What is House-Breaking (Section 330(2) BNS)?

A person commits house-breaking when they commit house-trespass and enter or leave the house (or any part of it) in any of the six specific ways described below. House-breaking can occur either while entering to commit an offence or while leaving after committing one. A person is guilty of house-breaking if they enter or exit the house in any of these six ways:

(a) They create a new entry or exit point themselves (or with the help of someone assisting them), specifically for committing the trespass.

(b) They enter or leave through a passage that is not meant for people to enter, except by themselves or their accomplices—such as entering through a hole, window slit, or any unusual opening.
It also includes entering by climbing or scaling over a wall or building.

(c) They use a passage that they or their accomplice have opened in a way the house owner did not intend—for example, forcing open a shutter, window, or sealed entrance.

(d) They open a lock to enter for committing house-trespass, or to leave after committing the offence.

(e) They enter or exit by using criminal force, by committing assault, or by threatening to assault someone.

(f) They use a passage that they know was fastened shut and that was unfastened by them or their accomplice just to enter or exit.

Example of House-Breaking

1) A breaks a hole in the back wall of B’s house at night and crawls inside to steal jewellery.

2) X climbs the boundary wall of Y’s house and enters through a small bathroom window to commit theft.

3) Z unscrews and removes the grill of a window to enter the house, even though the window was meant to stay closed with the grill fixed.

4) M uses a duplicate key to open the locked back door of N’s house to commit theft.

5) R pushes the housemaid aside and forces open the door to enter the house with the intention to hurt the owner.

6) S unbolts a closed window from outside using a rod and climbs into the house.

Essentials of House-Breaking (Section 330(2) BNS)

House-breaking is house-trespass committed in a special, unlawful manner. The essentials are:

1. Commission of House-Trespass

• The act must first amount to house-trespass:
  • unlawful entry or remaining in a dwelling, place of worship, or building used for custody of property,
  • with intention to commit an offence OR to intimidate/insult/annoy.

2. Entry or Exit Must Be Through One of Six Specific Methods

The trespasser must enter or leave the house in any of these 6 ways:

(a) Creating a new passage

• Making a hole, breaking a wall, cutting a slit, etc.

(b) Using a passage not meant for human entry

• Entering through tiny openings, holes, ventilation gaps, or by climbing over walls.

(c) Forcing open a passage in an unintended way

• Opening doors, shutters, windows in a manner the occupant did not intend (e.g., prying open a sealed door).

(d) Opening a lock

• Entering or exiting by picking, breaking, or unlocking a lock.

(e) Using criminal force, assault, or threatening assault

• Forcing your way in or out by pushing people, attacking, or threatening them.

(f) Using a fastened passage that was unfastened by the trespasser

• Using a door or window that was locked/bolted but was opened by the trespasser or an accomplice.

Important Case Laws

1. Baldeo Prasad v. State of Rajasthan (1956)

Facts

The accused gained entry into a locked room by inserting a wire or similar instrument through a crack in the door and lifting the inner latch (or bolt) that secured the door. No key was used, and no part of the lock was physically broken. The occupier intended the door to be opened only by hand from the inside, or by a proper key from the outside.

Issues

1. Does the use of a simple instrument (like a wire) to overcome a latch/bolt constitute ‘opening’ the passage by a means not intended by the occupier?
2. Is this clause restricted only to breaking actual, sophisticated locks?

Analysis

The Court observed that the essence of house-breaking lies in defeating the security arrangements put in place by the occupier. Whether the fastening is a complex lock or a simple latch, if the accused overcomes it by using an instrumental means that is not the one intended by the owner (i.e., not a key, handle, or a hand motion from the inside), it falls within the ambit of Section 445(c). The use of the wire to manipulate the latch defeated the owner’s intention to secure the property.

Judgment

It was ruled that the act of opening a door by manipulating the latch/bolt from the outside with an instrument, as this is a means of opening not intended by the occupier, amounts to house-breaking. The provision covers overcoming any securing mechanism by an artificial or unnatural method.

2. State of Y v. Mohan Lal (Illustrative Landmark Judgment)

Facts

Mohan Lal was charged with entering a residential courtyard at midnight by climbing over the compound wall. A neighbour saw him and raised an alarm. Mohan Lal fled but was later arrested. He claimed he entered only out of curiosity and had no intention to commit an offence. The house owner testified that the wall was high and not meant for human entry.

Issues

1. Whether climbing a wall to enter a house amounts to house-breaking under Section 445 IPC.
2. Whether intention to commit an offence (house-trespass) was established.

Analysis

• Clause (b) categorically states that if a person enters “through any passage not intended for human entrance or by scaling or climbing over any wall or building,” it amounts to house-breaking.
• The compound wall was clearly meant to protect the house, not for entry.
• Entry at midnight, attempt to flee, and inconsistent explanation by the accused suggested intention to commit theft.
• Courts have consistently held that suspicious conduct, time of entry, and behaviour during escape are relevant to determine criminal intention.

Judgment

The Court held that Mohan Lal’s act fell within house-breaking. He was convicted under Sections 445 and 457 IPC (lurking house-trespass/house-breaking at night). The Court emphasised that scaling a boundary wall is a classical example of house-breaking because it uses an unauthorised and concealed method of entry.

3. State of Z v. Prakash & Others (Illustrative Landmark Judgment)

Facts

Three accused entered a warehouse through an open ventilator. After committing theft, they were unable to exit the same way because the height was difficult to reach from the inside. Instead, they broke a wooden plank in the rear wall and created a makeshift passage to escape. The police later arrested them based on eyewitness accounts and recovery of stolen goods.

Issues

1. Whether creating a new opening in the building to exit amounts to house-breaking under Clause (a).
2. Whether “exit” after committing an offence is covered under the definition.

Analysis

• Section 445 provides that a person commits house-breaking not only when he enters in certain specified manners but also when he quits the house in those manners.
• Clause (a) specifically covers situations where a person “enters or quits through a passage made by himself or any abettor for committing house-trespass.”
• Breaking the wooden plank to create a new passage fell squarely within this definition.
• Creating a new hole or opening is one of the strongest indicators of deliberate criminal trespass and preparation for escape.

Judgment

The Court held all the accused guilty of house-breaking under Clause (a) because they exited through a passage created by themselves. They were convicted for house-breaking and theft. The Court observed that the law treats entry and exit equally serious when they are effected through unauthorised or self-made passages.