Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night after preparation for hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint
Section 458 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night after preparation for hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint. Whoever commits lurking house-trespass by night, or house-breaking by night, 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 pun 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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, 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 fourteen years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 458, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 333 House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint 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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
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.
-
Haradhan Das vs State of West Bengal
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When five or more accused are charged with an offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and the Court finds that the identification, role, and object in participation against some of those accused is not proved, still other persons forming the unlawful assembly against whom the prosecution proves its case beyond reasonable doubt can be punished for an offence under Sections 302/149 IPC. The conviction recorded by the Trial Court cannot be vitiated merely because other co-accused are acquitted, provided the eyewitness evidence clearly establishes the specific role and identification of the convicted accused. Additionally, eyewitness testimony from injured witnesses and family members who were present at the scene remains credible and admissible even if minor discrepancies exist, if the core facts regarding time, place, manner of occurrence, and identification are consistent and corroborated by medical evidence.
On this section: Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night in order to commit offence punishable with life imprisonment or 7 years - used to charge the accused for breaking into the house at night
-
Rishipal vs State of U. P.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Continuation of criminal proceedings against the appellant for commission of alleged offences under Sections 34, 379, 411, 417, 418, 420, 467, 458 and 477 IPC constitutes pure abuse of process of law and warrants quashing of the complaint case, as the uncontroverted allegations do not prima facie establish any criminal offence - at most they disclose negligence or dereliction of official duty, not criminal conspiracy or cheating. The power under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings must be exercised when a trained judicial mind concludes that continuation would lead to abuse of process and miscarriage of justice, even though such exercise is an exception rather than the rule. Courts must actively prevent vexatious complaints filed by frustrated litigants seeking to misuse criminal law as a tool to settle civil disputes and to harass innocent third parties.
On this section: Punishment for theft from person. Charged regarding theft of handbag containing cheques.
-
Neku Khan vs State of Rajasthan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving rape and abduction, the defence of marriage requires credible and substantive evidence, including documentation according to the legal procedures prescribed by the applicable law of marriage. Mere testimony of witnesses without corroboration, without production of the person who performed the ceremony, and without obtaining the necessary documentary evidence, cannot override the consistent and credible evidence of the victim and injured witnesses. The presence of accused persons at the scene of crime without clear evidence of their individual participation in the commission of the offence does not justify conviction.
On this section: Lurking house-trespass or lurking house-breaking - applied to the initial entry into Bakhsu Khan's house
-
State of Rajasthan vs Gulab Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Medical evidence of multiple ante-mortem injuries established by post-mortem examination report and doctor's testimony cannot be disregarded or contradicted by a prosecutor's weak agreement. Alteration of murder conviction to attempt to murder conviction by an appellate court must be grounded in substantive analysis of evidence, not arbitrary characterization of injuries as 'mechanical' or 'non-mechanical'. The conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is sustainable when medical evidence establishes ante-mortem injuries and their causal connection to death.
On this section: Punishment for dacoity - conviction maintained by High Court and Supreme Court
-
State of Rajasthan vs Prakash @ Gajendra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal appellate proceedings, particularly in cases involving serious offences like murder, the appellate court must conduct a substantive and meticulous examination of evidence, carefully assess the evidentiary value of each piece of evidence, and explicitly analyze critical factors such as the nature of injuries, method of injury infliction, and the accused's intent to cause death. Mere assertion in a judgment that evidence has been 'carefully scrutinized' without actual substantive analysis of that evidence is insufficient to support conviction alteration, particularly when downgrading from a capital offence like murder to a lesser offence. Appellate courts must provide reasoned analysis demonstrating how evidence leads to their conclusions, rather than stating conclusions without substantiation.
On this section: Burglary - Additional charge on which conviction was maintained by both trial court and High Court. Supreme Court did not challenge this conviction.
-
Ramesh Kukar @ Mahesh vs State
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Life imprisonment under Sections 394 and 459 IPC should not be awarded as a matter of course but only when there are strong and compelling circumstances. Courts must record special reasons and consider mitigating factors, particularly the age and reformative potential of young offenders, before imposing life imprisonment instead of the available option of rigorous imprisonment up to 10 years. The sentence of life imprisonment, being a substitute for the colonial-era 'transportation for life', is an agonizing reminder of dark colonial history and should be imposed circumspectly.
On this section: Punishment for house breaking by night - applied to convict the accused for breaking into the victim's house at night
-
Kala Singh @ Naresh vs State
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Life imprisonment under Sections 394 and 459 IPC should not be awarded as a matter of course but only in exceptional circumstances where there are strong and compelling reasons, and the court must record special reasons for imposing life imprisonment in preference to imprisonment up to 10 years. The reformative theory of punishment demands that when courts have options of awarding two sets of imprisonment with one harsher than the other, if the court decides to impose the graver sentence, it must record plausible reasons. Additionally, conviction must be based on reliable evidence; evidence of chance witnesses identifying an accused when the primary victim did not name that person is insufficient to establish guilt, particularly when such witnesses admit they did not know the accused before the incident.
On this section: Punishment for house breaking by night with intent to commit offence - Applied to convict the three male accused for breaking into the victim's house at night
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 458
What have the courts held on Section 458 of the Indian Penal Code?
Haradhan Das vs State of West Bengal (13 Dec 2012) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night in order to commit offence punishable with life imprisonment or 7 years - used to charge the accused for breaking into the house at night. Another 6 judgments on this section are set out below, 5 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2022.
How do I find court cases under Section 458 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 458, section 458 IPC, section 458 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 458 punishment in hindi and ipc 458 in bns. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 7 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Haradhan Das vs State of West Bengal (13 Dec 2012).
What should I read with Section 458 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 333 (House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 458 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 458 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 458, 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.