All persons jointly concerned in lurking house-trespass or house- breaking by night punishable where death or grievous hurt caused by one of them
Section 460 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with all persons jointly concerned in lurking house-trespass or house- breaking by night punishable where death or grievous hurt caused by one of them. All persons jointly concerned in lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night punishable where death or grievous hurt caused by one of them.--If at the time of the committing of lurking house- trespass by night or house-breaking by night, any person guilty of such offence shall voluntarily caus 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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.
All persons jointly concerned in lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night punishable where death or grievous hurt caused by one of them.--If at the time of the committing of lurking house- trespass by night or house-breaking by night, any person guilty of such offence shall voluntarily cause or attempt to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, every person jointly concerned in committing such lurkking house-trespass by night or house-breaking by night, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 460, 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 65%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
-
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: All persons jointly concerned in lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night punishable where death or grievous hurt caused - provides constructive liability to all persons jointly concerned in house-breaking where death results. The Court analyzed this provision in depth to establish that Haradhan Das, as part of the group committing the house-breaking, is liable even if not directly causing the death.
-
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: Dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt - conviction maintained
-
State of A. P vs M. Sobhan Babu
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving armed intrusion for dacoity where the accused use deadly weapons repeatedly and effectively against multiple persons, causing death, common intention to commit murder can be inferred from the circumstances of the case and the nature of weapons deployed, even if the initial purpose was dacoity and not murder. The intention to cause death can be gathered from circumstances as they arise during the incident. When armed accused demonstrate willingness to use weapons lethally and actually cause death by stabbing, they satisfy the requirements of Section 300 IPC (third clause) for conviction under Section 302 IPC, despite claims that the act was spontaneous or done merely to effect escape.
On this section: Dacoity - Accused were charged with dacoity (entering house at night armed with intention to rob); this context informed the Supreme Court's view that the armed nature of the attack indicated willingness to kill
-
Garadi Madduleti vs State of A.p.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The ratio decidendi of this judgment is: (1) Dacoity under Section 391 IPC requires proof that five or more persons conjointly committed or attempted to commit a robbery. If the evidence establishes that fewer than five persons participated, conviction under Section 396 IPC (dacoity with murder) cannot be sustained, even if other evidence suggests additional persons' involvement. (2) In criminal cases involving identification of strangers in night-time offences, a single eyewitness testimony can form the basis of conviction if it is unimpeachable, true, and trustworthy. (3) A properly conducted test identification parade by a Magistrate, where the witness correctly identifies the accused on multiple occasions, can corroborate and strengthen eyewitness testimony. (4) Delay in identification and trial, even spanning 15 years, does not necessarily discredit a witness's testimony if the witness's memory has been tested through a properly conducted identification parade and the witness has no motive to falsely implicate the accused. (5) Mere recovery of stolen or dacoit property from an accused person cannot by itself lead to an irresistible conclusion that the person participated in the commission of the offence; such recovery could indicate the person is a receiver of stolen property.
On this section: Lurking house-trespass by night with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt - cited to establish the ingredients: (1) lurking house-trespass by night, (2) voluntary attempt to cause death or grievous hurt, (3) joint concern in committing such offence. The court upheld the conviction under this section based on eyewitness identification and test identification parade.
-
Aatma Ram vs State
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In bail applications under Section 439 Criminal Procedure Code, when an accused is charged with a serious offence such as murder (Section 302 IPC) and the post mortem report establishes that death was caused by blunt weapon injury, the gravity and nature of the offence warrant denial of bail, notwithstanding arguments about discrepancies in the prosecution evidence regarding the specific weapon used.
On this section: Charge of house-breaking or related offence against the accused
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.
-
… to be in jail for more than 6 years and it is a case of reversal, whereby the Trial Court acquitted the appellants and the High Court set aside the acquittal and convicted them for the offences Digitally signed by Vishal Anand Date: 2021.07.23 16:20:32 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified punishable under Sections 143, 148, 427, 460, 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code along with Sections 3 & 5 of Explosives Act, 1884, pending disposal of the Criminal Appeals, we are inclined to grant them bail. Taking into consideration the nature of incident, which was a clash between the two groups, it would be appropriate that the …
-
… to be in jail for more than 6 years and it is a case of reversal, whereby the Trial Court acquitted the appellants and the High Court set aside the acquittal and convicted them for the offences Digitally signed by Vishal Anand Date: 2021.07.23 16:20:32 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified punishable under Sections 143, 148, 427, 460, 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code along with Sections 3 & 5 of Explosives Act, 1884, pending disposal of the Criminal Appeals, we are inclined to grant them bail. Taking into consideration the nature of incident, which was a clash between the two groups, it would be appropriate that the …
-
… Bench Gwalior in Criminal Revision No. 314 of 2007 confirming the order dated 12.03.2007 passed by the XIth Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, framing charges against the appellant for the offences punishable under Digitally signed by SATISH KUMAR YADAV Date: 2018.12.17 12:19:22 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified Sections 394 and 460 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC'), and alternatively under Sections 302 and 397, IPC along with Sections 25 (1B) (a) and 27 of the Arms Act in S.T. No. 156/99, is called in question in this appeal. 2. The First Information Report came to be lodged against three persons alleging the offence of …
Questions about Section 460
What have the courts held on Section 460 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: All persons jointly concerned in lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night punishable where death or grievous hurt caused - provides constructive liability to all persons jointly concerned in house-breaking where death results. The Court analyzed this provision in depth to establish that Haradhan Das, as part of the group committing the house-breaking, is liable even if not directly causing the death. Another 4 judgments on this section are set out below, 3 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2016.
How do I find court cases under Section 460 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 460, section 460 IPC, section 460 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 460 punishment and ipc 460 in bns. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 5 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 460 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 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 460 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 460 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 460, 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.