Observing that a restaurant cannot be said to be neither a place used for human habitation or worship or guarding property, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction of a person charged with the offense of “trespassing after preparing to cause injury” under section 452 of the IPC .

Bank including Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma noted that the Restaurant does not meet the criteria of ‘house’ under Section 442 IPC as it is neither a dwelling, a place of worship nor a place for keeping property. Thus, the element required for an offense under Section 452 was not met.

Under Section 442 of the IPC, the offense of housebreaking is said to be committed by entering or remaining in any building, tent or vessel used as a human habitation or any building used as a place of worship or as a place for the custody of goods.

Section 452 of the IPC punishes an act of entering or remaining on a property after preparing to cause injury or commit other criminal acts.

“452. Trespassing after preparation for injury, assault or wrongful restraint. — Whoever commits a house-trespass, who has prepared to injure any person, or to assault any person, or to wrongfully detain any person, or to put any person in fear of injury, assault, or wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend.”

It was the case where the appellant-defendant had visited the Restaurant, and when the owner of the restaurant refused to provide a jug of water for drinking alcohol, the accused voluntarily caused injuries to the owner with a knife. Subsequently, an FIR under Sections 324 and 452 of the IPC was registered against the accused. The trial court convicted the appellant defendant, and the High Court confirmed the conviction. Following this, an appeal to the Supreme Court was preferred.

Upholding the conviction for voluntarily causing hurt under Section 324 IPC, the court set aside the conviction under Section 452 and observed that since the essential requirement of Section 452 IPC when read with Sections 441 and 442 IPC was not fulfilled, therefore, no offense could be framed under section 452 of the IPC.

The Court observed that “‘house trespass’ being an essential ingredient for the conviction of a person under Section 452, it must be proved by the prosecution that the accused committed house trespass and criminal trespass by unlawfully entering or remaining in any building, tent or vessel used.” as a human habitation or any building used as a place of worship or as a place for keeping property as provided under Section 442 IPC.”

Analyzing the facts of the case, the court held that, of course, “The incident had taken place in a restaurant run by the injured which cannot be said to be a place used for human habitation, worship or keeping property. Therefore, the very ingredients of the offense under section 452 namely, criminal trespass as provided in section 441 and house trespass as provided in section 442 not having been established by the prosecution, the appellant could not have been convicted for the offense under Section 452 IPC.”

The court partly allowed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence under Section 324 IPC but acquitting the appellant under Section 452 IPC.

Since the appellant had already completed two years, he was willing to be released if he was not wanted in any other case. However, he remained liable to pay the fine for the conviction under Section 324 IPC.

appearance

For the appellant(s) Mr. Suvendu Suvasis Dash, Adv. Ms. Swati Vaibhav, Adv. MISS. Vaibhav & Dash Law Associates, AOR

For Respondent(s) Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, ASG Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR

Case Title: Sonu Choudary v State of NCT Delhi CRIMINAL APPEAL No.3111 OF 2024

Reference: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 882

Click here to read/download the decision