Home > Recent Judgements > A Restaurant Offense That Does Not Qualify As “House Trespass” Under Sections 442, 452 Of The Ipc: Supreme Court
Nov 11, 2024
BACKGROUND
In the case of Sonu Choudary v. State of NCT Delhi, the case concerned an appellant who stabbed a restaurant owner in the stomach with a knife after the owner refused to serve him water. The appellant was first found guilty of offences under Sections 324 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”) for causing hurt and house-trespass in preparation to a crime, respectively. The Supreme Court overturned the conviction under Section 452 and remitted the case to the origin of the restaurant. In the opinion of the Supreme Court, the restaurant could not be a house as defined under subsection 442 of the IPC “being not a dwelling house, place of worship or place for the custody of property”. The prosecution appeal against the acquittal under section 324, however, was dismissed.
ISSUES
- Whether the restaurant qualifies as a place used for human dwelling, worship, or the custody of property as per Section 442 of the IPC?
- Whether the essential elements of house trespass as defined under Section 442 IPC were fulfilled in this case?
- Whether the appellant committed house trespass after preparation for hurt under Section 452 of the IPC?
- Whether the appellant’s actions in the restaurant amounted to house trespass under Section 452 IPC, considering the nature of the premises?
JUDGEMENT
Here, the determination of the honourable Supreme Court was that the appellant was guilty of the offence voluntarily causing hurt under Section 324 of the IPC, but they proceeded to vacate the conviction under Section 452 of the IPC. The Court noted that the restaurant where the incident occurred was not a “house” in the meaning of Section 442 of the IPC as it was not a place for the habitation of human beings, the place for worship or where property is kept under lock and key. Since the essential ingredient of “house trespass” which is a necessary pre-requisite for a conviction under Section 452 was not fulfilled in this case, the Court acquitted the appellant on that count. As a result, the appeal was partially allowed and the appellant was allowed to go free after two years only if that was not required in any more cases but remained obligated on the conviction under Section 324 to pay the fine.
OBSERVATION
The Supreme Court came to the conclusions that the appellant’s conviction under the provisions of Section 452 of the IPC for house trespass after preparation for hurt is wrong because the restaurant was not a ‘house’ as defined in Section 442 IPC because it requires for the premises to be that of dwelling, worship, or custodian of a property. Since the critical feature of ‘house trespass’ was absent, the court quashed the conviction under Section 452 of the IPC. The appeal was dismissed with no order of costs. Besides, the conviction under Section 324 for voluntarily causing hurt was in their opinion correct and justifiable. So, the appellant was released after serving two years in prison, but without their legal obligations. The only liability was that they had to pay the fine for the conviction established under section 324.
For more information or queries, please email us at
[email protected]
