Man Convicted of Nighttime Trespass Into Sister-in-Law’s Home Gets Sentence Cut to Time Served Subject to ₹25,000 Additional Fine: Chhattisgarh HC

The appellant was convicted by the trial court under Section 456 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for entering his sister-in-law’s home at night; he was acquitted of charges under Sections 354, 326 and 459 IPC.

The trial court sentenced him to six months’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000, with one month’s additional imprisonment in default.

On appeal, the appellant did not challenge the conviction but sought reduction of sentence, relying on the parties’ relationship, their reportedly cordial relations, the time elapsed since the 2016 incident, and his family responsibilities.

Section 456 IPC provides punishment for lurking house-trespass or housebreaking by night, with imprisonment that may extend to three years and liability to a fine; Sections 443 and 444 define lurking house-trespass and lurking house-trespass by night, while Section 446 defines housebreaking by night.

In sentencing, Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1977 (3) SCC 287, supports a rehabilitative approach, while Raj Bala v. State of Haryana, 2016 (1) SCC 463, reiterates that sentence must be proportionate and guided by the offence’s circumstances, the offender’s characteristics and the prospects of rehabilitation; undue leniency must also be avoided.

The Court considered the testimony of the victim and her daughter that the appellant entered the home at about 12:30 a.m. and found it sufficient to sustain the Section 456 conviction, despite the injured brother’s failure to support the prosecution’s allegation that the appellant caused his injuries.

On sentence, the Court weighed the offence and the sentencing principles against the appellant’s relationship to the victims, the stated improvement in relations, the lapse of time, his age and family responsibilities. As Section 456 prescribed no minimum sentence, the Court considered reduction to the period already undergone appropriate, subject to an increased fine.

The additional fine, together with any fine already deposited, was to be paid to the injured witness as compensation under Section 395 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; default in paying the additional fine would entail one month’s rigorous imprisonment. The appeal was partly allowed, and the appellant’s bail bond was to remain in force for six months.