IPC Section 454 - Lurking House-Trespass Or House-Breaking

Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with the ‘offences against property’. Section 454 of the Code falls under Chapter XVII, under the sub-head of ‘criminal trespass’. Section 453 of the Code prescribes the punishment for lurking house trespass or house-breaking. Section 454 of the Code further provides the punishment for aggravated forms of lurking house-trespass. Section 454 of the Code provides the punishment for lurking house-trespass or house-breaking to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment.

Legal provision: IPC Section 454

Whoever commits lurking house-trespass or house-breaking, to the committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three 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 ten years.

Key details of the IPC Section 454

• Chapter classification: Section 454 of the Code falls under Chapter XVII of the Code.
• Bailable or not: As per Schedule I of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”), the offence under Section 454 is non-bailable.
• Triable by: As per Schedule I of CrPC, the offence under the first part of Section 454 is triable by any Magistrate. However, the second part of Section 454 i.e., lurking house-trespass or house-breaking to commit theft, is triable by a Magistrate of first class.
• Cognizance: As per Schedule I of CrPC, the offence under Section 454 is cognizable.
• Compoundable offences: As per Section 320 of CrPC, the offence under Section 454 is non-compoundable.

Explanation of IPC Section 454

Definitions: Explanation of key terms used in the section

1. Lurking house trespass: This is to unlawfully enter or remain in a house or premises in a manner that is secretive and without the permission of the person who is in lawful possession of the property. The intent of lurking house trespass in most instances is to commit a crime secretly.
2. House-breaking: The offence of breaking into a house or premises, with the intent to commit some offence therein. Thus it will mean the breaking of locks, windows, or other obstacles to entry.
3. Offence punishable with imprisonment: A general term applies to every offence which is punishable under the law by imprisonment. Some offences are punishable with imprisonment, whose duration varies with the nature of the offence.
4. Imprisonment of either description: This implies that the imprisonment can be either "rigorous," meaning it shall be accompanied by hard labour, or "simple," not bound by labour, depending on how the court judges the severity of the offence committed.
5. Term of imprisonment: "Term of imprisonment" means the period for which, in respect of an offence, the person is sentenced to be imprisoned. This can be guided by the nature of the offence and any other consideration by the court.
6. Liable to fine: Supplementing the imprisonment, the offender can also be directed to pay a fine
7. Theft: Section 378 of the Code provides the elements, fulfillment of which will amount to theft. Theft means dishonestly taking any movable property out of the possession of the rightful person without his consent.

Purpose: Intent behind Section 454

The intention of Section 454 is to award punishment to a person who would break into another's house and stay there with a view of committing an offence. This should discourage such practice as the clause provides for penalties in the form of imprisonment and fines that the offenders will pay. The clause further increases the punishment if the offence intended to be committed is theft. In so doing, the law tries to protect a person and his property from unauthorised encroachments and the perpetration of crime.

Legal Implications

Penalties: Description of the punishments or penalties prescribed

Applicability: Common situations where the section is applied

The general application of Section 454 is as follows:

• By house-breaking: When a person enters a house, especially in preparation for stealing some valuable items. The crime comes under this category, and the accused will be punished accordingly.
• Attempt to rob: When a person enters the house to rob and fails in his attempt before any completion of his crime, then Section 454 will be invoked because the entry is made in the house to commit an offence.
• Stalking or harassment: When a trespasser has evil intentions like aiming to stalk, harass, or make a threat to any resident of that said house, this provision will come into play.
• Assault or physical harm: This section applies where a person enters or breaks into a house intending to assault or use physical violence against somebody in the house.
• Vandalising: This section would be applicable if someone entered a house with the intent to commit vandalism over property or through criminal intent cause damage, however slight.

Illustrations of IPC Section 454

Illustration I

Facts: A man, Raj, sees his neighbour's house vacant for one single night. Raj decides to rob their house by breaking in through the window and stealing all their jewellery and electronics. He sneaks into the house, but just when he is about to come back out of the house with the stuff, the owner of the house who had returned home catches him.

Application: It charges Raj under Section 454, as the aforesaid act of house-breaking is punishable with imprisonment, with the intent of committing theft. Since in his case, theft was the intended offence, a punishment of up to ten years can be given.

Illustration II

Facts: A person, Meena, harbours ill feelings against a former friend, Rina. Intending to intimidate her, she creeps in by vandalising the personal property belonging to Rina. She enters her house during the night and leaves threatening notes, too. However, before leaving, Rina catches Meena. 

Application: Meena is convicted under Section 454 for lurking house trespass with intent to commit an off­ence. In this case, though the crime intended was one of mischief and hence, she is liable to be punished with imprisonment which may extend to 3 years and a fine under Section 454.

Illustration III

Facts: Ravi, a notorious stalker, secretly entered his ex-girlfriend's home with the intention of intimidating and annoying her. Without taking anything, he was captured by the alert neighbours after unlawfully entering her house. 

Application: Ravi's act comes under Section 454. He had committed lurking house trespass with the intention of harassment (an offence punishable by imprisonment). He can be punished with imprisonment which may extend to 3 years and a fine.

Case studies of IPC Section 454

Shri S.S. Bose and Another vs. State of Punjab and Others (2010)

The petitioners filed a petition to dismiss charges arising out of FIR  which Brij Mohan Mahajan, Director, M/s Nimitiya Properties Limited (NPL) had lodged against them for the offences of trespass, damage to property and misuse of official position by entering the property belonging to NPL for valuation purposes. According to them, they were trying to settle a kind of dispute relating to the price of the land which was originally sold by IOCL to NPL, which later claimed that the land was represented as having an existing pipeline. Ultimately, the Court ruled in favour of the petitioners and quashed the FIR. It was held that the offence under Section 454 of the Code, on the lurking house-trespass or house-breaking, had no prima facie case and hence was liable to be quashed.

There are many reasons for this view. The Court found no substance in the charge that the accused entered the complainant's property to commit an offence or with the knowledge that it is likely to cause annoyance, insult, or intimidation to any person in possession of the property—the basic ingredients necessary for constituting an offence of criminal trespass. It was further submitted that no act, likely to lead to the commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment, was alleged to have been committed after entry onto the property. The intention attributed to the petitioners was only to discharge their professional obligation of carrying out the valuation of the property.

Vinod Kumar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2015)

An appeal had been filed by Vinod Kumar on charges of trespassing and assault framed by his estranged wife. The appellant argued as well that he could not possibly be guilty of trespassing as the act of trespass took place over the property to which he is the lawful owner. Consequently, the Court set aside the charge under Section 454 of the Code, having ruled that the facts on one hand did not meet the necessities of the charge and the lower Court had also erred in applying such a charge. 

The Court concluded that at the FIR stage, while the possibility of breaches of Sections 492, 323, 294 and 506 of the Code was mentioned in the FIR, the charge sheet by the lower court specifically referred to Section 454. The Court was also of the view that since the complainant had not specifically said at the stage of the FIR that the petitioner had tried to hide the house trespass, no case of "lurking house trespass" under the definition of the Code had been made out in the facts. Based on allegations in the FIR, the Court went on to say that the offence might fall under section 452 of the Code, which refers to house trespass with preparation to commit a separate offence. The Court said the lower court had wrongly added Section 454 to the charges and ordered it to substitute it with Section 452. But it refused to interfere with any other charges. 

L Narayana Gowda @ Narayanappa vs. State By Town Police (2021)

A revision petition was filed by the petitioner who was convicted under Sections 454 and 380 of the Code. Narayanagowda was convicted for the offence of theft of gold and silver ornaments along with another accused. The conviction of the accused under Section 454 and Section 380 of the Code was confirmed by the court. However, the court found the accused entitled to the benefit of probation. The court altered the sentence to payment of a fine of Rs. 40,000, and to execute a bond of Rs. 50,000 with surety for good behaviour for two years. This was in the background of the fact that the convict was a first-time offender. Additionally, the court thought that this was a case where the principle of probation should be applied. 

Sri Mahesh @ Mahesh Bandari vs. The State of Karnataka (2023)

An appeal was filed by the appellants Sri Mahesh @ Mahesh Bandari and Sri Sagar @ Sagar Bahadur. The appellants were convicted under Sections 454 and 380 of the Code for offences of theft. The High Court of Karnataka examined the application of Section 454 of the Code. The Court sustained the conviction of the appellants under Section 454 of the Code, apart from Section 380 IPC, for the offence of housebreaking to commit theft. As regards sentencing, the High Court pointed out an error committed by the appellate court.

While the appellate court did hold the accused guilty under both the charges – Section 454 and 380 of the Code, it was on the wrong premise that it sentenced the accused under Section 457 of the Code, although it correctly convicted the accused under Section 454. This error was corrected by the High Court, which awarded the proper sentence for the offence under Section 454 of the Code. 

Sikandar Govind Kale vs. State of Maharashtra And Anr (2024)

The petitioner, convicted in 14 criminal cases among which charges under Section 454 of the Code, filed the present petition before the High Court of Bombay. As far as Section 454 was concerned, the Court did not quash the conviction and uphold the same. The Court decided to determine the appropriate sentence to be imposed upon the petitioner. The Court, while having noted the petitioner's inability to pay the levied fines because of his financial situation, also perceived the seriousness of the offences committed.

Overall, the amount of fine for the conviction under Section 457 of the Code was reduced, and in the case of the petitioner, the period undergone since May 2020 was treated as adequate for the default sentence for the fines. This decision of the Court tends to balance between the policy of enforcement of law and mitigating circumstances like financial hardship of the convict. The Court had tried to balance the feasibility of the petitioner to pay the entire fine imposed upon him.

Provisions related to IPC Section 454 

Similar Sections: Other IPC Sections related to or similar to Section 454

There are distinct provisions under the Code that deal with different forces of lurking house trespass. These are as follows:

1. Section 453: Punishment for lurking house-trespass or house-breaking- Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 2 years, and shall also be liable to fine.
2. Section 455: Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint- Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine.
3. Section 456: Punishment for lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night- Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 3 years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Contrasting Sections: Sections providing different or contrasting legal principles

Section 454 provides that if house trespass or house-breaking is committed to committing theft, the maximum term of imprisonment that can be imposed upon the convict is 10 years. However, Section 380 provides for the punishment of theft committed in a dwelling house. The punishment provided under Section 380 is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 7 years, and shall also be liable to a fine. 

Recent updates and amendments to IPC Section 454

Since the enactment of Section 454 of the Code, there has been no amendment in the Section. 

Legal reforms

Section 331(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 has replaced Section 454 of the Code. The entire provision without any change has been enacted in the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Key points

• Scope of offences: Section 454 deals with cases of lurking house-trespass or housebreaking with an intent to commit any offence punishable with imprisonment.
• Intent and criminality: This section rather deals with the criminal intent behind the unlawful entry, that has been particularly done to commit an offence like theft.
• Severity in punishment: The general punishment under this Section can extend to imprisonment of three years, in addition to a fine or both. However, when the offence intended to be committed is theft, the imprisonment may extend to ten years.
• Definition of terms: Lurking house-trespass, house-breaking, and offence punishable with imprisonment are some of the key terms and definitions central to the application of the section.
• Flexibility in imprisonment: This Section provides for imprisonment of either description—rigorous or simple—leaving the discretion with the court to impose appropriate punishment looking at the special facts and circumstances of the case.
• Protection of property and personal safety: The purpose of Section 454 is to act as a deterrent against crimes relating to unlawful entry into the houses, thus protecting property and personal safety.

Conclusion

Section 454 of the Code, given the foregoing analysis, is an important provision for safeguarding persons and property from criminal offences relating to unlawful entry. The flexibility in the law about punishment, especially for offences of theft, helps the authorities deal with different degrees of criminal behavior. Therefore, it is an important tool for deterrence and punishment against offences of intrusion into a house.