Today, the Supreme Court, held that a restaurant does not qualify as a place intended for human habitation, worship, or property custody, overturned the conviction of an individual charged with the offense of "house trespassing after preparation for hurt" under Section 452 of the IPC.

The bench, consisting of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, observed that a restaurant does not qualify as a "house" under Section 442 of the IPC, as it is not a dwelling, a place of worship, nor a place for the custody of property. Consequently, the essential element for an offense under Section 452 was not established.

Under Section 442 of the IPC, the offense of house trespass is committed when an individual enters or remains in any building, tent, or vessel used as a human dwelling, a building used for worship, or a place for the custody of property. Section 452 of the IPC, on the other hand, provides punishment for the act of entering or remaining on a property with the intent to cause harm or commit other criminal acts.

“452. House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint.—Whoever commits house-trespass, 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.”

In this case, the appellant-accused visited a restaurant and, upon being denied a jug of water to consume alcohol, caused hurt to the owner with a knife. Subsequently, an FIR was filed under Sections 324 and 452 of the IPC against the accused. The trial court convicted the appellant, and the High Court upheld the conviction. The accused then filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.

While upholding the conviction for voluntarily causing hurt under Section 324 of the IPC, the court set aside the conviction under Section 452. It observed that the essential requirements of Section 452, when read with Sections 441 and 442, were not met. As a result, no offense could be established under Section 452 of the IPC.

The Court observed that “the 'house trespass' being an essential ingredient for convicting a person under Section 452, it has to be proved by the prosecution that the accused committed the house trespass and criminal trespass by entering into or unlawfully remaining in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or any building used as a place for worship, or as a place for the custody of property, as contemplated in Section 442 IPC.”

Upon perusing the facts of the case, the court observed that, admittedly, “the incident had taken place in a restaurant run by the injured which cannot be said to be either a place used for human dwelling or for worship or for the custody of the property. 

Hence, the very ingredients of the offence under Section 452, namely, the criminal trespass as contemplated in Section 441 and house trespass as contemplated in Section 442 having not been made out by the prosecution, the appellant could not have been convicted for the offence under Section 452 IPC.”

The court partly allowed the appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence under Section 324 of the IPC, but acquitting the appellant under Section 452 of the IPC. Having already served two years, the appellant was ordered to be released unless required in another case. However, he remained liable to pay the fine imposed for the conviction under Section 324 of the IPC.

 For Appellant(s) Mr. Suvendu Suvasis Dash, Adv. Ms. Swati Vaibhav, Adv. M/S. Vaibhav & Dash Law Associates, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mrs. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR

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