARA RAO, J. 1. This Petition has been filed under Article 137 of the Constitution of India, seeking review of the judgment dated 09.10.2014 in Criminal Appeal No.1795 of 2009. The Petitioners were convicted for offences under Sections 302 and 449 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "IPC") and sentenced to death for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC and 10 years of rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 449 read with Section 34, IPC. The conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court was upheld …
Questions about Section 449
What have the courts held on Section 449 of the Indian Penal Code?
Vidhya Rattan vs The State of Haryana Home Department Chief Secretary (06 Aug 2019) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Deals with house-trespass. Appellants were convicted under this section as they entered the under-construction house of the deceased. Another 3 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2019.
How do I find court cases under Section 449 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 449, section 449 IPC, section 449 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 449 malayalam and ipc 449 in bns. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 4 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Vidhya Rattan vs The State of Haryana Home Department Chief Secretary (06 Aug 2019).
What should I read with Section 449 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
4 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 332 (House-trespass in order to commit offence), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 449 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 449 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 449, 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.