Section 448 IPC punishment  

This article has been written by Yashfeen Khan. This article explains house trespass, the essentials of house trespass, its punishment, and its aggravated forms under various circumstances. It further elaborates on the concept of criminal trespass, different types of criminal trespass, its punishment, and important judgements defining what constitutes house trespass.

This article has been published by Shashwat Kaushik.

Suppose you are playing a cricket match on your street road and the ball hits the window of your neighbour, and the window is now broken. What will happen now? Does this amount to trespass?

Download Now

Everyone has the right to enjoy their property freely without the interference of any other person. And also, we know that where there is a right, there is a remedy, either in the form of statute or duty, imposed upon another person. The remedy for this right is provided in the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

If any of your acts interfere with another’s peaceful enjoyment of property, either movable or immovable, such acts amount to trespass. If trespass is committed without criminal intention, it is dealt with under the law of torts. But if trespass is committed with the criminal intention to cause harm to anyone, then it is criminal trespass.

According to Black’s Law Dictionary, trespass means injury or misfeasance caused to a person, property, or rights of another person with force or violence. In the strictest sense, an entry on another’s ground is caused without lawful authority by damaging his real property, i.e., land or immovable property. Interfering with another’s land without his permission or without having a right to do so would result in trespass.

Trespass can be committed without actual entry into the property. Interference can be made with another’s property without actually entering into it. Suppose a person A throws a stone at B’s house without actually entering the house, but with the intention to annoy A. This would result in committing trespass.

The offence of trespass cannot be committed if the person alleged of trespass has a right or authority to enter on such property. Trespass can only be committed if the person entering does not have the right or authority to enter a property. Also, the person complaining about trespass should also have actual possession of such property.

Trespass is both a civil and criminal wrong

Trespass means an unapproved entry into the property possessed by someone else. Trespass is both a civil and criminal wrong, depending on the intention and magnitude of the loss that occurred. If an intruder unlawfully enters the property and causes damage, then it is regarded as civil wrong under tort, and tortious liability arises, but if he enters with the intention to commit an offence, then it is regarded as a crime, and criminal liability arises. 

Damages are payable if tortious liability arises, whereas in cases of criminal liability, he shall be held liable under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the IPC).

According to Section 441 of the IPC, criminal trespass is committed if the accused unlawfully enters or, if lawfully entered, remains there unlawfully intending to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult, or annoy any person in possession of such property. It is not necessary that the annoyance resulting from trespass be instantaneous; it may be subsequent.  

Intimidate, in this definition, means to threaten someone; annoy means to irritate; and insult means treating someone disrespectfully. Anyone entering the house to threaten, irritate, or commit any act that brings disrespect to the person having possession of the house is committing criminal trespass and will be held liable for such an act.

Essentials of criminal trespass

To constitute trespass as criminal trespass, the following essential conditions must be fulfilled:

Unauthorised entry

In order to constitute an offence under this section, there must be an actual unlawful entry upon the property possessed by someone else. If ‘A’ throws the trash at B’s house regularly, ‘A’ may be held liable for committing nuisance but not trespass, as ‘A’ did not enter the house. 

Entry is unlawful when it is made for an unlawful purpose. So, if ‘X’ enters Y’s house to harass ‘Y’ or any other person in Y’s house, he is said to have committed criminal trespass.  

Entry must be with the intention to commit an offence or to intimidate, annoy, or insult any person.

Intention is the main ingredient that constitutes a trespass as a criminal trespass. The intention behind committing criminal trespass can be assessed by examining the purpose behind such trespass. If there was no intention to annoy, intimidate, or insult anyone in possession, the offence of criminal trespass cannot be established. 

Property must be possessed by someone else

In order to constitute criminal trespass, there must be a property, either movable or immovable, upon which the intruder enters unlawfully, if he enters lawfully and remains there unlawfully. 

In Mathuri v. State of Punjab (1963), the Supreme Court held that in order to constitute an offence under house trespass, it is not sufficient merely that the intruder knows the natural consequence of his entry into the property; he must have the intention to commit an offence or to insult, intimidate, or annoy the person having possession.

Further, in Trilochan Singh v. The Director, Small Industries Service (1962), Madras High Court held that if writing love letters by a boy to a girl and delivering the same to her residence annoys an innocent girl, such a boy is held guilty of the offence of criminal trespass under Section 441 of the IPC. 

Punishment for criminal trespass 

Punishment for criminal trespass is provided under Section 447 of the IPC. A person who commits criminal trespass shall be punished with imprisonment for three months, or with a fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or both. 

Trespass can be classified as follows, depending on the magnitude and consequence of such trespass.

House trespass

According to Section 442 of the IPC, if any person commits criminal trespass by entering into any building, tent, or vessel used for residential purposes, a place of worship, or as a place to store things, they will be held liable for committing the house trespass.  

House trespass is an aggravated form of criminal trespass. House trespass is said to be committed if any person enters the house of another person having possession of the house while also threatening or intimidating to physically harm the occupant if they attempt to prevent the entry.

Lurking house trespass

According to Section 443 of the IPC, if anyone commits house trespass by taking the necessary precautions to keep that trespass hidden from the owner of such property and if the owner has the authority to expel the trespasser out of that building, a tent or vessel is said to have committed lurking house trespass. For a trespass to constitute a lurking house trespass, the trespass must be a house trespass, and the intruder must have taken measures to conceal such a trespass.

Punishment for lurking house trespass

Punishment for lurking house trespass is provided under Section 453 of the IPC. If any person is found guilty of committing housebreaking or lurking house-trespass, they shall be punished with imprisonment of two years and also with a fine.

Lurking house trespass by night

According to Section 444 of the IPC, if any person commits lurking house trespass between sunset and sunrise, they shall be held liable under this section. Lurking house trespass is an aggravated form of house trespass.

In Prem Bahadur Rai v. State of Sikkim (1977), the complainant and his wife were returning from the market during the night in the dark. They were followed by two unknown people up to their house. The earring of the wife of the complainant was robbed by some unknown person, who immediately ran away. Later, police arrested the accused and charged the accused with lurking house-trespass by night to commit theft under Section 457 of the IPC.

The Sikkim High Court in this case held that for a criminal trespass to constitute lurking house trespass, there must be an active concealment of his presence. His presence concealed by the darkness of night cannot justify the claim that the accused concealed his presence, which does not amount to lurking house trespass under Section 444. Due to the absence of reliable witnesses and evidence that can prove that the accused committed robbery, no charge could be proved. The court acquitted the accused. 

Punishment for lurking house trespass

Punishment for lurking house trespass or house breaking is defined under Section 456 of the IPC. Anyone committing lurking house trespass or housebreaking by night shall be punished with imprisonment of three years and also be liable with a fine.

Housebreaking

According to Section 445 of the IPC, any person who commits house trespass and enters into or leaves the house by affecting the entrance of the house or any part of the house in any of the following six ways, and if he stays in the house or in any part of the house for committing an offence, is said to commit housebreaking.

  • If the passage is made by the intruder or by any abettor to the house. For example, if any person makes a hole in the wall of the house to commit house trespass. 
  • If the intruder enters through any passage made by himself or abettor of the offence, not used as a human entrance like scaling or climbing over any wall or building. 
  • If the intruder uses a passage he opened or any abettor of the trespass has opened, that is not usually used by anyone. If a house has a door which is not used by any person and an intruder enters through such a door.
  • If the intruder enters the house by breaking any lock.
  • If the intruder uses criminal force, i.e., assault, for either his entry or departure. 
  • If the intruder himself unfastens or any abettor of the trespass unfastens anything tied to the entrance. 

Punishment for housebreaking

Punishment for housebreaking has been provided under Section 453 of the IPC. Any person who commits housebreaking or lurking house trespass shall be punished with imprisonment for two years and also be liable for a fine.     

Housebreaking by night

According to Section 446 of the IPC, any person who commits housebreaking between sunset and sunrise is said to have committed housebreaking by night.

Punishment for housebreaking by night

Any person who commits housebreaking between sunset and sunrise shall be punished under Section 456 of the IPC. A person shall be punished with imprisonment for three years or shall be held liable for a fine.

Lurking house trespass and housebreaking also be committed under various circumstances defined under various sections as follows:

  • Under Section 454 of the IPC, if lurking house trespass or housebreaking is committed with the intention to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment, the intruder shall be punished with imprisonment for three years and shall also be liable to a fine, and if the offence intended to be committed was theft, then with imprisonment for ten years. 
  • Under Section 455 of the IPC, if lurking house trespass or housebreaking is committed with preparation for causing hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint, or with the intention to put the other person in the fear of hurt or wrongful restraint, the person shall be punished with imprisonment for ten years and shall also be held liable for a fine.
  • Under Section 457 of the IPC, if lurking house trespass or housebreaking is committed by night and with the intention to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment, the offender shall be punished with imprisonment for five years, and if the offence intended was theft, imprisonment for fourteen years, and also shall be held liable with a fine. For the offence to be dealt under this section, the lurking house trespass or house breaking must be committed with the intention to commit an offence.

In In Re: Pullabhotla Chinniah v. Unknown (1917), it was held that breaking open a cattle shed that is used for agricultural purposes amounts to house breaking. 

In Nasiruddin v. State of Assam (1971), the accused broke open the front door of the house of a woman to abduct her, assaulted her husband, and attacked her son with deadly weapons. The accused was charged with Section 457 of the IPC.

The Supreme Court, in this case, held that for trespass to fall under this Section, trespass must be house breaking or lurking house trespass by night, i.e., housebreaking or house trespass committed by taking measures to conceal his presence at night, and must have been committed with the intention to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment. The accused broke into the house to abduct the woman, and hence they were held liable under this section.

Under Section 458 of the IPC, if lurking house trespass or housebreaking is committed at night with the preparation of causing hurt, assault, or wrongfully restraining any person or for putting the fear of the same, the person shall be punished with imprisonment for fourteen years and shall also be liable to a fine. 

Under Section 459 of the IPC, if any person, while committing lurking house trespass or housebreaking, causes grievous hurt or death to any person, he shall be punished with imprisonment for life, and if an intruder attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, he shall be punished with imprisonment for ten years and shall be liable for a fine. This offence under this section is an aggravated form of offence defined under Section 453.

Under Section 460 of the IPC, if persons jointly commit lurking house trespass by night or housebreaking by night and one of them voluntarily causes or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to anyone, all of them would be jointly liable for such offence and shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for ten years, and also with a fine.

Under this section, the joint liability of the intruder is dealt with. If, during the commission of lurking house trespass by night or housebreaking by night, one of them causes or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt, all of them shall be punished for such an act. 

A house is one of the basic amenities; therefore, there is a strong need to protect it. House trespass is a particular type and an aggravated form of criminal trespass. Trespass will be considered as a house trespass if any person, with the intention of committing an offence or to intimidate, annoy, or insult the person having possession of the building used for residential purposes, as a place of worship, or to store things, unlawfully enters such building, or if he enters there lawfully, remains there unlawfully. The person entering must have the intention to annoy, intimidate, or insult anyone having possession of the building. And entry by the person must be illegal. Such a person shall be held liable for house trespass. The building is defined as a structure used to protect the persons residing in it or for the property placed therein for custody or any place of worship. 

House trespass is different from various other offences of trespass such as house breaking, lurking house trespass in the sense of magnitude. House trespass is committed if any person enters unlawfully into the building, but for housebreaking the person must have paved his way into or upon the house, and for lurking house trespass, the person must have concealed his presence in the house. House trespass further may be differentiated depending upon the intention to commit such trespass, whether such trespass was committed with the intention to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment, life imprisonment, or to cause hurt and assault. 

For an offence of house trespass, there must be a building that may be used as a house. Further, apart from permanent residence, many buildings can be used for dwelling; in this sense, buildings such as shops, schools, and railway waiting rooms could also be used as human dwellings.

Aggravated forms of house trespass

There are different forms of house trespass, which vary based on the intent of the trespasser. They include:

House-trespass in order to commit an offence punishable with death

If house trespass is committed with the intention to commit an offence punishable with death, such trespass is dealt with under Section 449 of the IPC. A person committing such trespass shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with rigorous imprisonment for ten years, and also with a fine. For a person to be held liable under this section, he must have committed house trespass, and the intention of committing trespass must be to commit an offence punishable with death.

House-trespass in order to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment for life.

If any person commits house trespass with the intention to commit an offence punishable for imprisonment for life, such trespass is dealt with under Section 450 of the IPC. A person committing such trespass shall be punished with imprisonment for ten years and also with a fine. For a person to be held liable under this section, he must have committed house trespass, and the intention of committing such trespass must be to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment for life. 

House-trespass in order to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment

If any person commits house trespass with the intention to commit an offence punishable for imprisonment, such trespass is dealt with under Section 451 of the IPC. A person committing such trespass shall be punished with imprisonment for two years and also with a fine, and if the offence intended was theft, then the imprisonment may extend up to seven years. For a person to be held liable under this section, he must have committed house trespass, and the intention of committing such trespass must be an offence punishable with imprisonment. 

House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint

If any person commits house trespass with the preparation for causing hurt or assaulting any person, wrongfully restraining any person, or putting any person in the fear of hurt, assault and wrongful restraint shall be punished with imprisonment of seven years and shall be held liable with a fine. For a person to be held liable under this section, he must have committed house trespass, and the intention of committing such trespass must be to cause hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint.

Unlawful entry

In order to constitute the offence of house trespass, entry must be unlawful, or if lawful, the accused must be there unlawfully to insult, annoy, intimidate, or commit an offence. Trespass is the wrong against possession, not ownership. So the intruder must not have any explicit or implicit authority to enter the property. An actual unlawful entry needs to be there with the intention to commit an offence to constitute the entry as trespass. For example, if person A has locked a house in their possession and person B adds another lock to the premises without A’s consent, B would not be considered guilty of house trespass.

Possession

Possession is the essential element for the offence of house trespass. In order to commit the offence of house trespass, the intruder must not have possession of such a building. If he has possession of the building he is entering, an offence cannot be established. House-trespass is an offence against possession. Thus, where the complainant is not in actual possession of the building, there can be no offence of house-trespass. Any person entering the house having ownership of the house but not possession may be accused of having committed house trespass if he enters the house with the intentions mentioned in Section 442 of the IPC. A house trespass will be constituted only when the accused enters a house, etc.

A building used as a human dwelling need not be a place of permanent residence. A school is a building, although it is not used for residential purposes but may be used as a human dwelling within the contemplation of Section 442. Likewise, a railway platform is a building within the range of a dwelling house.

Intention

Intention, i.e., mens rea, is one of the major ingredients of trespass to constitute it a criminal offence. The intruder must enter with the intention of committing an offence. A test for the intention of trespass can be done by determining what the aim of entry was.

It is not enough that the intruder knows his entry would cause annoyance; rather, he must have the intention to annoy for him to be liable for the offence of criminal trespass.

In the case of Kanwal Sood v. Nawal Kishore (1982), Aranaya Kutir, owned by R. C. Sood, made a gift deed in favour of Anandamayee Sangha, with the stipulation that during his lifetime, his premises would be possessed by him, and after his death, his widow, if alive, would have possession. He invited the widow of his brother to reside on the premises. After his death, the secretary threatened to vacate the premises; if she did not leave the premises, a case for criminal trespass would be filed against her. The Supreme Court in this case held that mere entry to the property did not constitute criminal trespass. There must be criminal intention for the same. A mere occupation, even if illegal, cannot amount to criminal trespass.

In the case,  In Re: Chander Narain v. Faquharson (1879), ‘A’ shot a deer present in B’s land. ‘A’ went to B’s land to kill the deer. The Calcutta High Court in this case did not hold ‘A’ guilty of the offence of trespass, as the intention to commit a crime or to annoy the possessor could not be found. 

Property

There must be property into or upon which entry may be possible, and that property may be used as a human dwelling, either for permanent residence, as a place of worship, or to store things. There must be a building that may be used as a place of human dwelling, either permanently or temporarily. But the term property does include incorporeal property, e.g., the right to the fishery.  

In Mangaraj Barik v. State of Orissa (1982), the Orissa High Court held that a school is a building used as a human dwelling within the scope of Section 442. Further, in the State of Punjab v. Nihal Singh (2013), the Supreme Court held that a railway platform is a building within the range of a dwelling house.

Section 448 of the IPC provides the punishment for the crime of house trespass. If any person commits house trespass, he or she shall be punished with imprisonment for one year and also with a fine of 1000 rupees. 

Trespass is cognizable, bailable, and compoundable at the discretion of the person having possession of the house. The offence of house trespass is triable by a Magistrate. Trespass being a cognizable, bailable, and compoundable offence, the police officers in charge can arrest the intruder without a warrant after receiving a complaint from the victim. The parties to the case can compromise for the same at the discretion of the possessor of the house if the case is on trial in court.  

Degree of punishment for crime under Section 448 IPC 

According to Section 448 of the IPC, whoever commits house-trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with a fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Depending on the nature and kind of trespass, punishment for each kind also varies. Punishment for criminal trespass is imprisonment for three months or a fine of five hundred rupees. House trespass, which is an aggravated form of criminal trespass, increases the punishment to imprisonment for one year and a fine of one thousand rupees. 

It can be said that as the gravity of the offence rises, the punishment for the offence also increases. Hence, the degree of punishment for house trespass depends upon the intention of committing house trespass, the nature of such trespass, and the means through which such trespass is committed.

Further, the magnitude of the offence of house trespass increases as the offence is committed with the intention of committing an offence punishable by death; the punishment for such trespass rises to rigorous imprisonment of 10 years. If anyone commits house trespass with the intention to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment for life, the punishment for such a person shall be imprisonment for 10 years and a fine. If any person commits house trespass with the intention of committing an offence punishable by imprisonment, they shall be punished with imprisonment for 2 years. If any person commits house trespass after preparation of causing hurt, assault, or wrongfully restraining any person, he or she shall be punished with imprisonment for 7 years and also with a fine.

Vidyadharan v. State of Kerala (2003)

Facts

In this case, the accused entered the house and the kitchen and tried to hold the hands of a woman. The complainant, who was married and had children, was busy cooking food. The accused took hold of her hands and tried the act of molestation. The woman tried to escape him by running to the next room and closing the door of the room, but failed as the accused opened the door forcibly. The case was filed under sections 448 and 354 of the IPC, Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The session court held the accused guilty and convicted them for the same. The session court held that the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is an aggravated form of an offence under Section 354 of the IPC; hence, no separate sentence was called for the latter offence. An appeal before the Kerala High Court was filed, but it did not bring any relief to the appellant. The High Court affirmed the conviction and the sentence.

An appeal was filed in the Supreme Court about the false implication of the case, and it was also submitted that the Session Court had no jurisdiction for the trial of the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 

Issues in the case

  • Whether the accused has committed house trespass or not?
  • Whether the charges framed against the accused in Section 3(1)(xi) under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, are valid?

Observation of the court

The Supreme Court in this case held that to attract Section 448 of the IPC, the accused must have trespassed with the intention to intimidate, insult, or annoy the complainant. There must be an unlawful entry, and any intention for a criminal trespass under Section 441 must be fulfilled.

An offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989, is an aggravated form of an offence under Section 354 IPC. According to Section 14 of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989, the Court of Session can act as a Special Court with the prior permission of the Chief Justice of the High Court for speedy trial of offences under this Act. 

In the instant case, the Supreme Court concluded that, according to Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, no Court of Session can take cognizance of an offence as a Court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been committed to it by the Magistrate.

Section 5 of the CrPC cannot aid as there is no provision in the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which states that a special court can take cognizance as a court of original jurisdiction. Hence, it is concluded by the Supreme Court that the session judge did not have jurisdiction to try the offences related to Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act.

Judgement

Hence, the punishment imposed on the accused under Section 3(1)(xi) was set aside, leading to the release of the accused by the Supreme Court. This decision was made because the punishment prescribed under Sections 354 and 448 of the IPC, which amounted to three months of imprisonment, had already been served by the accused.

Kripal Singh v. Wazir Singh (2000)

Facts

In this case, the complainant had a shop where he used to assist the accused with work. The complainant occasionally used to visit his daughters, who were employed in Madhya Pradesh, leaving the work in the care of these workmen.

One day he went to Madhya Pradesh to meet his daughters, entrusting the shop and necessary instruments and tools to these hired workmen. He discovered that some of his tools and his bicycle were missing. When he questioned the accused about these losses, he received improper and unsatisfactory explanations. Following his inquiries about the missing tools and subsequent threats from the accused, he returned to the shop on another occasion. However, the accused insulted him and vehemently denied any association with the shop, threatening him with violence if he did not vacate the premises. The trial court in the instant case held that the complainant had the actual ownership and possession of the property all along, and the accused were employed by him as servants. The property was allotted to him by the Rehabilitation Department as a displaced person from Pakistan. So the court held the accused guilty of the offence under Sections 448 and 34 of the IPC and convicted the accused for the same.

The Additional Session Judge upheld the judgement given by the trial court. And released the accused on probation. 

Issues in the case

  • whether house trespass was committed by the accused?

Observation of the court

The complainant, in his revision petition filed before the Delhi High Court, complained about the release of the accused on probation, which led to the harassment of the complainant by the accused for almost four decades. In the meantime, the complainant did not receive a penny as rent or compensation. Despite being the owner of the shop, the complainant was deprived of possession and use of the shop.

The Delhi High Court held that even if the accused entry to the shop was lawful but he remained in the shop unlawfully, an offence of house trespass under Section 442 is committed continuously.  

Judgement

The Delhi High Court upheld the judgement of conviction of the accused and release on probation of the accused, directed for the restoration of possession to the complainant, i.e., the real owner of the shop. 

Satrughana Nag v. State of Odisha (2020)

Facts

In this case, the accused broke into the house of the victim, who was sleeping in his house. The bamboo door of her room was open. Her elder brother and his wife were sleeping next to his room. The accused broke into the house at night and tried to disrobe her saree in an attempt to rape her. After hearing the screams of the victim, her brother and his wife came to the room and assaulted the accused. A FIR was lodged against the accused under Section 457 of the IPC, and he was tried for the same.

The Additional Session Court held the accused guilty of the offences charged against him under Sections 366, 511, and 457 of the IPC, sentencing him to 3 years of punishment and one month of punishment for the respective charges. This further proceeding is an appeal filed before the Orissa High Court.  

Issues in the case

  • Whether the accused committed an offence under sections 366 and 511 of the IPC?
  •  Whether the accused is liable under Section 457 of the IPC?

Observation of the court

The court found variations in the statements given by the victim during the investigation and in the courtroom. The appellant’s counsel argued that there are certain improbable circumstances that are supported by the evidence of the case; rather than being a victim of rape, the victim could also be the consenting one for the intercourse. Since the victim was not medically examined, due to the absence of evidence and reliable witnesses, the offence of committing rape could not be established. It was held that mere entering of the house at night does not amount to lurking house trespass if such trespass has not been concealed, and it also does not amount to housebreaking if an intruder has not untied anything that was fastened. 

Judgement

The court held the accused liable under Section 448 for house trespass and punished him with imprisonment, which had already been undergone by him.

The right to peaceful enjoyment of property is a legal right and needs to be safeguarded. If any person unlawfully or lawfully enters a place with the intention to commit a crime or to insult, annoy, or intimidate any person having possession of such property, he is said to have committed criminal trespass. Further, if such trespass is against a human dwelling or place of worship, it is classified as house trespass and is punishable under Section 448 IPC. Criminal trespass has many aggravated forms, depending on the time and place of such trespass. Depending on the gravity of trespass, different types are classified under Sections 441- 462 of the IPC, attracting the punishment accordingly.

Is house trespass bailable or non-bailable?

If a person is held guilty of an offence of trespass, he shall be subject to the punishment of imprisonment for one year and also with a fine. An offence of house trespass is a cognizable and bailable offence that could be tried by any magistrate and is also compoundable at the discretion of a person having possession of the property.

Is trespassing criminal or civil in India?

Trespass is unlawful interference with another’s peaceful enjoyment of property. Trespass is defined as a civil wrong under the law of tort, and damages are payable for any loss or injury suffered. Trespass, when committed with the intention to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult, or annoy any person having possession of the property trespassed upon, becomes criminal trespass and is dealt with under the Indian Penal Code. 

What is the difference between house trespass and housebreaking in IPC?

Criminal trespass is house trespass if an intruder with a criminal intention enters the property used for the protection of persons residing inside it, goods stored in it, or as a place of worship unlawfully, or if lawfully entered, remains there unlawfully. Housebreaking is an aggravated form of house trespass that is committed if the intruder breaks into the house or leaves by making an effect on the entrance or any part of the house. It is committed in the six ways mentioned in Section 445 of the IPC.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *