Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment
Section 457 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment. Whoever commits lurking house-trespass by night, or house-breaking by night in order to the committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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 lurking house-trespass by night, or house-breaking by night in order to the committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the offence intended to be committed is theft, the term of the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years.
Section 457, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 331 Punishment for house-trespass or house-breaking Close, with changes 75%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
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 criminal intimidation - 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: Punishment for lurking house-trespass with intent to commit offence - cited in related cases
-
Vaman Narain Ghiya vs State of Rajasthan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requires that an accused person must be in actual custody to file a bail application before the High Court or Court of Session. The protective umbrella provided by anticipatory bail under Section 438 is of limited duration, intended only to allow the accused to move the regular court for bail. Once that limited period expires, the accused cannot bypass the statutory requirement of Section 439 by seeking to extend Section 438 protection. The distinction between Sections 438 and 439 must be maintained, and no part of the statute can be rendered redundant or dead letter by circumventing the express requirement of custody under Section 439.
On this section: Theft and receiving stolen property offences; charges for which appellant continued trial
-
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 lurking house trespass or house breaking - mentioned in prison records for one earlier crime (CC 1270/13) but not directly analyzed
-
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: Criminal trespass; conviction affirmed by Supreme Court
-
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: Criminal breach of trust - Charged against the four persons from whose possession original question papers were recovered
-
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: House-trespass - originally charged; the trial court acquitted the appellant of this offence as the thieves entered through an open door, which does not constitute house-trespass
-
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 lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night in order to commit offence punishable with life imprisonment or seven years imprisonment. Applied to the breaking of the mobile repair shop lock and entry with intent to steal.
-
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: Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night - Charge against accused for entering the kitchen at night to steal cylinders
-
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: House trespass by night - originally charged but modified by appellate court
-
State vs Shrikant S/o Rambilas
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay cannot be granted without adequate and substantive reasons explaining the entire period of delay. Additionally, an appellate court cannot substitute its own reasons for an acquittal recorded by a trial court unless a glaring mistake is demonstrated with sufficient and plausible grounds, particularly when the trial court's conclusion is based on credible evidence and the accused is known to the victim's family.
On this section: Lurking house trespass or house breaking by night - the State challenged the acquittal on this charge; the High Court upheld the acquittal
-
Raju Kha vs State of U.p.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases where an accused is not named in the FIR but implicated only through a co-accused's confessional statement, and where no incriminating material is recovered from the accused's possession, the absence of direct evidence and corroborating material constitutes sufficient grounds for granting bail during trial, provided stringent conditions are imposed to ensure court attendance and prevent witness intimidation or evidence tampering.
On this section: Charge of theft/criminal breach of trust - substantive charge against the applicant
-
Arshad vs State of Rajasthan through P P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Criminal antecedents and involvement in multiple prior criminal cases constitute a material consideration in bail applications under Section 439 CrPC, and where an accused is established to be a habitual offender with a pattern of similar crimes, the court may refuse bail notwithstanding other circumstances.
On this section: Offence of lurking house-trespass or house-breaking with intent to commit offence; cited as one of the charges against the petitioner
-
Kiran Multanmal Jain vs The State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where the main accused in a theft case makes a disclosure statement implicating a third party as the recipient of stolen goods, and the accused reiterates this statement during recovery proceedings, and the third party does not cooperate with police during investigation, the trial court has sufficient grounds to frame charges against the third party under Sections 454, 457, 380, and 311 IPC, even if no stolen goods are recovered from the third party's premises. The High Court will not interfere with such an order under Article 227 of the Constitution in the exercise of its limited jurisdiction.
On this section: Charge of lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night in order to commit offence punishable with life imprisonment or 7 or more years imprisonment
-
Banwari vs State of Rajasthan through Pp
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a co-accused in the same criminal case has been granted bail by the High Court, and the petitioner has been in custody for a substantial period without trial, the High Court may grant regular bail under Section 439 CrPC without expressing opinion on case merits, subject to the Trial Court's satisfaction of bail conditions.
On this section: Offence of lurking house-trespass or house-breaking; charge against petitioner
-
Md.chhotu vs State of Bihar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused is caught at the crime scene with incriminating articles in a case involving serious charges such as attempted murder and illegal arms possession, bail should not be granted as the evidence of guilt appears strong and the accused poses a risk to public safety.
On this section: Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night in order to commit offence - charge against petitioner
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.
-
… The Sessions Judge held all the three accused persons guilty for having committed murder of Rajendra Prasad and accordingly convicted all the three accused under Sections 457, 380 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC"). They were accordingly sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.1500/ and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 457 IPC, rigorous …
-
… Two years later, he was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code [hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC'], and sentenced to death, for the brutal murder of his employer Praveenlal, and his parents Lalasan and Prasannakumari. He was also separately convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 397, 457, 380 and 461 of the IPC. While he has preferred this Appeal challenging his conviction and sentence by the trial court, the Sessions Judge, Kottayam has forwarded the entire case records to this Court for confirmation of the death sentence as provided in Section 366 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure [hereinafter …
-
… Two years later, he was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code [hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC'], and sentenced to death, for the brutal murder of his employer Praveenlal, and his parents Lalasan and Prasannakumari. He was also separately convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 397, 457, 380 and 461 of the IPC. While he has preferred this Appeal challenging his conviction and sentence by the trial court, the Sessions Judge, Kottayam has forwarded the entire case records to this Court for confirmation of the death sentence as provided in Section 366 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure [hereinafter …
Questions about Section 457
What have the courts held on Section 457 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 criminal intimidation - 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 457 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 457, section 457 IPC, section 457 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 457 and 380 and ipc 457 in bns. 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 457 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 331 (Punishment for house-trespass or house-breaking), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 457 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 457 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 457, 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.