- Trespass is an offence which can be brought under the purview of the Criminal Law or Tort Law.
- Section 448 of the IPC specifies the punishment for house trespass which is defined under Section 441 of the Code.
- The Courts have interpreted various cases to arrive at a conclusion on the interpretation of what would amount to house trespass and what would not.
- The interlinked provisions differentiate between the types of house trespass ad the punishments for the same.
The law provides for various provisions with respect to entering someone’s property. It is not restricted to criminal intention of the intruder and can be theft as well. But when the question of house trespass arises, it becomes different. The Indian Penal Code has specified provisions to deal with criminal trespass.
The offence of house trespass is punishable under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code, which provides for a sentence of imprisonment of either description, for a term of up to one year, or a fine of up to one thousand rupees, or both.
House-trespass is defined as anyone who enters or remains in any building, tent, or vessel used as a human residence, a place of worship, or a place for the safekeeping of property while committing criminal trespass.
Explanation states that any part of the criminal trespasser's body that enters the house is enough to constitute house-trespass.
Sections 441 and 442, IPC, have the same relationship as Sections 378 and 380, IPC. Theft is defined in Section 378, and theft in any house, tent, or vessel used as a human home or for the safekeeping of property is punishable under Section 380. Similarly, Section 441 specifies criminal trespass, and Section 442 adds an aggravated version in the form of home trespass, which occurs in any building, tent, or vessel used as a human dwelling, or any building used for worship or property custody.
Ingredients for House Trespass
The essential elements of house-trespass are that
(a) the accused committed criminal-trespass by unlawfully entering or
(b) remaining on the property unlawfully after initial lawful entry;
(c) the trespass was in respect of a building, tent, or vessel; and
(d) the building, tent, or vessel was used as a human dwelling, a place of worship, or a place for the purpose of storing property.
House-trespass is a more serious kind of criminal trespass, as described by Section 441 of the Indian Penal Code and penalised by Section 447 of the IPC. As a result, it should go without saying that before a person is found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 452 of the IPC, all of the components of "criminal-trespass" or "house-trespass" must be proven in the claimed trespass.
Section 452 states about house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint:
Whoever commits house-trespass with the intent of causing harm to another person or assaulting another person, or wrongfully restraining another person, or putting another person in fear of harm, assault, or wrongful restraint, shall be punished by imprisonment of either kind for a term up to seven years, as well as a fine.
To establish an offence under Section 452 of the IPC, it must be proven (a) that the accused committed house trespass and (b) that the trespass was committed after making preparations for causing harm to, assaulting, or wrongfully restraining, some person, or putting some person in fear of harm, or of assaulting that person or wrongfully restraining.
In Moreshwar v. State of Maharashtra and Anr., the appellant had trespassed on the property where the complainant and her husband were tenants, and he had tried to offend her modesty. In this matter, the learned Senior Counsel argued that it was an offence under Section 451 of the Criminal Code, which prohibits the commission of house trespass in order to commit any crime punishable by imprisonment. The appellant had invaded the complainant's home to obtain sexual favours, not to cause physical harm, assault, or wrongful restraint, according to the Court. The Court determined that the offence charged against the appellant only falls under Section 451 and not Section 452.
Severe forms of House Trespass
The severity of the offence determines the aggravated form of house trespass.
Section 449 of the IPC states that, whoever commits house-trespass in order to the committing of any offence punishable with death, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Even if the offence is not completed, an act might be considered to be undertaken "in order to commit an offence." Thus, if a person commits a house trespass with the intention of committing theft but fails to do so, it is proper to say that he committed the house trespass with the intention of committing theft. There's no denying that the words "in order to" were employed to signify that "the purpose of House trespass becomes punishable under Section 449 of the Indian Penal Code, if the intention of the trespass is to commit a crime punishable by death”.
According to Section 450, whoever commits house-trespass in order to commit any crime punishable by life imprisonment shall be punished by imprisonment of either sort, for a period not exceeding 10 years, as well as a fine.
The appellants, along with other co-accused, entered the house of deceased Harbans Kaur with the intent of raping her in the case of Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab. The attempt appeared to be a failure when the deceased's sons began yelling for assistance. Surjit Singh (one of the accused) claimed that if she survived, she would implicate them all, hence Harbans Kaur should be killed; upon hearing this, his co-accused struck her in the head with a brickbat, and she died. The defendants were found guilty under Section 450 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as other offences.
Section 451 clarifies whoever commits house-trespass in order to commit any offence punishable by imprisonment shall be punished by imprisonment of either description, for a term not exceeding two years, as well as a fine; and if the offence intended to be committed is theft, the term of imprisonment may be extended to seven years.
The appellant committed criminal trespass by entering the verandah of Babu's dwelling house with the purpose to commit an offence in Ameen vs. State of Kerala. As a result, the appellant committed the crime of house trespass. He did not, however, commit house trespass for the purpose of committing a crime punishable by death. As a result, Section 449 of the IPC was not invoked. As a result, the Court overturned his conviction and imprisonment under Section 449 of the IPC. Only Section 451 of the IPC was cited. The Court found him guilty of the charge and sentenced him to two years of harsh imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 15,000/-.
Lurking House Trespass
Section 443 defines trespassing in a lurking house:
Looming home trespass is defined as someone who commits house trespass while taking precautions to conceal the trespass from someone who has the authority to exclude or eject the trespasser from the building, tent, or vessel that is the subject of the trespass.
The Supreme Court ruled in the case of Nasiruddin v. State of Assam that, in a house with a looming presence, trespassing implies that the accused used active measures to hide their presence. The accused would take precautions to avoid detection.
The plaintiff claimed in Lokesh Kumar V. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr., that he had locked his residence while going away and returned to find the balcony door open. As he approached the balcony, he noticed one individual leaping from the balcony and fleeing. In this instance, it was determined that in order to prove lurking house-trespass, the prosecution must not only prove house-trespass, but also that the accused took efforts to conceal such house-trespass from someone who has the authority to exclude or reject the trespasser.
According to the complainant's account, when he returned, he found the house's balcony open, indicating that the accused (petitioner in this case) made no attempt to conceal the house-trespass. The offence of lurking house-breach was not charged since there was no evidence that the accused had taken any precautions to hide the trespass.
Anyone who conducts lurking house-trespass after sunset and before morning is considered to be doing so at night.
The phrase "night" refers to the time between sunset and morning. The fact that house trespass occurs at night does not exclude the charge of lurking house trespass from prosecution.
Lurking house trespass throughout the night is punishable under Section 456, IPC, with a maximum sentence of three years in prison and a fine. The maximum penalty under this Section is one year longer than the maximum penalty under Section 453, IPC, which is for daytime lurking house trespass.
In order for lurking house-trespass to be considered, the offender must actively conceal his presence. Even if the darkness aids the accused in concealing his presence, a simple trespass committed at night does not constitute lurking house-trespass. The accused's concealment due to darkness does not turn the house-trespass into a lurking house-trespass.
The Lahore High Court declared in Buddha v. Emperor that lurking house-trespass requires the criminal to utilise active methods to hide his presence. Before conducting house-trespass, take the necessary precautions to conceal the crime. If a person tries to disguise himself after committing house-trespass when he sees the occupant of the home, it cannot be stated that he took any precautions before committing house-trespass to conceal his act from the owner or occupier of the house in which he committed trespass.
Trespass under Tort Law
Land encompasses much more than just the physical soil. The rights to all natural resources on the land have been handed to landowners. Any structures or fixtures affixed to the ground, such as houses, walls, or standing crops, as well as the ground itself, the airspace above, and the ground below to a reasonable height or depth in proportion to the customary usage of the land, are considered land.
In the instance of trespassing on land, the trespass must be direct, purposeful, and punishable in and of itself. The entry must be deliberate in the sense that the trespasser planned to enter that specific piece of property. It is not necessary for the trespasser to intend to trespass.
In the case of Smith v. Stone, it was held that if someone else unintentionally throws a person onto another person's land, he will not be held accountable. In such a case, the defendant has committed no act of entering. It is a common assumption that whoever owns the surface of a piece of land also owns the underlying strata. An entrance under the surface at whatever depth, at the request of the owner of the surface, is thus an actionable trespass. However, the underlying strata may be in the property of a different person in some situations.
If a person who has legally entered another's land continues to do so after his right of entrance has expired, he commits trespass. His misbehaviour stems from the wrongful nature of his initial entrance, and he is liable for damages not just for the entry itself, but also for any subsequent activities. This is known as trespass from the start, and the misuse will render the original admission illegal.
Although entry onto the land may be permitted, if possession continues after permission has been granted, it may be considered trespassing from the start. The Tort Law contains the analogous idea of continuance of a civil mistake. Trespass in torts can be a long-term problem.
The provisions in the Indian Penal Code were enacted to ensure the safety and security of the people from crimes. When a person’s property is targeted by someone, it creates a danger over the person and causes injustice towards him. So when a matter relating to such an issue arises it is dealt with in the criminal courts. But the action of trespassing is not necessarily intentional on the part of the trespasser and in that case the Law of Torts is attracted. It also depends on the intention and motive behind the act, which are two essential elements of a crime.
Even though the Courts have time and again considered the provision and analyzed the Section yet the punishment prescribed is very rigid. The time period to serve should be increased as when a criminal act occurs, the damage caused need to be determined and the punishment should be given accordingly. So, a punishment of prison for a year or fine might be less of a punishment for the offence, unless the act is combined with other offences.